BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Research Reactors on College Campuses Are Still at Risk
Email
Print
ShareJuly 18, 2006 12:08 PM
Research nuclear reactors on 25 college campuses across the country are still at risk for would-be nuclear terrorists, according to this year's "Securing the Bomb 2006" report by Harvard nuclear experts Matthew Bunn and Anthony Wier.
Despite an ABC News investigation last year that revealed gaping holes in security at university research reactors, the report says the problems continue.
"U.S. HEU- [highy-enriched uranium] fueled research reactors regulated by the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission], however, continue to have minimal security measures in place," says the report.
The report, which mentions the ABC News investigation, also says that many of these research reactors are not given the funds they need to operate safely.
"Many research reactors were built thirty or more years ago; with reduced missions and limited prospects, many now have scant resources to continue safe operations or to pay for substantial security measures," says the report.
Last year, ABC News conducted an investigation with the help of the non-profit Carnegie Corporation. Ten graduate students were sent across the country to observe security procedures at the 25 college research reactors. The students observed gaping holes in security ranging from sleeping guards, to unmanned guard booths, to building doors propped open with text books.
College research reactors are smaller than the big nuclear power plants, but eight campuses use the highly-enriched, weapons-useable uranium, and all pose the potential of a dirty bomb scenario on a crowded campus.
The NRC tells ABC News today that it has "evaluated U.S. research and test reactor security and emergency plans, procedures and systems and has verified that appropriate security measures are in place to protect the public from theft and sabotage."
In a statement the NRC said, "The NRC continues to work with its reactor licensees and the Department of Homeland Security to identify and share good security practices. It is important to note that a number of reactors have taken security steps over and above those required by the NRC. The agency also continues to work with the Department of Energy and certain licensed facilities to encourage the conversion from highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium fuel and on the removal of HEU fuel from the facilities."
Read the full report, "Securing the Bomb 2006."
July 18, 2006 | Permalink | User Comments (4)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
This is just too scary! I'm sure that's why no one has posted on this topic yet.
I came across the online newsletter for the Biosafety Department for my local university and just reading about the radiation mishaps and biological agents being tracked from the workplace into worker's cars and homes left me wondering......how often are safety checks performed by outside agencies? What agency is in charge of biosafety inspections? Would it be the biosafety committee approved by the university board of trustees? Kind of like the fox watching the hen house, isn't it?
Posted by: Katherine | Jul 20, 2006 2:58:27 PM
Perhaps ABC will do a more accurate followup report than the original. After reviewing the reports, and following up personally with two of the university reactors maligned in the story, I feel the original report was meant to do nothing to enhance security, but rather sell "news."
Anything "nuclear" has the potential for causing alarm and distrust. Is it ethical to play on fears (based upon a lack of knowledge) to raise the "credibility" of one's reports?
There were so many errors and leaps of conjecture in the story it is impossible to address them in a blog. Do the research-- become informed about risk.
After all, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Posted by: Doug | Jul 27, 2006 8:53:05 AM
Last year's story was yellow journalism at its dirty best. ABC is simply trying to milk a weak, error-ridden story for all the scare value it is worth. Pathetic.
Posted by: Eric | Aug 16, 2006 3:14:37 PM
It's shameful that ABC news still refers to "gaping holes in security ranging from sleeping guards, to unmanned guard booths, to building doors propped open with text books." They were informed by the universities (and confirmed by the NRC) that those guards, booths, and doors had NOTHING to do with the research reactors. They were all at adjacent or nearby buidling unassociated with the reactor. They found NO security breaches at the reactors themselves.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 16, 2006 4:31:53 PM
Post a comment
