archive-org.com » ORG » L » LASG.ORG

Total: 881

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Bulletin #124: Invitation to fundraising event on Aug. 25th; please reach out to your friends; also another CMRR resource
    need We need to take energy out of this which is manifestly not working and put in that which will And how do we know that will work Because we will do it personally with our friends We will realize that we are the ones we have been waiting for We meet people everywhere who are dispirited about the current situation It seems overwhelming Well it isn t It s one step then another then another and pretty soon we are getting somewhere The step you take makes it easier for the next person We want you to change your lives as we have changed ours Come in the water s fine We want you to support young people in changing their lives We want to end business as usual nonviolently before violence takes over even more completely Structural violence is already severe great injustice is occurring between people and between generations Our children s future is being stolen and the few are enriching themselves on the backs of the many The letter below attempts to touch upon many of the major issues at play in the momentous decision momentous for New Mexico the nation and even the world about whether or not to build the proposed additional plutonium pit factory the so called Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility CMRR NF at Los Alamos Why momentous Because the sole real purpose of this facility is to renew and extend the nuclear arms race by making new kinds of nuclear warheads in large quantities and to provide a breakout capacity vis a vis Russia It lacks any other coherent purpose except of course that of bringing billions of tax dollars to the for profit contractors who would manage and build the project Surely everyone on this list understands that with almost 5 000 warheads in the U S arsenal the nuclear deterrence contribution of the n th U S warhead delivery system or innovation refers to deterring nuclear budget cuts and nothing else That national security in this context is a code for contractor security Many of you have heard of or read Naomi Klein s fine book The Shock Doctrine which exposes the practice of disaster capitalism That s what this is In this case the disaster is an imagined future one a projection favored by propaganda and one considerably more likely to occur if these disaster capitalists have their way The capitalism part is very here and now CMRR NF is a corporate attack on northern New Mexico facilitated by feckless politicians which happen to be mostly in the Democratic Party in this case Rep Pierce is not on the right committees and it s not in his district To paraphrase Clausewitz s remark about war we may not be interested in the CMRR NF but it is interested in us specifically in our acquiescence passivity and of course our tax dollars which are pretty much the whole point of the exercise War is what it is all about war on the poor war on the environment war on Medicare Medicaid and Social Security preventive war on competing programs for renewable energy and energy saving retrofits and the community renewal and jobs that would go with those investments This monstrosity does not just suck money anywhere from 4 to 6 to perhaps 8 billion in construction and one or two hundred million dollars annually in increased operating overhead for an amazingly few number of jobs The political nature of the funding competition is very starkly community development jobs and a clean energy economy vs the Cold War revividus In this competition the New Mexico Democrats are very much in favor of nuclear weapons and not green jobs because they all to one degree or another fawn before the corporate interests involved In general jobs and businesses which do not exist do not fund political campaigns so change is not what they believe in That would require leadership Since they aren t supplying it we must Greg Mello PS You and your friends may be interested in this two page summary and update of the CMRR NF issue pdf Some of your correspondents may also be interested in these more detailed presentations CMRR talk in Los Alamos pdf 3 2MB Speaker s notes most references are included on slides as necessary Scroll over symbol in upper left corner to view Jul 19 2011 Reasons Not to Build or to Delay CMRR NF Mello paper pdf 1 9MB May 22 2011 Feel free to pass them on as needed or desired Los Alamos Study Group Nuclear Disarmament Environmental Protection Social Justice Economic Sustainability August 10 2011 Dear friends and colleagues I am writing to ask for your support and that of your friends if they are so moved to help us halt a proposed new 6 billion plutonium warhead production and storage complex at Los Alamos National Laboratory LANL At the heart of this complex would lie a single building deceptively named the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility CMRR NF CMRR NF would be the most expensive government project ever built in New Mexico by about a factor of ten with the exception of our two interstate highways This one plutonium processing and storage bunker would cost in inflation corrected dollars as much as all the construction and operating expenses of Los Alamos from its inception through 1958 It would dwarf by a factor of five what the Manhattan Project spent in New Mexico during World War II If it proceeds this giant nuclear project would dominate all New Mexico construction for the crucial decade ahead With other unnecessary nuclear weapons modernization projects it would hog resources in the annual Energy and Water appropriations process crippling the creation of new energy jobs For New Mexico it would drive our State in exactly the wrong direction toward poverty and despair for most The 600 temporary jobs it would create many or most of which would be given to

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin124.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Bulletin #123: Public talk & discussion, Tues, Aug 9, "The Meaning of Nagasaki," with Dr. Hugh Gusterson
    our ordinary meeting fell on August 9 but because in many ways Nagasaki arguably reveals more even than Hiroshima what lay ahead of us in 1945 and what we still must face down today Normally we meet in Room 116 but on this Tuesday we may not look for signs as you enter the church or ask the sexton as you enter Hugh teaches cultural studies at George Mason University is a long time student of and authority on nuclear weapons culture and has long been a friend of the Los Alamos Study Group His interests include many aspects of modern warfare and the warfare state including drone warfare and the mis use of anthropologists by the military as human terrain experts which he has been instrumental in opposing Here s Hugh s brief biography at the GMU web site Born in the UK Hugh Gusterson took a B A in history at Cambridge University in 1980 a Masters degree in Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania in 1982 and a PhD in anthropology at Stanford University in 1992 Somewhere in between he worked for a couple of social change organizations He was a professor at MIT from 1992 2006 when he came to George Mason University He has done fieldwork in the United States and Russia where he has studied the culture of nuclear weapons scientists and antinuclear activists He also writes about militarism and about science more generally and has a strong interest in professional ethics He is the author of Nuclear Rites UC Press 1996 and People of the Bomb Minnesota 2004 and co editor of Cultures of Insecurity Minnesota 1999 and Why America s Top Pundits Are Wrong UC Press 2005 As well as writing for scholarly journals he has a regular online column for the

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin123.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Bulletin #122: Work session tomorrow evening in Santa Fe re: proposed plutonium warhead factory in Los Alamos, July 25, 2011
    tomorrow If you have not attended before do not be discouraged newcomers are very welcome If you are new to the subject we recommend however that you peruse some of the background material available on our CMRR NF web page If you have a draft op ed written and want to check facts bring it If you have a draft letter to your friends asking them to a house meeting or a letter to an interfaith group or your church or any idea whether partially realized or just imagined an idea that seems right for you bring it If you want to volunteer with us just come get in the swim We have work to do Many of our past bulletins have included suggestions in response to the perennial question What can I do The times are changing very quickly and we must change too Most but not all of our regular meetings henceforth will be work meetings If there is insufficient interest we will meet less frequently Your time is precious so is ours 2 Two new legal filings are posted in our appeal to the Tenth Circuit Plaintiff s Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal pdf 201KB Jul 21 2011 Docketing Statement pdf 54KB Jul 21 2011 Thanks much to our legal team Thomas Hnasko Dulcinea Hanuschak and Lindsay Lovejoy 3 Want some quick and easy bullet points for your own CMRR NF writings It s a common question Use the headings in this Reasons Not to Build or to Delay CMRR NF May 22 2011 The links and references provided will take you deeper into most aspects of the CMRR NF if you wish 4 Obama Administration proposes national park for Manhattan Project sites For U S nuclear weapons propaganda there is no shortage of funds apparently no fiscal crisis We have written on this subject in past years to no avail but the issue is now a live one Anti nuke groups to fight Manhattan Project parks Associated Press July 18 2011 Anti Nuke Group Fights Manhattan Project National Park Plan Because It Glorifies Bombs Seattle Weekly July 19 2011 Anti Nuclear Groups Protest Proposed Manhattan Project Park New York Times Greenwire July 19 2011 A National Park for Nukes Counterpunch BondGraham July 20 2011 Manhattan Project park should be shelved The New Mexican editorial July 24 2011 We strongly urge you to contact your senators and congresspeople in whatever state and district you live and ask them to spike this project for the reasons mentioned in the above articles and others you will readily think of We have been joined in opposition by our colleagues at the Nuclear Information Resource Service NIRS a fine organization that works mostly on nuclear power issues whose group letters we frequently join Get on their mailing list and get informed We hope to provide more background on this topic in the coming days We have been very busy Please understand that funds to administer these parks would go to the

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin122.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Bulletin #121: Study Group to host discussion Tuesday evening in Los Alamos regarding proposed plutonium facility, July 17, 2011
    to participate as well but we want to be accountable to the public especially to the community of Los Alamos from which we aim to help take billions of dollars in local spending The project if fully pursued will generate more than 400 million in gross receipts taxes and will create many upper middle class incomes and not a few millionaires I am sure About 420 construction workers also would be employed on average No long term new LANL employment is expected In fact NNSA and LANS have an uninterrupted 10 year record of unwillingness to discuss any issue in any forum we have proposed in any forum they do not control Sad but true We are not interested in any kind of shallow point scoring discussion or in any kind of public posturing We work closely with and that means against sometimes all three branches of the federal government We are looking for the truth of the matter nothing more and nothing less We want to get at some of the deeper issues regarding CMRR NF Which issues discussed will depend in part on the audience which we hope will include some of you For my part in addition to answering questions I will present on a why it would be better not to build CMRR NF b why it ought not to be built now and c on some of the macro changes affecting the feasibility of this project why it may never be completed even if the Obama White House and other policymakers retain their attachment to it 2 We will post filings in our Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals as they are filed here 3 Last Friday the Republican led House cut 1 1 billion B from Obama s proposed NNSA budget for FY2012 including a 498 million cut from Obama s proposed nuclear Weapons Activities budget line Most of the details we provided in Bulletin 118 House Appropriations Committee slashes 100 million from huge proposed plutonium facility at Los Alamos June 15 2011 are still more or less the same It is significant that the Energy and Water Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Freylinghuysen R NJ specifically mentioned the savings available from capital projects that are not ready to move forward He was referring specifically to CMRR NF since 90 of the cuts the Subcommittee proposed in that category were cuts to CMRR NF The bill now goes to the Senate which will not take up spending bills until the budget impasse is resolved and after the August recess The Senate is unlikely to be functional enough to pass appropriations bills in the remaining month of the fiscal year meaning that the fate of these cuts will be resolved in a continuing resolution or in omnibus legislation either of which would be conditioned by the new fiscal conservatism if that s what you call it the precise nature of which is now under heated discussion 4 The Army Corps of Engineers working with two

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin121.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Los Alamos Study Group
    4 7 to 5 8 billion B 2 for the primary purpose of increasing the rate of manufacturing nuclear warhead cores pits at LANL The expected cost of this facility has increased more than tenfold since its conception 3 The required plutonium storage and handling capacity in this facility has increased from 900 grams in 2000 and 2001 denoting a Hazard Category III facility to 6 000 kg today 4 The Study Group has recently provided to Congress extensive background on why this facility is not necessary and especially not necessary now 5 What was described as a relatively simple building in a 2003 EIS written under the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA for the CMRR project 6 has subsequently become a very complex and expensive proposed project It now has twice the original gross floor area more than one hundred times the original quantity of concrete a far longer construction and occupancy schedule not ready for use until 2023 eight times the original electricity consumption necessitating new or reworked transmission lines into Los Alamos County and many other expansions 7 As a result of these unforeseen design complexities and expansions the project currently lacks a final design concept Two concepts are under consideration a relatively shallowly buried building the foundation of which would be above a thick layer of unstable volcanic ash and relatively deep one founded below that unstable layer on welded tuff In the Draft SEIS and elsewhere DOE and NNSA generally insist that the current CMRR NF requirements location size and timing cannot be changed Very recently however NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Don Cook recently warned that As we go on if the cost starts to get near the upper end of the stated cost range that will be a clear point for invitation to cut scope 8 The House Appropriations Committee HAC has recommended 100 million M less appropriation than the FY2012 request and no construction in FY2102 pending resolution of major seismic issues revalidation of requirements and a decision on whether the LANL management and operating M O contractor is the appropriate entity to manage the project Project 04 D 125 Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement CMRR Los Alamos National Laboratory The Committee recommends 200 000 000 100 000 000 below the budget request The Committee fully supports the Administration s plans to modernize the infrastructure but intends to closely review the funding requests for new investments to ensure those plans adhere to good project management practices The latest funding profile provided to the Committee indicates that over half the funding requested for the Nuclear Facility would be used to start early construction activities The recommendation will support the full request for design activities but does not provide the additional funding to support early construction The NNSA is not prepared to award that project milestone since it must first resolve major seismic issues with its design complete its work to revalidate which capabilities are needed and make a decision on its contracting

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin120.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Bulletin #119: Las Conchas Fire: business as usual is over for our society; public discussion tomorrow, June 27, 2011
    be live streamed but some of the local newscasters e g from KOB will be there During the Cerro Grande Fire in 2000 almost no useful information was available even to DOE which was getting its information during crucial periods from TV broadcasts which were being partially censored We hired a commercial flying service three times to inform ourselves and various officials of the fire s progress and dangers Today s situation is obviously much improved In our circles it would be easy to fall into thinking about this latest fire primarily from the perspective of concern about legacy or current inventory radionuclides from LANL We aren t too worried about that at this time It would be a mistake to fall into single issue myopia at this or any time As far as this fire goes we are very concerned about two things The first is climate change induced drought which we are already seeing in the American Southwest as well as in sub Saharan Africa Australia the Mediterranean and elsewhere precisely as has been predicted for many years by essentially all available climate models We have sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind Sorry to say but even if we were to succeed in changing our society and its greenhouse gas emissions almost overnight much more warming is already in the pipeline so much worse is yet to come It is essential to make those changes before they are forced upon us for a variety of reasons not just climate related ones The second is that the unexpected events natural and unnatural hazards do happen Murphy s Law applies and accidents are normal and to be expected Today it s a fire tomorrow it could well be a careless or berserk plutonium worker Stuff happens Rules

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin119.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Bulletin #118: House Appropriations Committee slashes $100 million from huge proposed plutonium facility at Los Alamos, June 15, 2011
    jobs not wildly wasteful new nuclear bomb projects NNSA must try to understand that the Cold War is over ENDS June 14 press release House Appropriations Committee may slash 100 million from huge proposed plutonium facility at Los Alamos final vote tomorrow Republican led committee may seek to hold back LANL project pending resolution of major issues House poised to limit cost of Obama led nuclear weapons surge citing budget restrictions management problems Albuquerque The House Appropriations Committee HAC today released its draft Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill pdf and associated report pdf prepared by the HAC s Energy and Water Development Subcommittee and approved by that subcommittee on June 2 On that day the Subcommittee published a summary table pdf of its overall priorities in relation to those of the Administration as well as an overview of its priorities but details were not available until today The full HAC will take up this proposed legislation tomorrow at 9 30 am EDT video and audio available The Obama Administration through the agency of the National Nuclear Security Administration NNSA which manages the nation s nuclear stockpile as well as the DoD has sought large increases in nuclear weapons spending pdf See the chart in this press release for historical context At LANL these proposed increases were to be unprecedented since the Manhattan Project and were pushed through Congress on an emergency basis in order to buy Republican Senate votes for New START ratification which occurred on December 22 2010 NNSA s most recent budget request pdf included 300 million for fiscal year FY 2012 for the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility CMRR NF at Los Alamos National Laboratory LANL The official current rough estimate for CMRR NF is 4 7 to 5 8 billion B pdf but a senior government official recently warned Study Group Director Greg Mello that costs if past experience with major construction projects is any guide could rise much higher still The draft Energy and Water bill would cut CMRR NF heavily and hold back any construction until October 2012 at the earliest Project 04 D 125 Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement CMRR Los Alamos National Laboratory The Committee recommends 200 000 000 100 000 000 below the budget request The Committee fully supports the Administration s plans to modernize the infrastructure but intends to closely review the funding requests for new investments to ensure those plans adhere to good project management practices The latest funding profile provided to the Committee indicates that over half the funding requested for the Nuclear Facility would be used to start early construction activities The recommendation will support the full request for design activities but does not provide the additional funding to support early construction The NNSA is not prepared to award that project milestone since it must first resolve major seismic issues with its design complete its work to revalidate which capabilities are needed and make a decision on its contracting and acquisition strategies p

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin118.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Bulletin 117: No meeting tomorrow; new CMRR resources; House likely to propose warhead spending cut, June 6, 2011
    SEIS process that began in response to our litigation is totally bogus from a legal perspective and as a study of alternatives it considers none NNSA wisely chose not to let additional construction contracts during the lawsuit and is still holding them back during pendency of the SEIS and its Record of Decision ROD Also and related project expenditures in the present fiscal year are we hear accordingly far less than originally projected Yes the project has been slowed as is more than proper given its cost explosion and contraction in justification We cannot supply more details about the CMRR NF state of play here That was the topic of last week s public discussion in Santa Fe To repeat what we said in our press release regarding Judge Herrera s recent decision It is never legal for a federal agency to decide to implement a project with significant environmental impact without an applicable objective EIS and that is what is happening here NNSA is not at all out of the woods legally speaking and we are working on that too More fundamentally certain facts are a problem for the project high seismicity a cramped site poor geology a lack of need declining availability of federal funds negative international repercussions the irrelevance of the mission to today s real national security crises and more It s a fiasco now and will remain one until it is eventually abandoned Here s a handy compendium of recent developments and resources on CMRR NF Critics line up against LANL plutonium lab Associated Press May 27 2011 LANL Request to halt work on nuke facility denied The New Mexican May 24 2011 Plutonium Lab Work Gets Go Ahead Albuquerque Journal May 24 2011 Bulletin 116 Federal Judge Rules In Favor of Continuing Los Alamos Nuclear Project Without Applicable Environmental Impact Statement Dismisses Environmental Lawsuit press release May 23 2011 Federal judge throws out case challenging new Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear building Associated Press May 23 2011 U S District Judge Judith C Herrera s MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pdf 68KB May 23 2011 Raise Your Hand if You Think the Expansion of Our Nuclear Industrial Complex Escapes Iran Foreign Policy in Focus Russ Wellen May 23 2011 Bulletin 115 XSEIS the SEIS why not try democracy and some new resources May 22 2011 Reasons Not to Build or to Delay CMRR NF Mello paper pdf 7 3MB May 22 2011 LANL Facility a Costly Sham Neils Albuquerque Journal op ed May 22 2011 On a Narrow Mesa Mello KUNM op ed MP3 May 20 2011 Nuclear Horizon Santa Fe Reporter May 18 2011 NUCLEAR POLICY Foes of N M plutonium lab await judge s decision Greenwire May 3 2011 Congressman Stearns to Sec Chu letter Is LANS the right contractor for CMRR NF Apr 27 2011 We look forward to seeing many of you next Tuesday evening June 14th 7 9 pm at St John s United Methodist Church in Santa Fe The

    Original URL path: http://lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin117.html (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive



  •