[Please read the disclaimer and conditions at the end of this post.]

NUCLEAR POWER IS DIRTY, DANGEROUS AND EXPENSIVE

[Please read the disclaimer and conditions at the end of this post.]

NUCLEAR POWER IS DIRTY, DANGEROUS AND EXPENSIVE

Forwarded message from "Richard Moore" <r...@quaylargo.com>

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive

Saturday, January 19, 2008

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=3D19

Saskatchewan's critical choice

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive =A0and it
won't solve global warming either.

By Jim Harding
Monday, January 14, 2008

The world can no longer ignore the steadily mounting
evidence that we must quickly replace greenhouse gas (GHG)
emitting fuels (coal, oil, gas) as our main energy source
if we are to avert catastrophic climate change.

Nukes: to reduce coal-fired plants' GHGs yet meet
anticipated demand, a new nuclear power plant would have to
be built somewhere in the world every 15 days.

Three criteria can help steer the decisions about this
urgent conversion to sustainable energy.

First, new energy systems must significantly reduce the
GHGs emitted: we must move to low or, preferably, no-carbon
energy sources.

Second, the new energy systems must not create other
environmental or peace and security issues: they must be
ecologically and socially sustainable. As part of this they
must be much more egalitarian.

And third, the new energy systems must be able to rapidly
enter the market and be cost effective.

Before we apply these criteria to nuclear, it is vital to
understand the makeup and sources of GHGs. Carbon dioxide
(CO2) accounts for three-quarters (76 percent) of them, so
reducing CO2 is fundamental to any strategy for averting
extreme climate change. However, only one-third of the CO2
comes from electrical power plants =A0mostly from coal. The
other two-thirds come from transportation (mostly cars and
trucks) and from buildings, including factories and home
heating. The rest of the GHGs come from methane (13
percent), nitrous oxide (5 percent) and fluorocarbons,
which includes the ozone-depleters.

When anyone proposes nuclear replacing coal as a magic
bullet for global warming they are therefore only
addressing one-quarter of the sources of GHGs. We have to
assess nuclear's capability in this context of reducing
GHGs from electrical power plants, which must include doing
cost and risk comparisons with other sources of electricity
such as efficiency, wind and solar (photovoltaic) energy.

The myth of clean nuclear energy

The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) aggressively
promotes nuclear as "clean". Since the nuclear fuel system
produces cancer-causing radiation from uranium tailings to
spent fuel this is clearly untrue. Recent research
(accepted by the international radiation monitoring body,
and reported in its BEIR VII report), has confirmed there
is no safe level of radiation.

By using the word "clean", the CNA clearly wants us to
believe that nuclear doesn't produce GHGs. There is some
trickery here, as it is true that the nuclear power plant
does not release GHGs. But the overall assertion is untrue.

The nuclear industry is extremely energy-intensive, using
massive GHG-producing fossil fuels =A0from mining and milling
to enriching uranium, to constructing and decommissioning
huge nuclear power plants, to transporting and storing
nuclear wastes.

Saskatchewan is now the biggest uranium-producing region in
the world. Half of its exports go to the US, where uranium
is enriched using two dirty coal-fired plants at Paducah,
Kentucky. According to the US Department of Energy the most
potent of the GHGs =A0the otherwise banned ozone-depleting
CFC 114 =A0continues to be released through this uranium
enrichment.

Weighing carbon emissions

Though not at all "clean", nuclear is a lower-carbon fuel
than coal, which presently produces 64 percent of global
electricity. What kind of expansion in nuclear would be
required to make a significant global dint in the emissions
of GHGs from these power plants?

Two global scenarios have recently been studied, both
assuming a growth of electricity of 2.1 percent per year.
First, a 2003 MIT study looked at the impact of a three-
fold increase in nuclear electrical capacity =A0to 1,000
Gigawatts (GW) =A0by 2050.

Taking into account shut-downs of aging, ever more
dangerous, nuclear plants, this scenario would require that
a new nuclear power plant be built somewhere every 15 days
from 2010 to 2050. And even if this were accomplished
(hypothetically), electricity from nuclear would still only
grow from 16 percent to 20 percent of global electrical
production (and from 5 percent to 6 percent of total energy
use). Worse, GHGs would continue to rise.

This totally unrealistic scenario clearly shows that
nuclear is not a magic bullet for global warming. It should
therefore be rejected outright as a policy option. We'd end
up with more radioactive contamination and still not
curtail the rise in GHGs. This is going from the frying pan
of global warming into the nuclear fire.

The second scenario, studied by Brice Smith for his 2006
book, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear
Power to Combat Global Warming, makes the same assumptions
as the MIT study, except it calculates the number of
nuclear power plants required to bring GHGs from power
plants to 2000 levels by 2050. This scenario would require
about 2,500 GW of nuclear electricity (or a seven-fold
expansion) and would see nuclear playing the same relative
role as coal does today.

However, if the first scenario is unrealistic, this one is
delusional, for it would require more than one nuclear
plant being built somewhere every week. This is simply not
going to happen.

These two scenarios confirm earlier work by energy analyst
Charles Komanoff and the US-based Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS). They show the nuclear option fails to
meet the first criterion of being capable of reducing GHGs
even in the one area of power plants.

The danger is that immense nuclear propaganda will blind
decision-makers in their desperate search for a magic
bullet. Then nuclear will be embraced for political-
economic reasons, and =A0worse =A0distract decision-makers and
public from the urgent task at hand.

This approach is apparent in both the Federal Conservative
Government that wants nuclear to help produce heavy oil,
the dirtiest of all fossil fuels =A0so much for the magic
bullet =A0and the Saskatchewan NDP Government, that just
doesn't seem to "get it" that nuclear is not sustainable
development in either the economic or ecological sense.

Nuclear energy comes with its own risks

Nuclear cannot realistically reduce GHGs, but any expansion
of nuclear power would increase the chance of a
catastrophic nuclear accident and the dangers of
accumulating nuclear wastes and proliferation. Therefore,
nuclear totally fails on the second criterion, of
sustainability and environmental sensitivity.

Smith estimates that the chances of a nuclear accident
occurring in the US by 2050 are 75 percent with the MIT
scenario, and 90 percent with his own. This is not
reassuring. He rightly points out that a major nuclear
accident would increase global opposition to further
nuclear expansion. We'd be back to the drawing board for
solutions to climate change, while being still further
along the extreme climate change scenario.

Global warming makes nuclear power even more dangerous, due
to the importance of its coolant system to avert a
meltdown. As the Saskatchewan Environmental Society (SES)
said in its 2006 pamphlet: "During France's heat wave in
2003, engineers told the government they could no longer
guarantee the safety of the country's 58 nuclear plants.
This kind of problem will likely become more common with
climate change."

Lest we forget, the nuclear fuel going into all these
French reactors, which could contaminate Europe if any of
them were to melt down, comes from Northern Saskatchewan,
where the huge French nuclear conglomerate Areva (Cogema)
operates. If (when?) a nuclear accident happens in France,
or another country depending on Saskatchewan uranium such
as Japan or the US, what will we say? Will the very short-
term economic benefits here have been worth the loss of
arable land and death and suffering of so many others
elsewhere?

The case against nuclear grows the more nuclear amnesia is
challenged. If nuclear were to expand there would be a
steady accumulation of deadly nuclear wastes, such as
plutonium, which is toxic for 8000 generations. The
scenarios of global nuclear growth discussed above would
require the building of a permanent storage site every 3 to
5 12 years.

Repositories for nuclear wastes =A0deposits in geologically
stable mines =A0have been talked about since 1957. But, as
Smith points out, "not one spent fuel rod has yet been
permanently disposed of anywhere in the world." This is the
same system that the AECL and Nuclear Waste Management
Organization (NWMO) are presently lobbying First Nations
bands about in Northern Saskatchewan and elsewhere.

Nuclear power plants are not economic

These reasons are more than enough for any reasonable and
compassionate person to support a sustainable, renewable
energy system that addresses global warming, and, in the
process, phases-out nuclear energy. But there is more.

At its peak, even with huge subsidies, France, the country
most dependent on nuclear-generated electricity (80
percent), only built a few reactors a year. It is obviously
not economically realistic to consider a nuclear power
plant being built every week. Not only would this divert
labour and capital from making the quick transition to
sustainable, renewable energy, but the world's financiers
are generally not predisposed to nuclear's costly and risky
technology. Without government legislation (eg Canada's
Nuclear Liability Act) that protects the nuclear industry
from liability in the case of multi-billion dollar
accidents, the industry wouldn't even be in the energy
market.

Nuclear, therefore, fails on the third criterion, of cost
effectiveness and flexibility.

Cost ...

read more =BB

Nukes: to reduce coal-fired plants' GHGs yet meet
anticipated demand, a new nuclear power plant would have to
be built somewhere in the world every 15 days.

[Please read the disclaimer and conditions at the end of this post.]

NUCLEAR POWER IS DIRTY, DANGEROUS AND EXPENSIVE

Forwarded message from "Richard Moore" <r...@quaylargo.com>

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive

Saturday, January 19, 2008

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=19

Saskatchewan's critical choice

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive and it
won't solve global warming either.

By Jim Harding
Monday, January 14, 2008

The world can no longer ignore the steadily mounting
evidence that we must quickly replace greenhouse gas (GHG)
emitting fuels (coal, oil, gas) as our main energy source
if we are to avert catastrophic climate change.

Nukes: to reduce coal-fired plants' GHGs yet meet
anticipated demand, a new nuclear power plant would have to
be built somewhere in the world every 15 days.

Three criteria can help steer the decisions about this
urgent conversion to sustainable energy.

First, new energy systems must significantly reduce the
GHGs emitted: we must move to low or, preferably, no-carbon
energy sources.

Second, the new energy systems must not create other
environmental or peace and security issues: they must be
ecologically and socially sustainable. As part of this they
must be much more egalitarian.

And third, the new energy systems must be able to rapidly
enter the market and be cost effective.

Before we apply these criteria to nuclear, it is vital to
understand the makeup and sources of GHGs. Carbon dioxide
(CO2) accounts for three-quarters (76 percent) of them, so
reducing CO2 is fundamental to any strategy for averting
extreme climate change. However, only one-third of the CO2
comes from electrical power plants mostly from coal. The
other two-thirds come from transportation (mostly cars and
trucks) and from buildings, including factories and home
heating. The rest of the GHGs come from methane (13
percent), nitrous oxide (5 percent) and fluorocarbons,
which includes the ozone-depleters.

When anyone proposes nuclear replacing coal as a magic
bullet for global warming they are therefore only
addressing one-quarter of the sources of GHGs. We have to
assess nuclear's capability in this context of reducing
GHGs from electrical power plants, which must include doing
cost and risk comparisons with other sources of electricity
such as efficiency, wind and solar (photovoltaic) energy.

The myth of clean nuclear energy

The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) aggressively
promotes nuclear as "clean". Since the nuclear fuel system
produces cancer-causing radiation from uranium tailings to
spent fuel this is clearly untrue. Recent research
(accepted by the international radiation monitoring body,
and reported in its BEIR VII report), has confirmed there
is no safe level of radiation.

By using the word "clean", the CNA clearly wants us to
believe that nuclear doesn't produce GHGs. There is some
trickery here, as it is true that the nuclear power plant
does not release GHGs. But the overall assertion is untrue.

The nuclear industry is extremely energy-intensive, using
massive GHG-producing fossil fuels from mining and milling
to enriching uranium, to constructing and decommissioning
huge nuclear power plants, to transporting and storing
nuclear wastes.

Saskatchewan is now the biggest uranium-producing region in
the world. Half of its exports go to the US, where uranium
is enriched using two dirty coal-fired plants at Paducah,
Kentucky. According to the US Department of Energy the most
potent of the GHGs the otherwise banned ozone-depleting
CFC 114 continues to be released through this uranium
enrichment.

Weighing carbon emissions

Though not at all "clean", nuclear is a lower-carbon fuel
than coal, which presently produces 64 percent of global
electricity. What kind of expansion in nuclear would be
required to make a significant global dint in the emissions
of GHGs from these power plants?

Two global scenarios have recently been studied, both
assuming a growth of electricity of 2.1 percent per year.
First, a 2003 MIT study looked at the impact of a three-
fold increase in nuclear electrical capacity to 1,000
Gigawatts (GW) by 2050.

Taking into account shut-downs of aging, ever more
dangerous, nuclear plants, this scenario would require that
a new nuclear power plant be built somewhere every 15 days
from 2010 to 2050. And even if this were accomplished
(hypothetically), electricity from nuclear would still only
grow from 16 percent to 20 percent of global electrical
production (and from 5 percent to 6 percent of total energy
use). Worse, GHGs would continue to rise.

This totally unrealistic scenario clearly shows that
nuclear is not a magic bullet for global warming. It should
therefore be rejected outright as a policy option. We'd end
up with more radioactive contamination and still not
curtail the rise in GHGs. This is going from the frying pan
of global warming into the nuclear fire.

The second scenario, studied by Brice Smith for his 2006
book, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear
Power to Combat Global Warming, makes the same assumptions
as the MIT study, except it calculates the number of
nuclear power plants required to bring GHGs from power
plants to 2000 levels by 2050. This scenario would require
about 2,500 GW of nuclear electricity (or a seven-fold
expansion) and would see nuclear playing the same relative
role as coal does today.

However, if the first scenario is unrealistic, this one is
delusional, for it would require more than one nuclear
plant being built somewhere every week. This is simply not
going to happen.

These two scenarios confirm earlier work by energy analyst
Charles Komanoff and the US-based Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS). They show the nuclear option fails to
meet the first criterion of being capable of reducing GHGs
even in the one area of power plants.

The danger is that immense nuclear propaganda will blind
decision-makers in their desperate search for a magic
bullet. Then nuclear will be embraced for political-
economic reasons, and worse distract decision-makers and
public from the urgent task at hand.

This approach is apparent in both the Federal Conservative
Government that wants nuclear to help produce heavy oil,
the dirtiest of all fossil fuels so much for the magic
bullet and the Saskatchewan NDP Government, that just
doesn't seem to "get it" that nuclear is not sustainable
development in either the economic or ecological sense.

Nuclear energy comes with its own risks

Nuclear cannot realistically reduce GHGs, but any expansion
of nuclear power would increase the chance of a
catastrophic nuclear accident and the dangers of
accumulating nuclear wastes and proliferation. Therefore,
nuclear totally fails on the second criterion, of
sustainability and environmental sensitivity.

Smith estimates that the chances of a nuclear accident
occurring in the US by 2050 are 75 percent with the MIT
scenario, and 90 percent with his own. This is not
reassuring. He rightly points out that a major nuclear
accident would increase global opposition to further
nuclear expansion. We'd be back to the drawing board for
solutions to climate change, while being still further
along the extreme climate change scenario.

Global warming makes nuclear power even more dangerous, due
to the importance of its coolant system to avert a
meltdown. As the Saskatchewan Environmental Society (SES)
said in its 2006 pamphlet: "During France's heat wave in
2003, engineers told the government they could no longer
guarantee the safety of the country's 58 nuclear plants.
This kind of problem will likely become more common with
climate change."

Lest we forget, the nuclear fuel going into all these
French reactors, which could contaminate Europe if any of
them were to melt down, comes from Northern Saskatchewan,
where the huge French nuclear conglomerate Areva (Cogema)
operates. If (when?) a nuclear accident happens in France,
or another country depending on Saskatchewan uranium such
as Japan or the US, what will we say? Will the very short-
term economic benefits here have been worth the loss of
arable land and death and suffering of so many others
elsewhere?

The case against nuclear grows the more nuclear amnesia is
challenged. If nuclear were to expand there would be a
steady accumulation of deadly nuclear wastes, such as
plutonium, which is toxic for 8000 generations. The
scenarios of global nuclear growth discussed above would
require the building of a permanent storage site every 3 to
5 12 years.

Repositories for nuclear wastes deposits in geologically
stable mines have been talked about since 1957. But, as
Smith points out, "not one spent fuel rod has yet been
permanently disposed of anywhere in the world." This is the
same system that the AECL and Nuclear Waste Management
Organization (NWMO) are presently lobbying First Nations
bands about in Northern Saskatchewan and elsewhere.

Nuclear power plants are not economic

These reasons are more than enough for any reasonable and
compassionate person to support a sustainable, renewable
energy system that addresses global warming, and, in the
process, phases-out nuclear energy. But there is more.

At its peak, even with huge subsidies, France, the country
most dependent on nuclear-generated electricity (80
percent), only built a few reactors a year. It is obviously
not economically realistic to consider a nuclear power
plant being built every week. Not only would this divert
labour and capital from making the quick transition to
sustainable, renewable energy, but the world's financiers
are generally not predisposed to nuclear's costly and risky
technology. Without government legislation (eg Canada's
Nuclear Liability Act) that protects the nuclear industry
from liability in the case of multi-billion dollar
accidents, the industry wouldn't even be in the energy
market.

Nuclear, therefore, fails on the third criterion, of cost
effectiveness and flexibility.

Cost comparisons of nuclear vs sustainable, renewable
alternatives should put the final nail in the nuclear
coffin. While the nuclear industry says new reactors could
produce electricity for 6-7 cents per kWh, these estimates
depend on the nuclear industry continuing to be heavily
subsidized by the taxpayer.

When the cost of borrowing money is factored in, Ontario's
Energy Probe estimates that subsidies to the AECL total
around $75 billion. Several studies (eg reported in New
Scientist, and discussed in Helen Caldicott's new book)
have shown that without these direct and hidden subsidies,
the cost of nuclear would increase three-fold (ie 300
percent) to the consumer. This holds true for Ontario Hydro
consumers, who suffer from a serious case of "nuclear
dependence", which has created a public debt of $35
billion.

Even without a level playing field, energy efficiency, co-
generation and wind are already cheaper than nuclear (or
coal) at 4-6 cents per kWh. According to Amory Lovins of
the Rocky Mountain Institute, renewable energy, worldwide,
has already passed nuclear as a source of electricity (20
percent to 16 percent). This increase in renewables is
partly due to wind, biomass and solar power, but is also
due to co-generation from waste heat. Wave (tidal) power
will soon accelerate this trend.

In 2004 small-scale renewables added 6 times the capacity
to generate electricity and 3 times the electrical output
as did nuclear. According to the SES, by 2010, "renewable
energy is projected to outstrip nuclear power's energy
output by 43 percent globally".

While Saskatchewan's NDP government has made an important
step towards supporting wind power, its policies hold back
decentralized energy production (we need net-metering) and
still emphasize an economy based on exporting polluting and
toxic non-renewables such as uranium and oil. (In 2003, 78
percent of the primary energy exported from Saskatchewan
came from uranium; 20 percent came from fossil fuels.) We
are quickly becoming known as the main world region for
exporting radioactivity (uranium) as well as having
Canada's highest per capita GHGs emissions.

A costly way to create jobs

All aspects of economics, including job-creation, go
against nuclear. Nuclear is extremely capital-intensive.
Even including its front-end uranium mining, nuclear
produces very little employment per amount invested.

Each job in uranium mining involves $750,000 or more of
capital. Uranium mining has delivered a pittance of the
royalties originally promised to the province and one-half
of the jobs promised to northern Indigenous people. And it
is making the North a Nuclear Sacrificial Area.

Meanwhile, study after study has confirmed that a renewable
energy sector produces many more jobs. Wind, like solar,
produces five times as much employment as nuclear per
amount invested. Yet, according to the Federation of
Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), SaskPower turned down a
request to partner on a wind farm with a northern Band.

Co-op wind farms in rural Saskatchewan should also be
encouraged.

Since Germany decided to phase out nuclear power, renewable
energy there has grown to provide 250,000 jobs. Solar
energy is beginning to replace fossil fuel generated
electricity and lower GHGs and it is expected to produce
200,000 jobs by 2020. By then 27 percent of Germany's
electricity will come from renewables.

Furthermore, Germany's quick transition from nuclear to
renewables shows how important it is to resist
privatization of public utilities here and elsewhere.
Unlike places like New Zealand, which privatized
electricity during its neo-liberal days, Germany was able
to pass legislation in 2000 that provides cash incentives
for shifting to renewable energy, which has made a dramatic
difference.

Consumers can feed back energy into the power grid. Power
companies must pay 49 cents a kWh to buy solar electricity
for the grid. This cost still saves them money, compared to
the capital costs of nuclear or coal plants and the
projected costs of climate change.

Meanwhile Saskatchewan asks consumers to pay extra for
"Green" Wind Power. We clearly have to get serious and not
just engage in a face-lift on an unsustainable and
dangerous non-renewable energy policy.

Saskatchewan has an important choice to make over the near
future. Will Cameco, Cogema and the ill-informed Saskatoon
Chamber of Commerce, with its amoral approach to economic
development, prevail? Will Saskatchewan expand the costly
and dangerous nuclear fuel system with a uranium refinery
and perhaps a nuclear waste dump? Will it support nuclear
power for the tar sands?

As we've seen, going nuclear will do nothing to avert
global warming, though some big business would make huge
profits. However, this approach would divert capital and
labour from truly making the urgent conversion to a
sustainable, renewable energy system.

Perhaps the most vital consideration of all is that
wholeheartedly embracing nuclear energy will condemn future
generations to accumulating radioactive weapons and wastes
while failing to help make the necessary transition needed
to avert catastrophic climate change. This would be a
double-whammy for our children's children.

Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and
justice studies who gardens, writes and hosts retreat-
workshops for activists on the Crows Nest Ecology Preserve
in the Qu'Appelle Valley. He presently teaches a class on
"Ecology and Justice" as an Adjunct Professor at the
University of Regina and is active with the Ecumenical
Coalition KAIROS in its campaign for a just and sustainable
energy policy.

References: Brice Smith, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers
of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Warming. (IEER
Press, 2006); Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not The
Answer, (The New Press, 2006); and, Jim Harding, Canada's
Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear
System, (Fernwood, 2007).

Jim Harding, PhD, and author of Canada's Deadly Secret:
Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, will be
in the Ottawa region the week of January 21, 2008 making
stops in Ottawa, Wakefield, Perth and Carleton Place. He
will address the implications of potential uranium mining
in eastern Ontario and West Quebec. For more info, see
website below.

Related addresses:

know-uranium.org/Jim_Harding_Event/

Newslog archives:

http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?lists=newslog

Escaping the Matrix website:

http://escapingthematrix.org/

cyberjournal website:

http://cyberjournal.org

How We the People can change the world:

http://governourselves.blogspot.com/

The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7693

Community Democracy Framework:

http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/

End of forwarded message from "Richard Moore" <r...@quaylargo.com>

Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museumhttp://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophyhttp://www.hindu.orghttp://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslimshttp://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.