Recent Changes for "Nuclear Free Zone" - Davis Wiki

Nuclear Free Zone

JimStewart — 2009-11-10 11:57:30

Added cite

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 175:	Line 175:
	+ * Cite: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html?_r=1] --["Users/JimStewart"]

Nuclear Free Zone

JimStewart — 2009-08-27 13:06:08

spelling

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 174:	Line 174:
- ''2009-08-27 14:05:26'' [[nbsp]] After the Cold War, the US government purchased large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium from the remains of the Soviet Union. The purpose of his was to remove the material from poorly secured sites and prevent its diversion. The material was blended and processed into power reactor fuel and "burned" in US power reactors. Thus, in the realm of irony, Davis, by consuming the power produced by this plutonium may have violated Resolution 5115 by aiding in the disposing of nuclear weapons. --["Users/JimStewart"]	+ ''2009-08-27 14:05:26'' [[nbsp]] After the Cold War, the US government purchased large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium from the remains of the Soviet Union. The purpose of this was to remove the material from poorly secured sites and prevent its diversion. The material was blended and processed into power reactor fuel and "burned" in US power reactors. Thus, in the realm of irony, Davis, by consuming the power produced by this plutonium may have violated Resolution 5115 by aiding in the disposing of nuclear weapons. --["Users/JimStewart"]

Nuclear Free Zone

JimStewart — 2009-08-27 13:05:26

Comment added.

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 173:	Line 173:
	+ ------ + ''2009-08-27 14:05:26'' [[nbsp]] After the Cold War, the US government purchased large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium from the remains of the Soviet Union. The purpose of his was to remove the material from poorly secured sites and prevent its diversion. The material was blended and processed into power reactor fuel and "burned" in US power reactors. Thus, in the realm of irony, Davis, by consuming the power produced by this plutonium may have violated Resolution 5115 by aiding in the disposing of nuclear weapons. --["Users/JimStewart"]

Nuclear Free Zone

JimStewart — 2009-08-20 21:45:09

Comment added.

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 171:	Line 171:
	+ ------ + ''2009-08-20 22:45:09'' [[nbsp]] I removed some speculative statements from the body of the article. They had no apparent relevance to the actual article and detracted from the simplicity of the statement. They can be added back in as comments if someone cares to. --["Users/JimStewart"]

Nuclear Free Zone

JimStewart — 2009-08-20 21:42:09

Added original resolution, tightend up page and removed speculative comments

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- On November 14th, 1984, the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone (despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] pass through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada and that there's a ["Crocker Nuclear Lab" Nuclear Lab] on campus, which is not a part of the City of Davis). Not to mention all those pesky protons and neutrons in the food at the ["Farmer's Market"].	+ On November 14th, 1984, the Davis ["City Council"] passed a resolution declaring the city to be a nuclear free zone: + {{{ RESOLUTION NO. 5115, SERIES 1984
Line 3:	Line 4:
- This declaration had the support of many anti-nuclear residents. To be '''anti-nuclear''' means to be opposed to the use of nuclear technologies. This opposition can take various forms: - * opposition to nuclear weapons, weapons using depleted uranium, and in favour of nuclear disarmament - * opposition to nuclear power and generation of electricity with nuclear energy, typically combined with promotion of ["renewable energy"] sources as an environmental alternative. - * opposition to the use of radioactivity and food irradiation	+ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY + OF DAVIS DECLARING THE CITY OF DAVIS + A NUCLEAR FREE ZONE
Line 8:	Line 8:
- Many people who have Anti-nuclear sentiments are against the use of nuclear power for electricity generation, since they think nuclear power is inherently dangerous. They consider the risk of a nuclear accident high enough to be unacceptable, the magnitude of the consequences of such an accident unacceptably likely to be catastrophic, and generally believe that radioactive waste cannot be safely disposed of.	+ WHEREAS, the present nuclear arsenals of the United States of America + and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics contain sufficient + destructive force to kill all human life on Earth; and
Line 10:	Line 12:
	+ WHEREAS, nuclear war is a grave threat to the health and safety of the + citizens of this community, to the survival of the human + species, and to the continuation of life on this planet, and
Line 11:	Line 16:
- This is a resolution from March 15th, 2000, that references the first one and gives an idea of what the City Council means by a "nuclear free zone."	+ WHEREAS, the desire to end the nuclear arms race must start at the + bottom because, if the people lead, in time, the leaders will + surely follow; + + BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Congress and the President are urged to + renounce the first use of nuclear weaponry, and to do all things necessary + toward that end and toward the elimination of the international threat + of nuclear war. + + NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT no nuclear weapons shall be produced, + transported, stored, processed, disposed of, or used within the City of + Davis. + + PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Davis on this 14th + day of November 1984, by the following vote: + + AYES: Rosenberg, Taggart, Tomasi, Evans + + NOES: None. + + ABSENT: None. + + ABSTAIN: Adler + + /-Signed-/ + ANN M. EVANS + Mayor + ATTEST: + + /-Signed-/ + HOWARD L. REESE + City Clerk}}} + + On March 15th, 2000, the city council passed another nuclear materials related resolution + urging a ban of the use of depleted uranium in both military and commercial applications.

Nuclear Free Zone

JimStewart — 2009-08-20 13:23:14

Got a copy of Resolution No. 5115, Series 1984, will put it up soon

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 131:	Line 131:
	+ * I obtained a copy of Resolution No. 5115, Series 1984 from the City Clerk's office. I'll transcribe it onto daviswiki when I get a chance. --["users/jimstewart"]

Nuclear Free Zone

DougWalter — 2009-08-18 21:31:26

Where can we find Res. #5115, Series 1984?

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 130:	Line 130:
	+ * [20 minutes later] I don't think I have a copy of the text of the original Res. #5115. ["Stephen Souza"] was active in lobbying the Council on this issue, but I don't know if he hoards papers. --["Users/DougWalter"]

Nuclear Free Zone

DougWalter — 2009-08-18 21:06:40

Comment added.

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 128:	Line 128:
	+ ------ + ''2009-08-18 22:06:40'' [[nbsp]] I am a former Commissioner on the City Peace and Justice Advisory Commission -- but my service started several years after the original Nuclear Free Zone resolution (and the Commission was established in 1986). I will search my materials, but I was easily able to find this quote & reference: the Council held that, "nuclear war is a grave threat to the health and safety of this community..." and "the desire to end the nuclear arms race must start at the bottom because if the people lead, in time, the leaders will surely follow." (Resolution No. 5115, Series 1984) --["Users/DougWalter"]

Nuclear Free Zone

JimStewart — 2009-08-18 19:33:18

Comment added.

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 126:	Line 126:
	+ ------ + ''2009-08-18 20:33:18'' [[nbsp]] Does anyone have a copy of the original 1984 resolution? --["Users/JimStewart"]

Nuclear Free Zone

JoePomidor — 2009-03-08 12:32:17

(quick edit)

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 125:	Line 125:
- ''2008-07-07 12:01:18'' [[nbsp]] I've always felt a combination of amusement and exasperation whenever I hear people make blanket statements about nuclear technology, and especially radioactivity in general. They often overlook the fact that most smoke detectors contain a small amount of a radioactive element, and that x-ray machines use radiation, as does the common lightbulb. I understand and completely agree with not using nuclear weaponry, but pretty much any other use of nuclear technology is a much better one than the alternatives. --["Users/JoePomidor"]	+ ''2008-07-07 12:01:18'' [[nbsp]] I've always felt a combination of amusement and exasperation whenever I hear people make blanket statements about nuclear technology, and especially radioactivity in general. They often overlook the fact that most smoke detectors contain a small amount of a radioactive element, and that x-ray machines use radiation, as does the common lightbulb. I understand and completely agree with not using nuclear weaponry, but pretty much any other use of nuclear technology is a much better one than the alternatives. Also, it occurs to me that the city may better be described, as a result of this resolution, as a "Uranium Free Zone". --["Users/JoePomidor"]

Nuclear Free Zone

DougWalter — 2009-02-05 22:28:24

Nuclear Free Zone

EdWins — 2009-02-05 15:34:55

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 3:	Line 3:
- This declaration had the support of many anti-nuclear residents. - - To be '''anti-nuclear''' means to be opposed to the use of nuclear technologies. This opposition can take various forms:	+ This declaration had the support of many anti-nuclear residents. To be '''anti-nuclear''' means to be opposed to the use of nuclear technologies. This opposition can take various forms:
Line 10:	Line 8:
- Many people who have Anti-nuclear sentiments are against the use of nuclear power for electricity generation, since they think nuclear power is inherently dangerous. They consider the risk of a nuclear accident high and unacceptable and generally believe that radioactive waste cannot be safely disposed of.	+ Many people who have Anti-nuclear sentiments are against the use of nuclear power for electricity generation, since they think nuclear power is inherently dangerous. They consider the risk of a nuclear accident high enough to be unacceptable and generally believe that radioactive waste cannot be safely disposed of.

Nuclear Free Zone

EdWins — 2009-02-05 15:34:21

integrated in the "anti-nuclear movement" page.

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 3:	Line 3:
- This declaration had the support of the local ["Anti-nuclear movement"].	+ This declaration had the support of many anti-nuclear residents. + + To be '''anti-nuclear''' means to be opposed to the use of nuclear technologies. This opposition can take various forms: + * opposition to nuclear weapons, weapons using depleted uranium, and in favour of nuclear disarmament + * opposition to nuclear power and generation of electricity with nuclear energy, typically combined with promotion of ["renewable energy"] sources as an environmental alternative. + * opposition to the use of radioactivity and food irradiation + + Many people who have Anti-nuclear sentiments are against the use of nuclear power for electricity generation, since they think nuclear power is inherently dangerous. They consider the risk of a nuclear accident high and unacceptable and generally believe that radioactive waste cannot be safely disposed of. +
Line 115:	Line 123:
	+ + [[Comments]] + + ------ + ''2008-07-07 12:01:18'' [[nbsp]] I've always felt a combination of amusement and exasperation whenever I hear people make blanket statements about nuclear technology, and especially radioactivity in general. They often overlook the fact that most smoke detectors contain a small amount of a radioactive element, and that x-ray machines use radiation, as does the common lightbulb. I understand and completely agree with not using nuclear weaponry, but pretty much any other use of nuclear technology is a much better one than the alternatives. --["Users/JoePomidor"]

Nuclear Free Zone

JabberWokky — 2007-11-13 02:32:30

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- On November 14th, 1984, the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone (despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] pass through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada and that there's a ["Crocker Nuclear Lab" Nuclear Lab] on campus, which is not a part of the City of Davis).	+ On November 14th, 1984, the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone (despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] pass through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada and that there's a ["Crocker Nuclear Lab" Nuclear Lab] on campus, which is not a part of the City of Davis). Not to mention all those pesky protons and neutrons in the food at the ["Farmer's Market"].

Nuclear Free Zone

PxlAted — 2007-11-12 22:10:17

slight rewording, added date

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone, despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] come through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada. Not to mention that there's a ["Crocker Nuclear Lab" Nuclear Lab] on campus, which is not a part of the City of Davis.	+ On November 14th, 1984, the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone (despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] pass through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada and that there's a ["Crocker Nuclear Lab" Nuclear Lab] on campus, which is not a part of the City of Davis).
Line 3:	Line 3:
- This was done as a part of the local ["Anti-nuclear movement"].	+ This declaration had the support of the local ["Anti-nuclear movement"].
Line 5:	Line 5:
- This is a later resolution that references the first one and gives an idea of what form and language the City Council uses for these sort of things.	+ This is a resolution from March 15th, 2000, that references the first one and gives an idea of what the City Council means by a "nuclear free zone."

Nuclear Free Zone

BrentLaabs — 2007-11-12 20:22:20

link to crocker lab and anti-nuke movement

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone, despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] come through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada.	+ On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone, despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] come through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada. Not to mention that there's a ["Crocker Nuclear Lab" Nuclear Lab] on campus, which is not a part of the City of Davis. + + This was done as a part of the local ["Anti-nuclear movement"].

Nuclear Free Zone

WilliamLewis — 2007-10-08 16:26:25

no page there.

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a ["nuclear free"] zone, despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] come through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada.	+ On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone, despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] come through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada.

Nuclear Free Zone

WilliamLewis — 2007-10-08 16:06:33

categories are for chumps

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 113:	Line 113:
- - ["Category:Nuclear_free"]

Nuclear Free Zone

PxlAted — 2007-10-08 15:54:16

(quick edit)

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a ["nuclear free"] zone,despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] come through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada.	+ On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a ["nuclear free"] zone, despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] come through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada.

Nuclear Free Zone

PxlAted — 2007-10-08 15:54:07

(quick edit)

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a ["nuclear free"] zone.	+ On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a ["nuclear free"] zone,despite the fact that trains of nuclear waste from UC run [http://www.llnl.gov/ Lawrence Livermore Labs] come through Davis on their way to nuclear dumps in Nevada.

Nuclear Free Zone

Macv — 2007-10-08 15:09:18

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

No differences found!

Nuclear Free Zone

Macv — 2007-10-08 14:49:11

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone.	+ On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a ["nuclear free"] zone.
Line 7:	Line 7:
- Whereas, on the 14th day of November, 1984, by resolution, the City Council of Davis,	+ Whereas, on the 14th day of November, 1984, by resolution, the City Council of Davis,
Line 10:	Line 10:
- Whereas, on that occasion,the City Council stated that the present nuclear arsenals of - the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics contain - sufficient destructive force to kill all human life on Earth; that nuclear war is a grave - threat to the health and safety of the citizens of this community, to the survival of the - human species, and to the continuation of life on this planet; and that the desire to - end the nuclear arms race must start at the bottom, because if people lead, in time	+ Whereas, on that occasion,the City Council stated that the present nuclear arsenals of + the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics contain + sufficient destructive force to kill all human life on Earth; that nuclear war is a grave + threat to the health and safety of the citizens of this community, to the survival of the + human species, and to the continuation of life on this planet; and that the desire to + end the nuclear arms race must start at the bottom, because if people lead, in time
Line 18:	Line 18:
- Whereas, the City Council also resolved to urge Congress and the President to - renounce the first use of nuclear weaponry, and to do all things necessary toward	+ Whereas, the City Council also resolved to urge Congress and the President to + renounce the first use of nuclear weaponry, and to do all things necessary toward
Line 22:	Line 22:
- Whereas, the Pentagon has developed a new class of weapons called Kinetic Energy - Penetrators composed of depleted uranium (waste from preparing uranium for	+ Whereas, the Pentagon has developed a new class of weapons called Kinetic Energy + Penetrators composed of depleted uranium (waste from preparing uranium for
Line 28:	Line 28:
- Whereas, the Army has declared depleted uranium a radioactive waste that should	+ Whereas, the Army has declared depleted uranium a radioactive waste that should
Line 31:	Line 31:
- Whereas, the DU weapons not only penetrate armor and other hardened targets, - but also burst into flames releasing quantities of aerosolized uranium particles - into the environment that are easily carried by wind or water and are easily - resuspended, blowing radioactive contamination to locations quite distant from	+ Whereas, the DU weapons not only penetrate armor and other hardened targets, + but also burst into flames releasing quantities of aerosolized uranium particles + into the environment that are easily carried by wind or water and are easily + resuspended, blowing radioactive contamination to locations quite distant from
Line 37:	Line 37:
- Whereas, ingestion or inhalation of DU causes short- and long-term adverse - health effects closely related to complaints of Gulf War Veterans whose ailments	+ Whereas, ingestion or inhalation of DU causes short- and long-term adverse + health effects closely related to complaints of Gulf War Veterans whose ailments
Line 41:	Line 41:
- Whereas, the Department of Defense has denied for years the legitimacy of the - medical conditions dubbed ''Gulf War Syndrome'', but has now acknowledged	+ Whereas, the Department of Defense has denied for years the legitimacy of the + medical conditions dubbed ''Gulf War Syndrome'', but has now acknowledged
Line 45:	Line 45:
- Whereas, the Army knew, in advance of the 1991 Gulf War, that inhalation or - ingestion of DU particles could have an adverse effect on our service personnel, - and had advised leaders to provide protective measures and warnings for those	+ Whereas, the Army knew, in advance of the 1991 Gulf War, that inhalation or + ingestion of DU particles could have an adverse effect on our service personnel, + and had advised leaders to provide protective measures and warnings for those
Line 50:	Line 50:
- Whereas, when damaged US armored vehicles were collected for return to the - United States, it was found that some of the M1A1 tanks armored with depleted - uranium, and which had been struck by Ñfriendly fireæ using depleted uranium - penetrators, were too radioactive to be salvaged so they were buried at the salvage	+ Whereas, when damaged US armored vehicles were collected for return to the + United States, it was found that some of the M1A1 tanks armored with depleted + uranium, and which had been struck by Ñfriendly fireæ using depleted uranium + penetrators, were too radioactive to be salvaged so they were buried at the salvage
Line 56:	Line 56:
- Whereas, despite known effects on service personnel and civilians in the Gulf War,	+ Whereas, despite known effects on service personnel and civilians in the Gulf War,
Line 59:	Line 59:
- Whereas, there has been no effort to clean up contamination of DU at any of the	+ Whereas, there has been no effort to clean up contamination of DU at any of the
Line 62:	Line 62:
- Whereas, it has been reported that residents in Iraq near those 1991 battlefields	+ Whereas, it has been reported that residents in Iraq near those 1991 battlefields
Line 65:	Line 65:
- Whereas, thousands of U.S. Gulf War Veterans now have serious health defects, - and many have children with gross birth defects that may be due to their	+ Whereas, thousands of U.S. Gulf War Veterans now have serious health defects, + and many have children with gross birth defects that may be due to their
Line 69:	Line 69:
- Whereas, use of DU weapons may be a violation of International Law, relating to	+ Whereas, use of DU weapons may be a violation of International Law, relating to
Line 72:	Line 72:
- Whereas, there is concern that DU is used widely as ballast in commercial and	+ Whereas, there is concern that DU is used widely as ballast in commercial and
Line 77:	Line 77:
- Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the City Council petition the President and - members of Congress including all of the Senators and all of the members of - the House of Representatives to demand the President and the Department of	+ Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the City Council petition the President and + members of Congress including all of the Senators and all of the members of + the House of Representatives to demand the President and the Department of
Line 82:	Line 82:
- * Ban the further use of depleted uranium weapons and armor and also destroy	+ * Ban the further use of depleted uranium weapons and armor and also destroy
Line 85:	Line 85:
- * Ban the sale of uranium weapons and/or depleted uranium to any other country, - and urge those countries which already possess DU weapons to also destroy	+ * Ban the sale of uranium weapons and/or depleted uranium to any other country, + and urge those countries which already possess DU weapons to also destroy
Line 89:	Line 89:
- * Provide appropriate medical testing and medical care for veterans and others	+ * Provide appropriate medical testing and medical care for veterans and others
Line 92:	Line 92:
- * Provide appropriate protective measures, monitoring and medical care of Service	+ * Provide appropriate protective measures, monitoring and medical care of Service
Line 95:	Line 95:
- * Clean up the DU contamination in the battlefields of Kosovo, Bosnia and Iraq,	+ * Clean up the DU contamination in the battlefields of Kosovo, Bosnia and Iraq,
Line 100:	Line 100:
- Passed and adopted by the Davis City Council on this 15th day of March, 2000,	+ Passed and adopted by the Davis City Council on this 15th day of March, 2000,
Line 113:	Line 113:
	+ + ["Category:Nuclear_free"]

Nuclear Free Zone

ArlenAbraham — 2005-01-23 14:18:33

city council linked

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
- On November 14th 1984 the Davis City Council declared the city to be a nuclear free zone.	+ On November 14th 1984 the Davis ["City Council"] declared the city to be a nuclear free zone.

Nuclear Free Zone

JasonAller — 2004-12-27 17:38:55

Haven't found the first resolution yet

Differences for Nuclear Free Zone

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+ On November 14th 1984 the Davis City Council declared the city to be a nuclear free zone. + + This is a later resolution that references the first one and gives an idea of what form and language the City Council uses for these sort of things. + + {{{Resolution No. 00-40, Series 2000 Resolution To Ban the use of Depleted Uranium + + Whereas, on the 14th day of November, 1984, by resolution, the City Council of Davis, + California, declared that the City of Davis be a nuclear Free Zone; + + Whereas, on that occasion,the City Council stated that the present nuclear arsenals of + the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics contain + sufficient destructive force to kill all human life on Earth; that nuclear war is a grave + threat to the health and safety of the citizens of this community, to the survival of the + human species, and to the continuation of life on this planet; and that the desire to + end the nuclear arms race must start at the bottom, because if people lead, in time + the leaders will surely follow; + + Whereas, the City Council also resolved to urge Congress and the President to + renounce the first use of nuclear weaponry, and to do all things necessary toward + that end and toward the elimination of the international threat of nuclear war; + + Whereas, the Pentagon has developed a new class of weapons called Kinetic Energy + Penetrators composed of depleted uranium (waste from preparing uranium for + bombs or reactor fuel) which was first used in battle in the Gulf War, 1991; + + Whereas, depleted uranium (DU) has radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years; + + Whereas, the Army has declared depleted uranium a radioactive waste that should + be isolated in a licensed repository for radioactive waste; + + Whereas, the DU weapons not only penetrate armor and other hardened targets, + but also burst into flames releasing quantities of aerosolized uranium particles + into the environment that are easily carried by wind or water and are easily + resuspended, blowing radioactive contamination to locations quite distant from + battlefield locations; + + Whereas, ingestion or inhalation of DU causes short- and long-term adverse + health effects closely related to complaints of Gulf War Veterans whose ailments + are called Gulf War Syndrome; + + Whereas, the Department of Defense has denied for years the legitimacy of the + medical conditions dubbed ''Gulf War Syndrome'', but has now acknowledged + the existence of the Gulf War Syndrome and the necessity of its treatment; + + Whereas, the Army knew, in advance of the 1991 Gulf War, that inhalation or + ingestion of DU particles could have an adverse effect on our service personnel, + and had advised leaders to provide protective measures and warnings for those + who may be exposed, and medical testing and treatment for those already exposed; + + Whereas, when damaged US armored vehicles were collected for return to the + United States, it was found that some of the M1A1 tanks armored with depleted + uranium, and which had been struck by Ñfriendly fireæ using depleted uranium + penetrators, were too radioactive to be salvaged so they were buried at the salvage + site in Kuwait; + + Whereas, despite known effects on service personnel and civilians in the Gulf War, + DU weapons were again used in Bosnia in 1993, and in Yugoslavia in 1999; + + Whereas, there has been no effort to clean up contamination of DU at any of the + battlefield locations; + + Whereas, it has been reported that residents in Iraq near those 1991 battlefields + have shown increased birth defects, leukemia and other cancers; + + Whereas, thousands of U.S. Gulf War Veterans now have serious health defects, + and many have children with gross birth defects that may be due to their + contamination from depleted uranium; + + Whereas, use of DU weapons may be a violation of International Law, relating to + indiscriminate harm and damage to the environment; + + Whereas, there is concern that DU is used widely as ballast in commercial and + military planes and helicopters; and + + Whereas, the U.S. has sold the DU weapons to at least 17 other countries; + + Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that the City Council petition the President and + members of Congress including all of the Senators and all of the members of + the House of Representatives to demand the President and the Department of + Defense do the following: + + * Ban the further use of depleted uranium weapons and armor and also destroy + our stores on hand; + + * Ban the sale of uranium weapons and/or depleted uranium to any other country, + and urge those countries which already possess DU weapons to also destroy + those weapons; + + * Provide appropriate medical testing and medical care for veterans and others + suffering from DU contamination; + + * Provide appropriate protective measures, monitoring and medical care of Service + Personnel who handle DU weapons or cleanup of DU contamination; + + * Clean up the DU contamination in the battlefields of Kosovo, Bosnia and Iraq, + utilizing the unused monies budgeted for the Yugoslavian conflict; and to + + * Ban all commercial uses of DU. + + Passed and adopted by the Davis City Council on this 15th day of March, 2000, + by the following vote: + + AYES: BOYD, FORBES, FREEMAN, WAGSTAFF, PARTANSKY. + NOES: NONE. + ABSENT: NONE. + + _____(signed)____________________ JULIE PARTANSKY, Mayor + + ATTEST: + + ______(signed)___________________ BETTY E. RACKI, City Clerk + }}}