Nicholas Rowe

He played young Sherlock Holmes in a movie of the same title in 1985.  I was smitten. 
We made masks out of clay in art class that year and I fashioned mine in his likeness… I molded that loverly nose and those heavy eyelids and it turned out great.  Too bad it did not survive the kiln. 
~ sigh ~  such is love.      

River Phoenix

Stand By Me era.  What a cutie.  Alas, poor River.

 Judd Nelson


The Breakfast Club bad boy.  I watched that movie almost every day for a month in 1989.

Blas Elias

Drummer of the band "Slaughter".  Great hair.  And perhaps the coolest name ever.



Nuno Bettencourt

Guitarist of Extreme and… (?).  I admit I’ve lost track of this one, but More Than Words still makes me go all gushy.

Tom Waits

Somewhat of a depressive mess and abuser of substances, but man, what a performer.
 

David Foster Wallace

Author of “The Infinite Jest” and several other ambitious novels.  Anyone who can write a 1000+ page book and compel the reader to incessantly turn to the back pages to tap the details of his eclectic knowledge through hundreds of pages of endnotes is a keeper.  In my book.  Obnoxious, perhaps, but a keeper.

Jeff Buckley
 
Freakin amazing.  Haunting.  Tragic.  Death at 30 just prior to the start of what would have been no doubt a stellar career of making music.  His performance of the Leonard Cohen song “Hallelujah” puts me in a trance.

 

Brian Greene

Mathematical genius and author of “The Elegant Universe” and others; his search for a unified theory of physics lead him to being one of the main developers of string theory… which incidentlly is basically what the Hindus, hippies, and others have been trying to tell us all along but we needed the mathematical basis to start to take it seriously (not that it is – yet – by many old-school physicists).

Daniel Dae Kim

What can I say.  Yum.

Again - if you would like any of the sources alluded to at the end of the document, let me know and I'll get 'em to ya.

A Case for the Legalization of Industrial Hemp

Hemp fiber has been a valuable commodity for making rope and textiles for hundreds, if not thousands, of years[1].  In addition to the traditional uses for hemp, there are countless modern applications ranging from nutritional supplements to alternative fuels.  The raw materials for these products, such as hemp fiber and sterilized hemp seeds, may be imported but are presently illegal to produce in the United States.  Hemp’s illegality is due to its association with marijuana.  Though they do share the same plant family, I will show that the legalization of hemp would not lead to easier access to marijuana.  Furthermore, I will show that rather than being a frivolous pursuit, the legalization of hemp cultivation in the United States would stimulate struggling sectors of the economy while contributing to the development of more eco-friendly industries.  As one begins to unearth all of the incredible possibilities for this single crop, the question changes from “Can we afford to do this?” to “How can we afford not to?”        

Both hemp and marijuana belong to the genera Cannabis of the Cannabaceae family.  The key difference between the two species is their respective levels of the chemical delta 9-tetrahydracannabinol (THC)[2].  THC is psychoactive, which means that is has a psychological affect on those who ingest it.  Though THC is naturally occurring in both plants, marijuana strains have increased in concentration over the years due to selective breeding on the part of those involved in the drug trade.  Marijuana today has THC concentrations ranging from 3 to 15%.  Hemp, on the other hand, is naturally low in THC and may be bred to further reduce its concentrations.  There is already a strain of hemp cultivated in the Ukraine that contains no more than .06% THC[3].  Yet ingestion of hemp at even higher concentrations (< .3%) will not produce a noticeable “high,” according to research conducted by a scientific team in Germany.  And as of 1998, hemp varieties containing less than .3% THC were grown for industrial use in nearly all European Union countries due to legislation[4].  What’s more, hemp contains a second chemical called cannabidiol (CBD), which counteracts THC’s psychoactive affects.  Marijuana also contains CBD though in concentrations too low to counter the comparatively high THC content[5].  Despite these significant chemical differences, the U.S. federal government so far has not agreed to legally differentiate between these two plants.  Therefore, although it is marijuana - and not hemp - that commands significant trade in the black market as a recreational drug, both marijuana and hemp are classified as a Schedule I drug in the Controlled Substances Act[6] and are subject to enforcement by the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Those at the reins of the DEA and the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy remain largely resistant to the idea of changing drug policy, despite the fact that over half of U.S. state legislatures have either attempted or succeeded in passing laws that support the cultivation of industrial hemp[7].  Tom Riley, of the White House drug policy office, has referred to the fight for industrial hemp legalization as “stoner logic,”[8] while Robert Weiner, of the same office, and the DEA support the notion that the visual similarities between the two plants would make law enforcement too difficult[9].  Of primary concern to officials and the public alike is the idea that fields of hemp could be used as a cover for marijuana cultivation.  Such practices are not likely to catch on for two very practical reasons.  First of all, fields of hemp grown for fiber would not provide good camouflage for marijuana plants because the two plants are actually quite easy to tell apart, according to plant cell biologist Dr. Paul G. Mahlberg of Indiana University.  Dr. Mahlberg held a research license for cannabis from the DEA for thirty-two years[10] and during that time he studied many different varieties of hemp and marijuana.  He describes the fiber plant as a slender stem about fourteen feet tall with very little branching and foliage.  Marijuana plants, on the other hand, are three to four feet tall with many branches and dense foliage like a shrub[11].  Although hemp grown for seed production may be more difficult to distinguish from marijuana,[12] there remains one practical reason why their visual similarities would not likely be exploited by those interested in drug production: plant biochemistry and reproduction.

Because they are of the same species, marijuana and hemp are able to interbreed.  They are also both naturally monoecious, which means that the male and female reproductive organs are found on separate plants.  Yet due to the impracticality of sex-determination and the fact that cross-breeding leads to a decrease in the THC content of marijuana, the use of hemp as cover for marijuana cultivation is not likely to become a serious issue.  Female plants that are un-pollinated and in bloom contain the highest THC concentrations[13]; as soon as the potent females are pollinated their THC concentrations drop significantly.  Since pollination is undesirable, growers of marijuana typically remove all male plants[14].  In a field setting, however, where there may be more than one thousand hemp plants per acre, this practice would be impractical, if not impossible, to carry out because sex-determination requires that each and every plant be closely inspected at the right stage of development.  The pollination of a female marijuana plant by a male hemp plant would not only result in the degradation of the newly pollinated female, but would degrade the drug-quality of the resulting offspring as well.  The first generation of cross-breeding between a hemp and marijuana plant would result in plants with half the THC content of the marijuana parent[15].  If this second generation were to be again planted in a field of hemp, the resulting third generation would have half the content of the second, and so on.  In short, even if “stoner logic” did result in the planting of marijuana in a field of hemp, the biochemical effects of doing so would fairly quickly render the plant inert from a drug-user’s perspective.  Be that as it may, changing the drug laws to allow hemp to be cultivated for industrial use may not be worth the trouble without significant economic incentive.  

Studies on the production and marketability of marijuana, completed by several agricultural states including Kentucky and North Dakota, demonstrate the economic viability of hemp.  The North Dakota study has determined that hemp would be a welcome addition to their state crop rotations.  Not only is hemp one of the relatively few crops that would fare well in the dry northern climate of North Dakota, but as a state already home to a modern seed oil industry, expensive investment in new machinery for processing the new crop would be unnecessary[16].  Even in an average to below-average year in terms of yields, economic projections show hemp as being more profitable for North Dakotan farmers than any of their current main crop of wheat, corn, and sunflowers[17].  The short, northern growing season and semi-arid climate of North Dakota is not the only condition, however, under which hemp would grow profitably. 

Kentucky’s lush climate is suitable for a large number of crops.  Yet estimates predict that hemp would be more profitable in the short-run than all except tobacco.  As the market adjusts over time and prices drop, hemp would remain a viable Kentucky crop bringing in prices comparable to that of other markets.  It is feasible that hemp legalization could bring the Bluegrass state 70 to nearly 800 jobs accompanied by 1.3 to 17.6 million dollars in worker earnings depending on the level of capital investments in factories and machinery[18].  Though according to Joe Hickey of the Kentucky Hemp Grower’s Cooperative, hemp need not “make a penny more than a good crop of hay” to be valuable to Kentucky’s farmers due to its exceptional qualities as a rotation crop[19].

Hemp’s value increases when it is grown in rotation with other crops.  It suppresses the growth of weeds and pests while improving the soil’s texture and water balance.  Weed suppression is a result of hemp’s rapid growth which eliminates the need for herbicides.  This weed-suppressing effect has a lasting effect so that the need for herbicides on the crop following hemp may be greatly reduced[20].  Studies show that hemp has an additional yield-improving effect on successive soybean plantings due to the fact that it cuts down on soybean nematodes.  Nematodes are soil pests that stunt soybean root growth, thus reducing yields.  Hemp is not palatable to soybean nematodes and as a result this pest’s numbers decline[21].  It has also been shown that hemp helps increase organic matter to soils which increases water retention and restores nutrients[22].  All of these qualities result in increased yields to subsequent crops that are in rotation and this reduces the need for expensive chemical applications.  This indirectly boosts the net worth of hemp, and therefore the net worth of the farmers who grow it.  Hemp’s power to improve economy and to increase sustainable industry through ecological improvements begins in the field but extends through to manufacturing processes and beyond.

Industrial hemp legalization would result in access to inexpensive raw-materials. U.S. industries could soon be making hemp paper and fabric products suitable to replace a large percentage of similar products currently made using tree pulp and cotton.  From an ecological perspective, this transition is very desirable because both the cotton and tree-paper industries demand huge chemical and water inputs.  For example, cotton is grown on about 3% of the world’s farm-lands, but it uses 26% of the total amount of pesticides used globally[23].  Toxic Release Inventories compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency from 1996 showed that the tree-paper industry as responsible for the release of about 14 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment in the United States.  A significant portion of these chemicals are released into the atmosphere and contribute to ozone depletion and acid rain[24].  On the other hand, hemp can be processed for paper or as fabric using natural bio-degradable enzymes combined with some mechanical processing[25].  Furthermore, hemp materials are more durable than comparative materials made from cotton and trees, and according to a study completed in 1916 by the Department of Agriculture, acre-for-acre hemp out-produced trees in dry-fiber production by 400%[26].  These statistics are impressive and yet there are modern applications for hemp that are more ingenious while, at the same time, retaining the same ecologically high standards. 

One of the most significant new markets for hemp is the automotive industry.  The use of hemp increased 90% in the Austrian and German auto industry between 1999 and 2000.  In the same time period, hemp usage by automotive industries in countries of the European Union increased over 200%.  BMW, Ford, Volkswagon, and Volvo are just a few of the auto makers already making use of this resource for components including door inserts and parcel trays.  What is especially surprising about these figures is that they do not include the use of hemp in automobile upholstery, but rather as a component of composite materials that can be used to make interior door panels and even dashboards.  These composites are preferable to the more traditional materials such as fiberglass for several reasons: they are lighter, easier to manufacture, have good material properties in crash tests.  Also, there are no safety hazards associated with production, and they are inexpensive to produce.  Furthermore it was determined that from cultivation to disposal, each kilogram of hemp fibers that replace fiberglass in the manufacturing of composites prevents the release of 1.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere[27].  One day hemp may not only comprise a significant portion of automobile interiors, but it also power our transportation as well. 

Hemp seed oil can be used to make biodiesel.  Biodiesel can replace the use of petroleum-derived fuel in vehicle engines designed to run on diesel without any mechanical conversions[28].  Two additional benefits are that biodiesel is less corrosive than regular diesel fuel and it burns 70% cleaner[29].  Ethanol, another reduced-emission auto fuel, may also be made from hemp.  It has been shown that hemp’s high fiber content is a much more efficient producer of ethanol than the high-starch content of crops ethanol is currently derived from[30].  These hemp-fuel technologies could help the U.S. reduce its dependence on foreign oil while cutting down on carbon dioxide emissions and contributing to the development of local economies.    

Many countries already benefit from the production of industrial hemp, including Australia, China, India, and most of the European Union[31].  Some countries, like China and Korea, never stopped growing hemp while others, like Australia and Canada, have recently re-legalized it.  All of these countries struggle to enforce drug laws, including the marijuana trade, just as the United States.  Yet, these countries have been able to separate their industrial interest in the non-drug variety of Cannabis from their concern regarding illegal drug use.  This ability to differentiate has allowed for the development of some exciting eco-friendly manufacturing technologies.  These technologies are not flourishing in the United States, however, because the raw material costs prohibit development and expansion.  In consideration of the problems endemic to our modern society, including waste production, soil degradation, air pollution, and resource over-use, we cannot afford to turn away solutions such as those realized through the use of industrial hemp.

The politics of power generation is not pretty.  Give me an energy source and I can promise there is some associated issue to contend with be it ecological or feasibility-related.  Unfortunatley most electricity on the planet is currently generated by just about the ugliest industry of all: coal.  Alternative fuels alone just do not address the sorts of high-power requirements posed by todays urban areas.  So now the nuclear industry in the United States is posed to begin building new reactors for the first time in thirty years to the dismay of many.  We've got some tough decisions ahead of us but as far as I'm concerned... nuclear power is one option we should be taking a closer look at, and here is why:

A Look at Nuclear Power

The rising costs of energy production, due to the likely limited supply of fossil fuels and the environmental consequences of fossil energy generation, are exacerbated by the fact that energy demands are ever-increasing.  In order to support the growing world population in pursuit of improved living standards we need replacement energy sources that are both cleaner and more plentiful than those we have been using.  To earnestly begin this transition it is necessary to consider nuclear power.  However, nuclear power does come with a set of serious challenges – not the least of which is overcoming unfavorable public opinion.

In a democracy such as the United States, favorable public opinion is critical when it comes to matters of policy.  The development of new energy sources, even with the current trends toward privatization, often require some level of public approval when it comes to decisions about whether new sources are necessary, which sources to develop, and location of developments.  In the twenty-seven years since the Three Mile Island accident in Middletown, Pennsylvania, the predominant view regarding nuclear power production has been primarily negative.  As a result, no new nuclear plants have been commissioned in the US since the accident and over one hundred plans for new reactors created prior to 1978 were cancelled[1].  The public perceptions influencing this anti-nuclear atmosphere include fears about radiation emissions during regular plant operations, highly toxic and long-lived nuclear waste bi-products, and the threat of a major catastrophe due to accidents or acts of terrorism.  These are serious concerns and people are right to be wary of the implications of taking on such risks.  However, when it comes to meeting the energy requirements of present-day societies and those of the future, there are no easy answers.  A willingness to take a closer look at these issues of concern before coming to a determination will enable better decisions to be made in the long-run.

A common perception is that radiation of any kind is dangerous and to be avoided.  The reality is that life on earth is awash in a sea of radiation.  Radiation from natural sources, such as cosmic, terrestrial, and atmospheric, is called background radiation.  Background radiation contributes an estimated average dose of 300 millirems to each adult person living in the United States every year.  In some areas of India and Brazil, annual average estimates are from ten to 400 times this number due to naturally occurring radioactive soils.  The cancer rates in these areas are found to be no different than those of areas with lower natural levels of background radiation[2].  In contrast, the daily radioactive exposure to areas surrounding nuclear power plants is quite low.  Living within fifty miles of a nuclear power plant exposes one to .009 millirems of radiation each day[3] or 3.3 millirems in one year.  Compare this to living within fifty miles of a coal-power plant (such as the one located on the near-east side of Madison) in which case the annual exposure is 11 millirems.  According to the Health Physics Society of the University of Michigan, the health risks posed to individuals receiving less than ten rems of radiation beyond background over a lifetime are so small as to be virtually nonexistent[4].  In other words, a person living within fifty miles of a nuclear power plant would have to live there for 3000 years before the cumulative radiation exposure due to the power plant would begin to approach the threshold above which health concerns are more likely to become an issue.  Hopefully this information will help put to rest some of the fears about the inherent dangers of radiation and normally operating nuclear power facilities, but what about the health risks associated with malfunctioning and otherwise compromised operations?

The accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania marked a turning point in terms of public opinion of nuclear power.  To this day it is the worst accident at a nuclear power facility in the United States.  The release of radiation into the atmosphere exposed the public to a maximum of 100 millirems per person, or one-third of the average annual dose of background radiation[5].  Research on the long-term health effects due to the accident indicates a range of possible consequences. Results range from an estimated minimum of one-associated death[6] to data that shows a significant increase in the incidence of low birth-weight and infant mortality rates in Pennsylvania in 1979, the year of the accident[7].  Another relevant source of data comes from studies of the 1986 reactor accident in the former Soviet Union.  This accident, the worst the world has known, emitted one-hundred times the radiation of both bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined[8].  The human errors that led to catastrophic reactor failure at the Chernobyl facility were responsible for the deaths of thirty-one plant personnel in the three months following the accident and elevated levels of radiation exposure to approximately 825,000 people living near the plant[9].  A recent study completed by eight different agencies of the United Nations estimates that a total of 4000 people may eventually die as a result of the radiation emissions at Chernobyl mostly due to delayed onset cancers[10].  This equates to a death toll of .5% of the 825,000 who suffered the greatest exposure.  Though these numbers indicate a statistically minor effect on human health, it is at any rate very difficult to place a value on the loss of human life in correlation with the benefits of technology.  We must therefore assess the risks of such accidents which may occur in the future.

In addition to the frequency of past plant accidents, an interdisciplinary study conducted by MIT on the future of nuclear power presents a reasonable view of nuclear power plant safety as taking in to consideration the frequency of accidents determined through Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)[11].  PRA looks at chains of cause and effect stemming from all perceived sources of failure, including those within the plant as well as without, such as earthquakes and floods.  The PRA estimates that presently, 10,000 reactor-years is likely to produce about one accident that would result in a release of radioactivity to the environment from a light water reactor[1] in the United States.  In other words, given 100 light water reactors in constant operation, there would be approximately one accident every 100 years.  The same study states that a global frequency of 1 in 100,000 is an achievable target, though it does not reflect the current reality.  Technological advances in reactor design and management are expected to continue to improve the safety outlook with regards to operation both in the United States and beyond.  

Another source of concern with regards to safety is the likelihood of attacks akin to those that befell our country on 9/11.  Computer analysis completed since 9/11 by a non-profit energy research consortium takes into account all reactor types currently operational in the United States.  Models were created using the impact of a Boeing 767-400 on reactor containment buildings, used fuel storage pools, spent fuel storage containers, and spent fuel transport containers.  Each scenario withstood maximum force impacts without release of radiation to the environment. 

The most controversial issue related to nuclear power technology is the resulting production and necessary disposal of high-level wastes.  High-level wastes, (HLW) are the highly radioactive byproducts of nuclear power generation.  These byproducts include spent nuclear fuel in the form of massive rods and the containers used to store them.  Spent fuel rods are composed of the elements uranium and plutonium, fission fragments, and small quantities of other ingredients including transuranic elements, which are elements heavier than uranium[12].  The plutonium, fission fragments, and transuranic elements make up 5% of the total mass of spent nuclear fuel and are (or contain) extremely radioactive elements that must be carefully isolated from humans and natural resources.  This radioactivity will abate over time but is a natural process that can take thousands of years. Two primary methods of dealing with these wastes, reprocessing and burial, are at various stages of research and planning.  

Sites considered for waste burial must be sufficiently large, geologically stable, and include extensive engineered barriers.  The first such US storage facility is located 1,000 feet below Yucca Mountain in Nevada.  Public opposition, however, both to the site location and to the process of waste transport across country from the various temporary fuel storage sites, has so far prevented use of the facility.  Another possibility for burial that is perhaps more promising is referred to as the “deep borehole approach” wherein HLW containers are deposited into rock several kilometers beneath the surface of the earth and sealed with clay or concrete.  These rocky sites are known to have experienced “no tectonic, volcanic or seismic activity in billions of years”[13] and are more prevalent around the globe than their shallower counterparts.  Burial can be used in conjunction with waste processing, a strategy that separates the various components of spent fuel for reuse and waste reduction[14].  Uranium makes up the majority of spent nuclear fuels (95%).  When separated from other waste materials in a chemical process called partitioning, uranium can be reused for nuclear power generation.  This may some day be followed by transmutation, a process using high-energy lasers to transform specific waste components into less radioactive forms.  For example, in 2003, researchers using this method in the United Kingdom succeeded in transforming a small amount of iodine-29 into iodine-28.  Iodine-29 is a highly-radioactive species that takes millions of years to break down.  Iodine-28 decomposes fairly quickly, becoming harmless in a matter of minutes[15].  Through reprocessing, both the quantities of HLW left for disposal and the time duration required for storage can be greatly reduced.  However, these benefits to the health and security of future generations are at a greater economic cost, as well as an increased risk to the health and security of today, due to increased procedures and handling time.  What possible benefits can there be to outweigh the many risks taken at every stage in the process of nuclear power generation?

Though nuclear power does produce high-level wastes, they are emitted in a controlled fashion and at a relatively slow rate when compared to the wastes produced by other methods of power generation.  For example, let us compare nuclear power generation with the world’s primary source of electricity: coal[16].  The spent fuel produced annually by nuclear power for a city of 560,000 totals thirty-eight tons.  For a city of the same size, the annual quantity of contaminants released to the atmosphere due to coal is over seven million tons.  Rather than being within the control of humanity to decide its fate, this massive load of waste is distributed and eventually deposited wherever the wind may take it.  This figure does not include the one million tons of ash that are produced in the same time period, which when properly contained, contributes only another 5000 tons to coal plant emissions.  In addition to the carbon dioxide emissions contributing to a magnification of the greenhouse effect, these contaminants include sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide which are responsible for acid rain and the breakdown of the earth’s ozone layer.  Furthermore, coal contains arsenic, mercury, and the radioactive elements uranium and thorium.  It is estimated that in 1986, 12,600 tons of the radioactive elements uranium and thorium were released worldwide[17].  It is important to note that even if these radioactive elements are contained in sequestered coal ash, they are not treated as high-level wastes, as with spent nuclear fuel.  Therefore, even if the particulates are captured rather than being released into the atmosphere, they will not be disposed of but rather reused, for example, in the making of concrete[18].  Mercury, when deposited into our waterways, gradually collects through a process of biomagnification in the tissues of numerous organisms.  The dangerous levels of mercury found in many fish consumed by humans prompted the Food and Drug Administration to publicize mercury warnings.  These warnings advise the public, especially women and children, to limit their consumption of certain types of fish.  These warnings pertain to fish shipped in from all over the world.  Additionally, many individual states have published mercury warnings responding to mercury toxicity in the fish from specific inland bodies of water.  Such warnings apply to fish being harvested from every lake in Wisconsin.  Unlike radioactive waste, mercury never breaks down; it is a stable element and will remain toxic forever.  The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that fatalities caused by air-born particulates produced largely by coal power plants are responsible for 100,000 deaths in the United States every year.  When considering this perspective, replacing some traditional methods of power production with nuclear energy could actually save lives.  Furthermore, nuclear power is to date the only alternate to fossil fuel economically capable of taking on the world’s present day energy demands, let alone those of the future.  Yet as with most aspects of nuclear power, this point too is highly debated.

Greenpeace, which has opposed nuclear power for decades, states that nuclear power is not a viable solution to the problem of CO2 emissions, while wind and solar power present renewable alternatives[19].  These technologies do generate substantially less waste than either fossil fuels or nuclear power and therefore are naturally attractive technologies.  Presently, however, even the combined implementation of both of these resources is not capable of completely overtaking the use of fossil fuels due to practical considerations like the costs of production and technological limitations[20].  To generate the same amount of energy as one large nuclear power plant, solar power would require 127 square miles of solar collectors.  Equivalent wind requirements would come to four-hundred square miles of turbines.  Energy consumption in the United States is approximately 100 quads per year[21] and approximately 85% of this comes from coal, petroleum, and natural gas[22].  At this time solar and wind power currently make up a 0.2% of the country’s demands[23].  It is possible that in the future technological advancements will enable renewable energy sources to better compete with the energy production of fossil fuels and nuclear power.  Until that day comes, however, we must make decisions regarding which viable energy resources will meet the growing energy needs of today. 

If it can be assumed that the majority of free individuals are not going to willingly give up access to modern conveniences and high standards of living, then nuclear power is an alternative to fossil fuels that must be taken into consideration.  Yet, nuclear power has been kept outside the realm of serious consideration by a significant portion of the public for many years.  The risk associated with this technology is significant: nuclear safety requires strong political structure and protections.  Nuclear power is also politically risky; many politicians may fail to see benefit in taking up a pro-nuclear stance even if they see it as a possible solution.  Yet, the debate over nuclear power has begun to reenter these forums for discussion.  The outcomes of these discussions and the actions that are subsequently undertaken will affect communities, nations, and the world.  It is time for all of us to take part in our own debates, to prepare for the decisions ahead.  It is time to take a closer look at what nuclear power has to offer.

[1] U.S. Nuclear Power Industry: Background and Current Status

[2] http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/natural.htm

[3] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/facts.html 

[4] http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/hprisk.htm 

[5] Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim? CH 5 pg 28

[6] ibid

[7] Three Mile Island: Health Study Meltdown

[8] Nurturing the Children of Chernobyl

[9] Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim? CH 5 pg 32-33

[10] Report Examines Chernobyl After 20 Years

[11] MIT study, chapter 6

[12] Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim?

[13] MIT study, chapter 6

[14] MIT study, chapter 7

[15] http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4056

[16]http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

[17] ibid

[18] Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim

[19] http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear/nuclear-power

[20] A Civil War Between the Greens

[21] Atomic Nuclear Society Annual Meeting pg 35

[22] http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php

[23] A Civil War Between the Greens