8.7 C
London
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Home Tags New Mexico

Tag: New Mexico

"These devices are incredibly invasive and the government isnrsquo;t being transparent."
Shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant will ramp up in frequency through 2017.
In test of eleven products, a fogger and DEET worked, herbs and citronella didn’t.
President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency wants to create a massive surveillance database by resurrecting a U.S. telephone records collection program, but some senators questioned what limits he would accept. CIA nominee Mike Pompeo, currently a Republican representative from Kansas, has called on Congress to reverse its mid-2015 decision to rein in the phone metadata collection program run by the National Security Agency, a sister agency to the CIA that focuses on signals intelligence. Congress should allow surveillance agencies to collect “all metadata” and combine it with “publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database,” Pompeo said in an opinion piece he co-authored in January 2016. Senators questioned that position during a confirmation hearing Thursday. “So you basically would get the Congress and the country back in the business of collecting millions and millions of phone records from law-abiding people,” said Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat. “You would be in favor of a new law collecting all this new data collecting information about the personal lives of our people.” Wyden pressed Pompeo for his proposed limits on such a database. “Are there any boundaries, in your view, to something this sweeping?” Pompeo avoided describing limits, other than saying the 2015 USA Freedom Act now prohibits a metadata collection program in the U.S.
Intelligence agencies should do “all they can, in a lawful, constitutional manner to collect foreign intelligence important to keeping America safe,” he said. But a U.S. metadata collection program wouldn’t be foreign intelligence, Wyden said. He asked Pompeo what kind of financial and lifestyle information about U.S. residents would be targeted. Lawmakers and the U.S. public “demand” that intelligence agencies track threats, Pompeo said. “If there’s ... information someone has out there on a publicly available site, we have an obligation to use that information to keep Americans safe,” he said. “If someone’s out there on their Facebook page plotting an attack against America, I think you’d find the director of the Central Intelligence Agency grossly negligent if they didn’t pursue that information.” Senator Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, asked Pompeo if he planned, as CIA director, to recommend changes to the law to allow more U.S. surveillance. Pompeo said he had no plans to do so. A handful of senators also asked Pompeo his views on the public’s use of encryption, in light of Trump’s criticism of Apple for refusing to help the FBI unlock a mass shooter’s iPhone. Wyden asked if Pompeo would oppose Trump if the president calls for encryption back doors. “I take a backseat to no one in protecting American’s privacy,” Pompeo said.

But encryption is a “complicated issue,” he added. “I will do my best to understand what it means to the Central Intelligence Agency, what it means to our capacity to keep America safe, and I will represent its interests as my part of a larger effort to make sure we get that policy decision right.” Several senators also asked Pompeo if he believes the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign in an effort to sway the presidential election toward Trump. Trump questioned that conclusion for months. On Wednesday, he finally said he “thinks” the Russians were behind the election hacks and information leaks. Pompeo said he has no doubt it was the Russians. “It’s pretty clear about what took place here, about Russian involvement in efforts to hack information and to have an impact on American democracy,” he said. “This was an aggressive action taken by the senior leadership inside of Russian.”
VIDEO: Srinivas Mukkamala, CEO and Co-Founder of RiskSense explains his company's technology and approach to looking beyond just threat detection, to help improve security. There are many different companies in the security analytics space, each attemp...
Aurich Lawsonreader comments 37 Share this story Campaign 2016 State of the biggest, best union: Trump nightly webcast debuts tonight The next President will take power with significant space decisions looming Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump on science, energy, and the climate Clinton blasts Russian cyber-attacks as bid to install Trump as a “puppet” If elected, Clinton would support an “Encryption Commission” to help feds View more storiesIt's no secret that presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump cannot stomach one another; they seemingly disagree on most everything.

Before the last two presidential debates, they didn't even shake hands.

But even in this contentious election cycle, there's one thing these two (or four, if we're including the major third-parties) agree on... You have a right to marijuana for medical or recreational purposes. Where a president stands on marijuana means a lot, at least for those partaking in or profiting from the marijuana industry.

Today, the federal government still classifies marijuana as a controlled substance, the same category as heroin. Yet four states—Alaska Colorado, Oregon, Washington—allow recreational marijuana, a status directly in conflict with federal law. Luckily for those states, President Barack Obama's administration has mostly turned a blind eye.

The nation's next president, however, isn't obligated to follow suit. With the snap of presidential fingers, the new elect theoretically could demand federal authorities raid growers and dispensaries. In addition to the federal situation, citizens in California, Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada will go to the polls come Nov. 8 to choose whether to legalize recreational marijuana in those states.

And voters in Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota are being asked to permit medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

Altogether, 25 states already permit the medical use of marijuana. (Here are the texts of all the measures.) So for those invested in marijuana, this a particularly important vote. Marijuana support and opposition Current polls show that a majority of Americans support ending marijuana prohibition.

A Gallup poll released Oct. 21 showed that 58 percent of those surveyed supported legalizing marijuana in some degree.

That's up from 48 percent between 2010-2012. However, neither major party candidate—Trump and Clinton—has highlighted marijuana as a key component of their campaigns. Enlarge Justin Sullivan/Getty Images To be sure, marijuana is a multi-billion-dollar business with an estimated worth of $7.1 billion, so naturally big companies want in.

Thus far, Microsoft is one of the marquee names to enter the arena, marketing software to track marijuana from "seed to sale." There are also lesser known companies like Hound Labs in Oakland, California.

That organization wants to offer a so-called roadside breathylizer for marijuana. To summarize the general arguments swirling around marijuana, looking to the individual state battles can be illuminating.

California is the nation's biggest marijuana market to already legalize medical use.

This election season, more than a dozen police associations in the state are urging voters to go against Proposition 64, a proposal for legalizing recreational use. On the flip side, the top financial backer of the measure is Sean Parker, the Napster founder and a former president of Facebook. He's helped raise $8.5 million for the cause. Those in favor argue Prop 64 would reduce California's overcrowded prisons and jails, give Californians freedom of choice, and provide tax money for, in the words of California Lt.

Gov.

Gavin Newsom, "important programs such as public safety." In contrast, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, representing some 7,900 CHP officers, says legalizing marijuana will cause more traffic deaths.

They point to things like a recent Colorado study suggesting the same conclusion: Recent numbers out of Colorado show that marijuana related traffic deaths have increased almost 50 percent since 2013 which is exactly why we strongly oppose Prop 64.

For the proponents of Prop 64 to say that they worked with law enforcement to craft this measure is misleading and when you see Colorado law enforcement asking for a timeout to deal with the problems they are facing it should give us all pause on this important issue. We will continue to educate media, local and state leaders, but most importantly we tell California voters that Prop 64 did NOT get it right. Organizations on both sides of these fights nationwide have talking points spanning health, addiction, intoxicated driving, crime, blight, justice, taxation—you name it.

Despite the interest, the two main party candidates haven't said very much on the topic no matter how it's presented. Clinton The Democratic candidate said in August she supports reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 2 drug, which would remove research barriers for medical use.
She said it was up to the states to decide their own marijuana laws without federal intervention. "I think what the states are doing right now needs to be supported, and I absolutely support all the states that are moving toward medical marijuana, moving toward—absolutely—legalizing it for recreational use," Clinton said on Jimmy Kimmel Live in March. "What I’ve said is let’s take it off the what’s called Schedule I and put it on a lower schedule so that we can actually do research about it.

There’s some great evidence about what marijuana can do for people who are in cancer treatment, who have other kind of chronic diseases, who are suffering from intense pain.

There’s great, great anecdotal evidence but I want us to start doing the research." Clinton's campaign website backs up those words. Trump The Republican candidate said in 1990 that he favored legalization of all drugs.
Speaking of the war on drugs at the time, he said, "You have to legalize drugs to win that war." Over time, Trump's thinking has apparently changed.
In October 2015, he was quoted in the Washington Post as saying: "In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state." But he told the O'Reilly Factor last February that "dealers" were going to "load up" on marijuana and sell it around the country if marijuana was legalized in Colorado. He told O'Reilly that he favored medical marijuana but not the recreational use of it. "I would really want to think about that one, Bill.

Because in some ways I think it’s good and in other ways it’s bad.
I do want to see what the medical effects are," he said. "I have to see what the medical effects are and, by the way—medical marijuana, medical? I’m in favor of it a 100 percent.

But what you are talking about, perhaps not.
It’s causing a lot of problems out there." Trump's campaign website is silent on the issue. Third-parties Given the need to make waves in order to increase the odds of election success, both third-party candidates have been happy to discuss the subject of marijuana.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein even supports nationwide medical and recreational use as part of her platform. "Make no mistake, ending marijuana prohibition would be a huge win for freedom and social justice, and a major step towards the just, Green future we deserve," she said in her campaign literature. "As President, one of my first actions would be to order the DEA and the Justice Department to cease and desist all attempts to harass or prosecute medical marijuana clinics or other legitimate marijuana-related businesses that are operating under state laws." Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, was once the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a marijuana firm.
So naturally, he favors the legalization of marijuana for both recreational and medical uses and would support federal research. His campaign website said that the Founding Fathers would be shocked "to learn that the government has decided it is appropriate to tell adults what they can put in their bodies—and even put them in jail for using marijuana, while allowing those same adults to consume alcohol and encouraging the medical profession to pump out addictive, deadly painkillers at will." As with all aspects of the coming election, marijuana usage has become a passionate debate.

The only certainty at the moment is that more is coming, and future presidential candidates likely won't have the option to remain mum.
According to the Department of Energy, this is an exploded waste drum in the dump. "Damage can be seen to the slip sheet on top of the waste container and there are remnants of a magnesium oxide bag also visible."Department of Energy reader comments 12 Share this story The Los Angeles Times is estimating that an explosion that occurred at a New Mexico nuclear waste dumping facility in 2014 could cost upwards of $2 billion to clean up. Construction began on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico's Carlsbad desert in the 1980s (PDF).

The site was built to handle transuranic waste from the US' nuclear weapons program.

The WIPP had been eyed to receive nuclear waste from commercial, power-generating plants as well. According to the LA Times, the 2014 explosion at the WIPP was downplayed by the federal government, with the Department of Energy (DoE) putting out statements indicating that cleanup was progressing quickly.
Indeed, a 2015 Recovery Plan insisted that "limited waste disposal operations" would resume in the first quarter of 2016.
Instead, two years have passed since the incident without any indication that smaller nuclear waste cleanup programs around the US will be able to deliver their waste to the New Mexico facility any time soon. Ars contacted the DoE for comment and has not received a response. We will update this article if we hear back. The 2014 explosion apparently occurred when engineers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory were preparing a drum of plutonium and americium waste—usually packed with kitty litter (yes, kitty litter)—and decided to "substitute an organic material for a mineral one." "The new material caused a complex chemical reaction that blew the lid off a drum, sending mounds of white, radioactive foam into the air and contaminating 35 percent of the underground area," the LA Times wrote.

The dump's filtration system, which was supposed to "prevent any radioactive releases," subsequently failed. No workers were in the shafts of the dump at the time. Workers on the surface were only exposed to low doses of radiation due to the HEPA filters in the ventilation system. Still, the dump site was set to receive another 277,000 drums of radioactive waste from around the country.

The congestion is now creating a costly problem. The federal government renewed its contract with dump operator Nuclear Waste Partnership to the tune of $640 million extra for cleanup.

That number could grow, especially as federal officials now say the contaminated ventilation system on the dump needs to be replaced—a project that will not be completed until 2021. Until then, the dump must remain open, but it can not accept nuclear waste at the rate it had planned.

The dump costs $500 million a year to remain open, the LA Times reported. Meanwhile, feds also have to pay to house the nuclear waste being stored at sites around the US (in Washington state and Idaho, for example) that's supposed to be on its way to the WIPP. While there may be cheaper solutions to the problem, the Department of Energy is under pressure to fix the New Mexico dump to make good on a US agreement with Russia to fulfill mutual reductions of plutonium. WIPP is currently the primary destination for weapons-grade nuclear waste.
If it closes, a likely expensive and time-consuming disposal alternative would have to be proposed. Edwin Lyman, a physicist and nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the LA Times that, "The decision means operations at the dump must resume.

They have no choice." That means that WIPP cleanup, including indefinite housing costs for nuclear waste around the country that was to be shipped to WIPP, could rank among the costliest nuclear waste cleanup efforts in US history, on par with clean up after Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island disaster in 1979.

Cleanup after that incident cost the federal government about $1 billion, or $1.7 billion adjusted for inflation.