credit: Mendoza, Rene 2008

Franklin High School

2008 Critical Issues Forum

Nuclear renaissance: Benefits versus Risks

Benchmark ii

The Current State of Affairs

Participants:

Vinh Bui, Christina Modica,

Kalissa Morgan, Will Sorensen

Coordinator:

Rene Mendoza

Objective 1 – Categorical Summary of the World’s Nuclear States

Nuclear Weapon States

Though several nations have successfully detonated nuclear weapons, five are considered “nuclear weapons states;” which is ‘an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)” ¹. The United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom worked together to create the first atomic bomb during World War I. The U.S. tested its first bomb in 1945 as a culmination of the “Manhattan Project” ¹. The Soviet Union tested its first in 1949. The United Kingdom used data from the Manhattan project to create its first in 1952. France followed in 1960, and China in 1964.

Non-NPT Nuclear Weapon States

India has never been a member state in the NPT, and it tested its first nuclear weapon in 1974. India’s secret development frustrated several states who helped supply it with nuclear reactors for peaceful, power generating purposes. Pakistan has also never been a member of the NPT. It began exploring nuclear technology in the early 1970s in response to India, and tested its first weapon in 1998.

High Risk States

Iran became a member state of the NPT in 1970, but it is widely believed to have secretly pursued nuclear weapons technology since the mid-1980s. Experts suggest Iran could have a weapons device “in a few years to a decade” from now ². Israel has also never belonged to the NPT. Israel “generally is regarded as a de facto nuclear-weapon state” ². Though it has never acknowledged possession of nuclear weapons, Israel’s nuclear program is the most advanced in the Middle East. North Korea originally belonged to the NPT, but withdrew in January, 2003 when it was accused by the U.S. of having a uranium enrichment program. It claimed to have nuclear weapons in early 2005 and reported a successful test in 2006. North Korea’s condition is especially concerning because of their aggressive attitude towards the U.S.

Abstaining Countries

According to the Arms Control Association, “A nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) is a specified region in which countries commit themselves not to manufacture, acquire, test, or possess nuclear weapons” ³. Three of these zones currently exist, and two others have been negotiated but not put into action. Under the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco, 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have prohibited nuclear weapons within their state. The 1985 Treaty

of Rarotonga created a nuclear-free zone of 13 countries in the South Pacific. In 1995, 10 countries in Southeast Asia became nuclear-free under the Treaty of Bangkok. The Treaty of Pelindaba was opened to the signatures of African nation-states in 1996. The treaty has not gone into effect yet, however 21 countries have already signed and ratified it. Finally, the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty was opened in 2006 and will be enforced when the remaining three of five countries ratify it.

Recent Renunciations

Through nuclear technology’s short history, several countries who acquired nuclear weapons or the ability to create them have renounced their rights to possess them and have promised not to pursue nuclear-weapons programs. South Africa is the only nation who successfully created weapons (1980s) and then voluntarily dismantled the entire program (early 1990s). The former USSR countries Kazakhstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine returned their weapons to Russia and signed the NPT after the USSR’s collapse in 1991. Romania began a secret nuclear weapons program in 1965, but ended it in 1989 with the overthrow of a dictatorship regime. Brazil and Argentina rivaled each other in pursuit of nuclear weapons programs for most of the later 20^th century until they both signed the 1993 Treaty of Tlatelolco and the NPT.

While the spread and proliferation of nuclear weapons was the tantamount “Nuclear Issue” in the previous decades, a profound shift has occurred in recent years, to a much greater concern over the civilian use of nuclear power. This change can be traced to two major socio-political events: the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1989, and Dwight Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace Speech”. Of the two, the “Atoms for Peace” speech is much

more relevant to our investigation of nuclear energy. Thus, an analysis of its effects on global nuclear energy would be enlightening.

On December 8, 1953, President Eisenhower made a speech to the United Nations General Assembly concerning the role of nuclear technology in the world. The title of Eisenhower’s speech, “Atoms for Peace,” became the name of a U.S. program that supplied nuclear technology and education to schools and research institutions within the U.S. and around the world. The Atoms for Peace approach to nuclear proliferation of the 1950s has had lasting historical effects. A close analysis of the original speech provides an interesting perspective on the unique state of the world at the time the speech was made, as Eisenhower addresses the past, present, and future of nuclear technology.

Eisenhower’s references to the past give a brief summary of the effects the atomic bomb had already made by 1953. The atomic bomb was born “July 16^th, 1945, [when] the United States set off the world’s biggest atomic explosion,” ⁴. This explosion was made at a test site near Alamogordo, New Mexico by the international team of scientists involved in the Manhattan Project. During the eight years since then, the United States exponentially increased their number of nuclear warheads, and “conducted forty-two test explosions.” ⁴ Eisenhower considers “the development of atomic weapons .... remarkable.” ⁴ Nevertheless, he also recognizes how nuclear weapons technology had already proliferated: “The Soviet Union has informed us that, over recent years, it has devoted extensive resources to atomic weapons....(and) has exploded a

series of atomic devices.” ⁴ Though American experts had predicted that the USSR would not

have nuclear weapons until the mid-1950s, the USSR detonated their first bomb, “Joe One,” on August 29, 1949. Three years later in August, only nine months behind the U.S., the USSR exploded their own Hydrogen-bomb. These actions confirmed Eisenhower’s realization: “If at

one time the United States possessed...a monopoly of atomic power, that monopoly ceased to exist several years ago.” ⁴ The role of the U.S. had changed, international power had shifted, and Eisenhower knew that a new chapter in history had already begun.

Eisenhower’s description of the present in 1953 conveys what a unique time it was for the entire world. In order to survive the “atomic age,” he says “the people of the world...must be armed with the significant facts of today’s existence.” ⁴ He proceeds to directly present the U.S’ current position and capabilities in 1953. At the time, the nation-states with nuclear intelligence were: France, the United Kingdom and Canada (the U.S.’ “friends and allies”), and the USSR. In America, “the stockpile of atomic weapons, which,...increase(d) daily, exceed(ed) by many times the total equivalent of the total of all bombs and all shells that came from ... the Second World War.” ⁴ By 1953, the U.S.’s warhead-count was 1,436, and the number of warheads had increased every year on an average of 208%. Eisenhower compares the present-day to WW II to illustrate the power of nuclear weapons and the seriousness of international relations during the “atomic age.” He describes this present-age in his speech in an attempt to express how nuclear technology was changing the world, and how critical it was for the world to take the right steps towards peace together in the future.

Despite the conflicts the world faced in 1953, Eisenhower is optimistic in the future of nuclear technology. His speech reveals his confidence in the world’s potential to work together successfully towards peace. He repeatedly expresses the U.S.’ willingness to “meet privately with other countries as may be ‘principally involved’, to seek an ‘an acceptable solution’ to the atomic armaments race.” ⁴ He also proposes that “an international atomic energy agency ... be set up under the aegis of the United Nations.” Eisenhower suggests that the role of this agency would be to collect, store, and protect the uranium and fissionable materials gradually

contributed from stockpiles from the governments involved in it. More importantly, he says the agency would be responsible to “apply atomic energy to ... peaceful activities,” ⁴ especially to “provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world.” ⁴ Eisenhower believes this organization would provide the kind of international accountability and concentration of intellectual talent that world needs to discover the role of nuclear technology in a peaceful world.

The International Atomic Energy Agency was created on July 29, 1957 with a mission statement centered around its three main goals: safety and security; science and technology, and safeguards and verification. For over fifty years, the IAEA’s work has shown the international cooperation that Eisenhower hoped for. His “Atoms for Peace” speech marked an important turning point in the history of nuclear weapons and technology.

Objective 2 – International Spread of Nuclear Energy

Sixteen countries in the world depend upon nuclear energy to power at least a fourth of their electricity. France and Lithuania get around three fourths of their power from nuclear energy. Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, North Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine receive up to one third of the electricity from nuclear power. Japan, Germany and Finland get more than a fourth of their power from nuclear energy. The United States barely gets one fifth of this benefit.

France

France receives more than three quarters of their power from nuclear energy. They are the world’s premiere users of nuclear energy, and have seen the most benefits from their nuclear technology. France has 59 nuclear reactors that are operated by Electricité de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe. They are capable of supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated. In 2005 French electricity generation was 549 billion kWh net and consumption 482 billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person. It has been said that over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr. Although very costly, the country has seen many benefits from its nuclear program.

North Korea

North Korea is able to receive about one third of their power from nuclear energy. They are hoping to receive more and have been working towards that goal to become a strong nuclear powered state, up to about 80% of their total energy usage. They would like the right to use nuclear energy peacefully so their country may benefit; however, many in the international community doubt their truthfulness, and think they would seek to utilize civilian nuclear power

for military research and weapons construction.. They are supported by South Korea, China, and Russia.

A more in depth summary of the world’s nuclear usage is found below:

World Nuclear Reactors and Their Uranium Requirements 2008

	NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2006		REACTORS OPERABLE Jan 2008		REACTORS under CONSTRUCTION Jan 2008		REACTORS PLANNED Jan 2008		REACTORS PROPOSED Jan 2008		URANIUM REQUIRED in 2008
	billion kWh	% e	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	tonnes U
Argentina	7.2	6.9	2	935	1	692	1	740	1	740	123
Armenia	2.4	42	1	376	0	0	0	0	1	1000	51
Bangladesh	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2000	0
Belarus	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2000	0	0	0
Belgium	44.3	54	7	5728	0	0	0	0	0	0	1011
Brazil	13.0	3.3	2	1901	0	0	1	1245	4	4000	303
Bulgaria	18.1	44	2	1906	0	0	2	1900	0	0	261
Canada*	92.4	16	18	12652	2	1500	4	4000	2	2200	1665
China	51.8	1.9	11	8587	5	4540	30	32000	86	68000	1396
China: Taiwan	38.3	20	6	4884	2	2600	0	0	0	0	832
Czech Republic	24.5	31	6	3472	0	0	0	0	2	1900	619
Egypt	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1000	0
Finland	22.0	28	4	2696	1	1600	0	0	1	1000	1051
France	428.7	78	59	63473	1	1630	0	0	1	1600	10527
Germany	158.7	32	17	20339	0	0	0	0	0	0	3332
Hungary	12.5	38	4	1826	0	0	0	0	2	2000	271
India	15.6	2.6	17	3779	6	2976	10	8560	9	4800	978
Indonesia	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2000	0	0	0
Iran	0	0	0	0	1	915	2	1900	1	300	143
Israel	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1200	0
Japan	291.5	30	55	47577	2	2285	11	14945	1	1100	7569
Kazakhstan	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	300	0
Korea DPR (North)	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	950	0	0	0
Korea RO (South)	141.2	39	20	17533	3	3000	5	6600	0	0	3109
Lithuania	8.0	69	1	1185	0	0	0	0	2	3200	225
Mexico	10.4	4.9	2	1310	0	0	0	0	2	2000	246
Netherlands	3.3	3.5	1	485	0	0	0	0	0	0	98
Pakistan	2.6	2.7	2	400	1	300	2	600	2	2000	65
Romania	5.2	9.0	2	1310	0	0	2	1310	1	655	174
Russia	144.3	16	31	21743	7	4920	8	9600	20	18200	3365
Slovakia	16.6	57	5	2064	2	840	0	0	0	0	313
Slovenia	5.3	40	1	696	0	0	0	0	1	1000	141
South Africa	10.1	4.4	2	1842	0	0	1	165	24	4000	303
Spain	57.4	20	8	7442	0	0	0	0	0	0	1398
Sweden	65.1	48	10	9086	0	0	0	0	0	0	1418
Switzerland	26.4	37	5	3220	0	0	0	0	1	1000	537
Turkey	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	4500	0
Ukraine	84.8	48	15	13168	0	0	2	1900	20	27000	1974
United Kingdom	69.2	18	19	11035	0	0	0	0	0	0	2199
USA	787.2	19	104	99049	0	0	7	10180	25	32000	18918
Vietnam	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2000	0
WORLD	2658	16	439	372,059	34	27,798	93	100,595	222	193,095	64,615
	billion kWh	% e	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	No.	MWe	tonnes U
	NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION		REACTORS OPERATING		REACTORS BUILDING		ON ORDER or PLANNED		PROPOSED		URANIUM REQUIRED

Sources:
Reactor data: WNA to 14/1/08.
IAEA- for nuclear electricity production & percentage of electricity (% e) 5/07.
WNA: Global Nuclear Fuel Market 2007 (2008 reference scenario) - for U. Includes first cores for new reactors.
Operating = Connected to the grid;
Building/Construction = first concrete for reactor poured, or major refurbishment under way (* In Canada, 'construction' figure is 2 laid-up Bruce A reactors);
Planned = Approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years, or construction well advanced but suspended indefinitely;
Proposed = clear intention or proposal but still without firm commitment. Planned and Proposed are generally gross MWe.
TWh = Terawatt-hours (billion kilowatt-hours), MWe = Megawatt net (electrical as distinct from thermal), kWh = kilowatt-hour

NB: 64,615 tU = 76,200 t U₃O

Objective 3 - Nuclear Energy: International Challenges

Benefits	Risks
Environmentally clean – no production of greenhouse gases.	Uranium is the least abundant element on Earth.
Cheap and competitive with alternative energy sources from fossil fuels.	Uranium mining disrupts the environment by destroying the landscape, polluting groundwater, leaving radioactive tailings, and leaving heavy metals in soil and water.
Nuclear power plants are work-intensive, thus providing employment and economic stability for developing nations.	Radioactivity from power plants constantly threatens communities situated nearby.
Nuclear waste is manageable; it is completely isolated from the environment to prevent exposure of radioactive material.	Nuclear waste stays hazardous for years and must be disposed of strictly. Disposal is still very dangerous however.
Adequately meets demands of industrial civilizations and a growing world economy.	Old plants are suffering from age. The costs are outweighing the benefits.
Supplies 16% of the world’s electricity.	Nuclear energy is non-renewable.
Radioactive waste decays after thousands of years while wastes from other energy sources may remain indefinitely.	Nuclear fuel can be utilized for non-peaceful methods. Nuclear terrorism remains a large threat.
1kg of uranium can produce more energy than 200 barrels of oil.	The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) acknowledges its safeguards have shortcomings.
Newer and safer power plants are under research and construction.	Examples of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Waste immobilization reduces the risks of radioactive exposure and sabotage.	Nuclear waste can be utilized as a “dirty bomb.”
Operational safety history of nuclear energy trumps many other energy production methods’ records.	The process of constructing, operating, and then decommissioning a nuclear power plant is expensive.

Issues of Nuclear Waste Management

Radioactive waste results following the extensive processes involved in the production of energy by nuclear means. Waste presents itself through either low level waste (cloth contaminated with short-lived radiation) or high level waste (fission products and fuel cores). Since the waste is radioactive, it must be disposed of properly and safely. Both proponents and opponents view the issue of nuclear waste as an inevitable question that must be answered. Where should the waste be securely stored or disposed of, and is it really safe?

After the processes of producing nuclear energy, fuel and other involved objects become contaminated with radioactivity. "A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually." (Lai) This fact, combined with the long period of time for radioactive material to naturally decay to a safe level of radioactivity makes nuclear waste a costly feature of nuclear energy production. Taking hundreds of thousands of years to decay, opponents of nuclear fuel do not suppose that waste can ever be disposed of properly, especially with factors of location, transportation, safety, and security that must be taken into account when storing waste. But however long nuclear waste takes to decay, procedures of containment are already present in the industry.

There currently exist several methods of secure storage and management of nuclear waste. The first is vitrification, where the waste is immobilized as a glass-like solid, free of any threat to contaminating water or soil. However, this process just immobilizes the waste and does not remove it completely. Ion exchange may also be used to reduce the level of radioactivity present in the waste. (Radioactive Waste) In terms of long term management of nuclear waste, the main forms include spent fuel pools, dry storage, and geological disposal. Spent fuel pools hold used fuel rods in water to cool the fuel and shield it from radiation for years. Following this process, the waste is put into dry cask storage where the steel and/or concrete container that surrounds the fuel rods is virtually leak-free and entirely radiation-shielding. Geological disposal by burying the waste for years until it decays remains another option. However, this form of management meets much opposition, as transportation and security of such a location is dangerous and costly. In the US, for example, the Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been proposed for years, but transportation dangers and heavy opposition from concerned citizens have stalled progress into making the site a reality for waste disposal. (Lai)

Opponents argue that "currently no options have been able to demonstrate that waste will remain isolated from the environment over the tens to hundreds of thousands of years." Geological disposal is still a hotly contested issue, and presently, dry cask storage and vitrification remain the only feasible methods of management accepted by society. The issues of transporting and isolating waste can be solved by improving containers and keeping it in one area. The thick concrete and metal that make up dry storage containers have been consistently proven to shield radioactivity and remain intact and leak-free after damage. Nuclear waste is a dangerous threat to society, but such measures taken so far to contain radioactivity have been at least adequate. The issue of waste management will persist through the nuclear energy industry for quite some time, and while opponents and proponents continue to debate for an appropriate solution, the waste will sit idly by and slowly decay through its natural course.

Safety, Security, and Nuclear Terrorism.

Ranch Seco Nuclear Generation Station, Ione, California, USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:100_1220.JPG

The public has a perception of nuclear power plants as dangerous, unreliable beasts to be avoided and discouraged. But a closer look at the facts tell a vastly different tale of the safety and security of Nuclear Generation Stations. Incidents such as Three-Mile Island have been in a large part responsible for this twisted public vision of nuclear power; an analysis of the actual circumstances and outcomes of such an event in the context of safety and security are enlightening. Thus, we now delve into a situation that occurred on March 20, 1978 at Rancho Seco Nuclear Generation Station, outside of Sacramento, California.

The incident begins with the operator in the control room changing burnt-out light bulbs on the main control console. A bulb accidentally slips from the operator’s hands and fall back into the hole on the console, where it creates a short in the Control Room’s electrical circuits. The operator and his fellows see this and immediately act to rectify the problem. Thinking everything is back to normal, they resume normal plant operations. Later, the power supply of a very pump fails, resulting in a loss of main feedwater to the reactor. Instrumentation in the control room, damaged by the earlier short circuit, falsely indicates the steam generator has enough water in it to maintain safe pressures; no action is taken to activate secondary heat control pumps, and the generator suffers a complete dry-out. This quickly could have led to a core meltdown and a catastrophic release of nuclear radiation into the surrounding area, if the control personnel had not been alerted by another redundant, properly functioning warning system⁵.

The ultimate outcome of this incident was the addition of a light-bulb changing safety protocol that included temporarily plugging the hole with a piece of foam rubber to prevent a short circuit like the one the control room experienced, as well as a review of the operations procedures and protocols already in place to ensure such an incident never occurred again. And

the fact that no disaster occurred is a testament to the safety of the plant, and of the safety of nuclear power in general. “The operators followed their procedures exactly, and as a result the safety of the plant was never compromised,” said current Plant Manager Steve Redeker when asked about the incident⁵; he further stressed the redundancy and overlapping nature of the safety features of the Rancho Seco plant, and of nuclear plants in general.

The positive outcome of this event, which resulted in the spread of the new safety protocols to Nuclear Generation Stations across the globe, is typical of these incidents. Only once in the history of civilian nuclear power has an incident been directly responsible for the loss of human life on a large scale, and the mistakes learned there have been ingrained into the operations and design of all existing nuclear power plants. The knowledge gained from each incident only increases the safety of the world’s Nuclear Generation Stations; the design precautions and operating procedures, when correctly followed, create some of the world’s safest running power plants.

Of growing concern to the public, however, is the possibility of nuclear terrorism, and the security of Nuclear Generation Stations to guard against it. And indeed, Nuclear Generation

Stations take security very seriously. Mr. Redeker couldn’t even give specifics when asked about Rancho Seco, a decommissioned nuclear station, and its security forces. “Well we have guys with big, black guns on duty twenty four-seven. Beyond that I can’t say anything,” he finally stated⁵. The personnel and equipment present on station just to guard spent fuel in dry storage is miniscule compared to the full complement of forces at a plant with an on-line reactor. Such plants also run live simulations and invader scenarios, which Mr. Redeker affectionately called “cops and robbers” games, in order to train for possible intrusions by terrorists for theft of nuclear materials or planting explosives. In those cases the security of plants seems exceedingly

well prepared. But the more popular scenario would not be an intrusion by a well trained terrorist squad; in a post-9/11 world, the most common vision the public have is the image of a plane flying into the reactor building of a nuclear station. Indeed, this can even be seen in a video “scare ad” on the Greenpeace website⁶. But again, public fear is unfounded. The containment structures present at most modern reactors, including every American reactor, are strong enough to survive a direct hit from an airliner and maintain perfect containment of the reactor. Designed with huge reinforcing steel, and multiple post-tensioning support systems, the thick concrete is more than a match for the light, weak aluminum and carbon fiber bodies of modern jets. According to Mr. Redeker, even a direct hit with the heavier, more massive engine of a 747 (a very difficult task indeed) couldn’t breach containment. Thus, nuclear power plants have a much greater level of safety and security than the public appreciates.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Credit: Mendoza, Rene 2008

Works Cited

"Atoms For Peace." Historical Speeches. International Atomic Energy Agency. 20 Mar 2008 <http://www.iaea.org/About/history_speech.html>.

Lai, Leslie. "Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet." Issues: Nuclear Energy & Waste (2008) 15 Mar 2008

<http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/start/fact

sheet_ne&w.htm>.

"Nations on the Threshold." Atomic Archive. 2006. 17 Mar 2008 <http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page24.shtml>.

"North Korea Stands Fast On Nuclear Energy Use." Washingtonpost.com. 09 Sep 2005. The Washington Post. 11 Mar 2008 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090802088.html>.

"Nuclear Power." Nuclear 15 Mar 2008 <http://cr.middlebury.edu/es/altenergylife/nuclear.htm>.

"Nuclear Power." Nuclear Power 15 Mar 2008

<http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/l/alt198/nuclear.htm>.

"Nuclear Power." Nuclear Power (2008) 15 Mar 2008

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Debate_on_nuclear_power>.

Nuclear Weapons Free Zones." Fact Sheets. Arms Control Organization. 18 Mar 2008 <http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nwfz.asp>.

"Radioactive Waste." Radioactive Waste 23 Mar 2008 24 Mar 2008

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Types_of_radioactive_waste>.

Redeker, Steve. Personal interview. 14 Mar 2008.

Robinson, Berol. "The Benefits of Nuclear Energy." The Benefits of Nuclear Energy (2008) 15

Mar 2008 <http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:kQxjlrNVDFIJ:www.ecolo.org/

documents/documents_in_englishBenefitsOfNuclearEnergy.doc+benefits+of+nuclear+e

ergy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us>.

Stone, Jon. "Nuclear Energy & Society." Nuclear Energy (2008) 15 Mar 2008

<http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm>.

"States with Nuclear Weapons." Wikipedia. 12 Feb 2008. Wikipedia. 20 Mar 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons >.

"Tracking Nuclear Proliferation." The Online News Hour. PBS. 12 Mar 2008 <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/military/proliferation/profiles.html>.

"Waste." Greenpeace International (2008) 15 Mar 2008

<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear/waste>.

"World Nuclear Reactors." UIC. 14 Jan 2008. 10 Mar 2008 <http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm>.