<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Nuclear Watch Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog</link>
	<description>The Nuclear WatchBlog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 22:49:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>NukeWatch Comments on HASC&#8217;s Defense Authorisation Act FY2013</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1148</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1148#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 22:49:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[•  The Senate Armed Services Committee may oppose many of these measures in conference.
•  The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittees in both chambers may resist HASC trespassing on their turf.
•  DoD itself may be displeased with the earmarking of its money to support only the CMRR and the UPF, at the expense of Life Extension Programs.
•  In general, the House Defense Authorization Act could be seen as far too overreaching (e.g., the requirement for an East Coast ballistic missile defense site), largely as political posturing in an election year, and therefore subject to public backlash.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1148</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Action Alert! House Armed Services Committee to Vote on CMRR Nuclear Facility</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1144</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1144#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 17:29:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Santa Fe, May 4. Some members of Congress are currently pushing to build a huge plutonium facility for nuclear weapons at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, even though President Obama proposed postponing its construction for at least five years; on May 9, the House Armed Services Committee may vote to fund construction for next year. 
Please email your representative today and use the message below to ask him to oppose funding for this unnecessary nuclear weapons facility.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1144</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>After Fukushima and Chernobyl, Nuclear Industry Has Learned Nothing</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1137</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1137#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:37:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today is the 26th anniversary of the Chernobyl. It is a disaster that left a 30-kilometre uninhabitable exclusion zone, displaced hundreds of thousands of people, and still threatens the lives of tens of thousands... what have the nuclear industry and its supporters learned?
Nothing.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1137</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sandia Labs Performance Evaluation Report Released</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1135</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1135#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is the FY 2011 Performance Evaluation Report  for Sandia National Laboratories, which we received   three weeks after   the first first six PERs (without redactions).
We are puzzled now by the heavy redactions to the Sandia PER, which seem to cluster around reported deficiencies in performance. We are also puzzled by the National Nuclear Security Administration’s use of Freedom of Information Act exemption 7(e) [law enforcement] to justify these redactions, when to our knowledge the agency has used it only once before in 2005. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1135</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It is still annual compensation paid for by the taxpayers</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1125</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1125#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 22:37:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BigDawg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[LANL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press Releases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budget]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’d like to respond to the news stories out lately concerning the Director’s salary at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Following our press release Wednesday, the Lab released their reply. It was reported by both the Albuquerque Journal North and the LAMonitor. LANL Says Pension Boosted Director’s Compensation By Mark Oswald / Albuquerque Journal on <a href='http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1125'>[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1125</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Two Upcoming Events</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1122</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1122#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BigDawg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LANL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1122</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two upcoming events Sunday Mornings @ The Travel Bug April 22, Sunday, 11 am 839 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe Jay Coghlan, Executive Director Of Nuclear Watch New Mexico in Conversation with Michelle Victoria &#8211; NukeFreeNow on the work Jay has done over the last 22 years on nuclear safety and what Michelle is planning <a href='http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1122'>[more...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1122</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>POGO Releases Defense Dept. Memo that Points to Weaknesses of Energy Dept. Labs</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1119</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1119#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The internal DoD memo presents the arguments of a number of experts who have said that the DOE laboratories should downsize, rather than expand, their mission. Some of the arguments cited in the memo are:
DOE Labs Cost More than Other Labs
DOE’s Refusal to Downsize Contrasts with the DoD’s History of Downsizing
Previous Administrations Believed the DOE Lab Complex is "Bigger and More Expensive than it Should Be"
DOE Lab Directors’ Lobbying Has Pushed Lab Funding Above Cold War Levels]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1119</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leaked Defense Memo Criticizes the Department of Energy’s Push to Expand Nuclear Weapons Laboratories</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1116</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1116#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:54:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1116</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department of Energy’s network of privately-operated nuclear weapons laboratories are riddled with waste, redundancies and lackluster scientific standards, according to a leaked Department of Defense memo obtained by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO).
The Nov. 16 memo reflects the Department of Energy’s (DOE) refusal to downsize, despite the end of the Cold War. It presents the arguments of a number of experts who have said DOE’s laboratories should downsize, rather than expand their mission. It also compiles evidence of DOE’s ongoing efforts to circumvent the congressional appropriations process.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1116</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defense Dept. Memo Criticizes Cost of Nuclear Weapons Labs While Los Alamos Director’s Salary Nearly Triples</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1097</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1097#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:17:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BigDawg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[LANL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press Releases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1097</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nuclear Watch New Mexico had been independently compiling data on the salaries of the three laboratory directors, as presented in the table below. It shows that the salary of the Los Alamos Director has nearly tripled since for-profit management began in June 2006, even as the Lab is cutting some 600 jobs. As seen in the chart below, privatization of the nuclear weapons labs’ management contracts has resulted in directors’ salaries far above average in both the federal government and the private sector.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1097</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Do Taxpayers Have to Sue to Get Oversight of Nuclear Facilities?</title>
		<link>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1087</link>
		<comments>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1087#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:13:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[KCP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LANL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LLNL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N2S2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SNL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FOIA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?p=1087</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[POGO: "The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has just released the Performance Evaluation Reports (PER) for its eight nuclear weapons sites. But that's only thanks to the activist group Nuclear Watch New Mexico, who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for a FY2009 PER for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and then sued the agency for the report's release after its request was denied. The NNSA went ahead and gave Nuke Watch the FY2011 PERs that the group had also asked for through FOIA. These kinds of oversight reports are invaluable to the public, and we shouldn’t have to endure years of litigation to get them."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nukewatch.org/watchblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1087</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

