Concerned Scientists criticize nuke plant

Aug 01, 2007

The Union of Concerned Scientists is upset over U.S. plans to build a plutonium processing plant without consulting the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The organization specifically is critical of the Energy Department for designing the $5 billion South Carolina facility that will turn plutonium into fuel for U.S. nuclear reactors without making the plans available for inspection by the IAEA.

Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist in UCS's Global Security Program, said the move undermines the credibility of nuclear non-proliferation efforts at a time when the international community is struggling to stop the spread of nuclear weapons materials and technologies around the world.

In a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Lyman said the United States has a responsibility to "set the gold standard for safeguards and security" as an example for the rest of the world.

Lyman said an IAEA review of the plant design would provide assurances to the international community that the facility will be used for peaceful purposes. He said such a gesture would be a "powerful symbol" to the rest of the world that the United States plays by the same rules that it urges other countries to follow.

Copyright 2007 by United Press International

Explore further: Lady, you're on the money

Related Stories

ADB: Asia must boost investment in clean energy

Jun 17, 2015

Asia has made huge strides in developing clean energy over the last decade but must boost investment and its use of energy efficiency technology to meet rising demand and cope with climate change, Asian Development Bank officials ...

Recommended for you

Lady, you're on the money

Jul 03, 2015

So far, women whose portraits appear on U.S. money have been a party of three. Excluding commemorative currency, only Sacagawea, Susan B. Anthony and Helen Keller appear on coins in general circulation, according ...

Another five things to know about meta-analysis

Jul 01, 2015

Last year I wrote a post of "5 Key Things to Know About Meta-Analysis". It was a great way to focus – but it was hard keeping to only 5. With meta-analyses booming, including many that are poorly done or ...

User comments : 0

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.