The DOE has authorized a doubling of the amount of plutonium allowed at the Livermore Lab.

Quick background: The Livermore lab has a long history of leaks, spills, and accidents. Livermore is a Congressional Superfund Site, marking it as one of the most contaminated cities in the United States. Plutonium is the most radioactive substance known to man. One microscopic particle, if inhaled, can cause lung cancer -- not to mention countless other diseases.

The DOE's primary justification for this decision is that it is necessary for carrying out the Livermore lab's "Stockpile Stewardship Program" operations. Some bigger questions to consider are: What is the actual purpose of the Stockpile Stewardship Program (hint: the US is now manufacturing new plutonium bomb cores)? If the Stockpile Stewardship Program were what it claims to be on the surface (a way to "manage" the US' present nuclear weapons stockpile), why would it be necessary to expand nuclear activities at the lab? Does the Stockpile Stewardship Program constitute a legitimate use of resources?

For more information, I recommend you check out the Tri-Valley CAREs Web site. In the meantime, here's an op-ed that was featured in the December 8 Livermore Independent...

Nuclear Expansion Okayed

The National Nuclear Security Administration has approved increased plutonium and tritium limits at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Experiments at the National Ignition Facility using materials such as uranium and thorium have also been approved. All in all, the decision provides for a major expansion of nuclear activity at the Lab.

Opposition groups are undertaking a detailed legal analysis of the decision, focusing on whether the impacts on nuclear proliferation and the environment were adequately addressed. They believe there [are] grounds
for a lawsuit.

"Today's decision puts the entire Bay Area at risk," said attorney Loulena Miles. "The DOE received 9000 public comments opposing increases in nuclear materials, as well as the new weapons activities these radioactive materials will support."

The government cited national security as the rationale for the decision. In our opinion, this decision will serve to boost nuclear proliferation, not national security. The world is likely to be less secure in the long run.