Citizen's Watch

by Marylia Kelley
for Tri-Valley CAREs' June 2000 newsletter, Citizen's Watch

In an unprecedented move, Sandia National Lab in New Mexico officially broke ranks with its "sister" laboratory in California and issued a position statement calling for cuts in both size and budget for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) mega-laser, currently being built at the Livermore Lab.

"The apparent delay and significant increase in cost for the NIF is sufficient that it will disrupt the investment needed at the other laboratories, and perhaps by the production plants, by several years," said Tom Hunter, Sandia's vice-president for nuclear weapons programs and author of the statement.

Issued May 24, the statement put Sandia at odds with the policy of its parent agency, the Department of Energy (DOE), which announced earlier this month it would seek an additional $95 million for NIF in fiscal year 2001. This increase would come on top of the $350 million already requested for the mega-laser in the coming fiscal year. (See the insert in the March 2000 Citizen's Watch for details on NIF's budget.)

Following a report last year by Tri-Valley CAREs, DOE announced that NIF was more than $350 million over budget and one and one-half years behind schedule. With NIF now the object of continuing investigations, both inside and outside of the Department, on May 3, the DOE was forced to revise its numbers upward, admitting that NIF's construction costs would essentially double - from $1.2 billion to over $2 billion. Further, the NIF construction schedule would slip five years, according to DOE, from 2003 to 2008.

"This causes us to question what is a reasonable additional investment in the NIF," reads the Sandia statement. Sandia goes on to pointedly call for a project that is "less than full-scale," though it stops short of making a specific recommendation on how many of NIF's proposed 192 laser beams should be abandoned.

Build a One-Quarter NIF?

The position statement mirrors what scientists and others at Sandia and Los Alamos Labs have been telling us privately for some time. Moreover, some scientists at Livermore hold a similar view.

"Staffers at Sandia and other DOE laboratories have been discussing a one-quarter NIF option for some time now," said Marylia Kelley. "It's the opinion of a number of scientists that NIF construction should be limited to 48 laser beams."

"Many scientists at the DOE labs are worried that NIF will rob money from other, more valuable programs," Kelley added. "For example, an astrophysics program was recently canceled at Livermore Lab and staff scientists there have expressed a belief that their funding was diverted to NIF."

Or, Forgo NIF Completely?

Tri-Valley CAREs' recommendation goes one step further than Sandia's.

We advocate cancellation of the entire NIF project. NIF's technical problems will cause its price tag to continue to spiral upward. Moreover, NIF is simply not a necessary facility in order to ensure the "safety" or the "reliability" of existing nuclear weapons - a fact that many prominent weapons physicists have already pointed out.

Add to this that NIF poses very real proliferation and environmental risks, and you have in a nutshell the reasons we have worked so long and hard to stop the mega-laser.

In the wake of jolting revelations about NIF's severe technical difficulties, mismanagement and continuing budget overruns, the General Accounting Office (GAO) began an investigation late last year. (See, for example, the September and October 1999 editions of Citizen's Watch.)

During a recent Congressional briefing, the GAO told members of the Science Committee that DOE still underestimates NIF's costs by around $1.5 billion, according to news accounts. The GAO estimate covers only the time frame during which NIF is being built.

Add the GAO's tally of the extra $1.5 billion to the current construction estimate of more than $2.1 billion, and that brings the price tag for NIF to just over $3.6 billion - all before construction is completed in 2008, and the switch is thrown to start NIF's proposed 192 beams.

Tri-Valley CAREs is conducting its own independent analysis of NIF costs, and the group's preliminary estimate projects the mega-laser will consume at least $3.7 billion, and perhaps as much as $4.2 billion, before the end of 2008.

In round numbers, ours is very similar to the GAO estimate. However, when the out-year program and operating costs over NIF's 30-year "life-cycle" are factored in, that cost figure will likely balloon to $10 billion.

Approximately $1 billion has already been spent on NIF. Now is the time to reign in this project!

Energy Secretary Bill Richardson instead lambasted Sandia. "This statement is totally out of line," he declared. "Mr. Hunter's view will be totally disregarded..."

The following day, Sandia issued a second statement: "We regret that Sandia's inadvertent action in releasing an internal document to the press earlier this week has added to the pressures placed on the Department of Energy, as they seek to develop a long-term budget strategy for dealing with the NIF," it reads.

It's worth noting that the second Sandia statement does not back away from the substance of the institution's position paper, rather it merely apologizes for making the stance public.

Copies of the Sandia position paper, the DOE response, the Livermore Lab response and the second Sandia statement are all available from Tri-Valley CAREs upon request.

---

by Rene' Steinhauer
from Tri-Valley CAREs' June 2000 newsletter, Citizen's Watch

Since our last National Missile Defense (NMD) report in the March 2000 Citizen's Watch, a number of new kinks have developed. We present a few of them for you, below.

The ratification by the Russian Duma in recent weeks of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify, reveals the enormous danger of deploying a U.S. NMD program that would abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, as Russia conditioned its recent arms control move on future adherence by the U.S. to the ABM Treaty. As President Clinton prepares to go to Moscow to meet with Russian President Putin on June 4 - 5, this topic will be near the top of his list. We recommend that Clinton offer to drop NMD, rather than use his political capital to press Russia to accept "modifications" to the ABM Treaty.

Moreover, according to Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ballistic missile defense plans are causing the U.S. to send decidedly strange and mixed signals to Russia on arms control. A government document obtained by the magazine shows that the U.S. recently encouraged Russia to put more nuclear weapons aimed at our country on "hair-trigger" alert to assure themselves they can defeat a U.S. missile shield. The purpose of the U.S. document was to counter Russian resistance to NMD, apparently even to the point of sacrificing de-alerting and disarmament goals. It is this same "logic," at least in part, that prompted the Joint Chiefs of Staff to testify at a May 23 Senate Hearing that they would oppose the idea of Russia going below 2,500 to 2,000 nuclear weapons - even though Russia wants to negotiate deeper reductions in its arsenal.

Then, too, there is the issue of cost. A recent Congressional Budget Office analysis now pegs missile defense at $60 billion through 2015. Also, the money will not be its only cost. As was reported in the March/April 2000 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists : "The cost of this defense will not simply be measured in dollars. It may include an end to further nuclear arms reductions with Russia, an increased Chinese effort to expand its nuclear forces in response to the defense, negative reactions from U.S. allies in Europe and East Asia-who know that their security will also suffer from this ill-thought out American initiative-and an eventual collapse of global arms control and nonproliferation efforts."

Another kink concerns the truthfulness of the efficacy reports of NMD research. The project was originally directed by TRW, for whom Dr. Nira Schwartz was a senior engineer. Dr. Schwartz has filed a suit on behalf of American taxpayers alleging that TRW faked missile test results, and further, when she expressed objections to such practices, she was fired. Raytheon, who has since picked up on the project from TRW, has had on-going problems with successful definition of the NMD efficacy. As we reported last March, the first of three tests succeeded, but only after the success criteria were changed. The second test failed because of technical problems - with the plumbing. The still-scheduled third test has been pushed back from April 27 to late June. (Note: There are protests planned on June 24 at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, Cape Canaveral in Florida and the U.S. Space Command in Colorado. Call for details.)

Several notables have come out against the NMD including: Senator Joseph Biden, who objects to the anticipated cost; former Defense Secretary William Perry, who has reservations about NMD being the best way to counter the threat of long-range missiles from North Korea (and who favors a sea-based response system off-shore of that country); Senator Byron Dorgan who supports the Nunn-Lugar program, which advocates that potential adversaries destroy weapons while the U.S. reduces its own weapons; and U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich who cites the 162 nations that have signed a U.N. resolution against weapons in space, and others.

In the coming months, as NMD budget and deployment hang in the balance, the U.S. choice will be between an astronomically costly missile defense scheme that won't work and, on the other hand, opportunities to implement START II, negotiate START III and, perhaps, achieve additional disarmament measures as outlined in the final consensus document of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference (see insert in this edition).

---

by Marylia Kelley and Carah Ong
from Tri-Valley CAREs' June 2000 newsletter, Citizen's Watch

In May 1995, during the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference, citizen groups from around the world, including Tri-Valley CAREs, founded the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. An early goal of the network was to press the nuclear weapons states to negotiate a treaty by the year 2000 that would provide a timebound framework for the elimination of nuclear weapons. A model treaty was drafted under the auspices of several Abolition 2000 groups. It has been introduced and circulated and is now an official U.N. document. It has not, however, been taken up as yet by the nuclear weapons states.

Abolition 2000 understood that a redoubled effort to build a popular movement to support disarmament was necessary to move our agenda forward. Thus, Abolition 2000 initiated its "2000 by 2000 Campaign" early this year. The goal of the campaign was to obtain 2000 endorsers by the end of NPT Review Conference this May, our 5th "birthday".

Mid-May, Abolition 2000 reached its goal with more than 2025 organizations and municipalities in over 95 countries now participating in the movement. This new development makes Abolition 2000 the third largest network of non-governmental organizations in the world!

The increased support for the Abolition 2000 network also dramatically demonstrates that possession of nuclear weapons by any nation is unacceptable to civil society. Members of the network include lawyers, physicians, peace activists, religious organizations, environmental groups, human rights groups, women's groups, youth and many others.

Abolition 2000 has produced a petition that has been signed by more than 13.5 million individuals worldwide. The Abolition 2000 International Petitions were presented to the Chair of the NPT Review Conference, Ambassador Baali, in a ceremony at the U.N. on April 27th.

---

Six of our organization's members and staff participated in the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the U.N. during April and May. Here are three personal reflections, followed by an analysis of the outcome of the Review Conference.

Rene' Steinhauer: This was a moving and inspirational experience for me. I was impressed by the sincerity, knowledge and professionalism of all of the representatives of the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in attendance. When I was not in direct person-to-person communication with various nations' delegates to the NPT, I was at NGO panels. During the NPT Review Conference, I staffed tables loaded to overflow with booklets, petitions and factsheets, demonstrated for disarmament in the UN Plaza, participated in Abolition 2000 organizational brainstorming sessions, etc., etc., etc., even on weekends! The days started early and ended late. Even so, our New York homestay hosts were gracious and bunking there was like visiting family.

Most important, this was an intense learning experience and appreciation of what the NPT was, is, and may yet become. I won't go into the import of the NPT because it has been covered at length elsewhere (see in particular the April 2000 Citizen's Watch, and the following May issue as well). I feel deeply honored to have been a part of the new -- and perhaps most critical --millennium NPT Review Conference. I say critical because 30 years after signing, the U.S. is still dragging its feet in complying with the Treaty's Article VI, and, as a consequence regarding the lack of true, good faith efforts toward disarmament, the Non-Nuclear States may find it to their advantage to back out of the NPT and pursue the development of their own nuclear weapons. We cannot allow that to happen. That is why this NPT Review Conference was so important to me, for the chance to do a little something in a positive direction.

Sally Light: It's difficult to select the most important aspects of my time at the NPT, but some of the things I most appreciate are: the receptiveness of the UN delegates to what I was communicating, people expressing appreciation for my participation in a panel on Stockpile Stewardship, the presence of young people with great energy and ideas, renewing old acquaintances and meeting others I'd known till then only by Abolition 2000 International email, the synergistic meetings of the U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and of Abolition 2000 International, seeing the cherry blossoms in full bloom at the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, and the friendly hospitality of my very considerate "homestay" person.

Joanne Dean-Freemire: Having spent my high school and college years in New York state studying languages, I've always wanted to spend time at the UN. Attending the NPT Review Conference as a Tri-Valley CAREs representative was a dream come true! It was a real "buzz" to be there meeting delegates, observing sessions, and eating in the cafeteria surrounded by native dress and language from all over the world.

However, I left the conference discouraged. From what I had observed, the U.S. was doing little more than trying to convince other nations we were disarming by means of a slick public relations-style display that highlighted our government's few efforts at closing a couple of its weapons sites, vitrifying plutonium, etc., without mentioning NIF, plutonium pit manufacturing, MOX, "Star Wars", and other programs our nation is pursuing which threaten non-proliferation.

Imagine then my delight upon reading the reports after the conference ended that several of our NGO issues were actually incorporated in the final agreement. Although a deadline for the nuclear weapon states to disarm was not set, (something I and many delegates I spoke with really wanted), two other issues I was pushing for were incorporated: 1) a commitment to take weapons off "hair-trigger" alert, and 2) a promise to permanently, irreversibly remove plutonium from nuclear warheads. So, I feel we accomplished something, and I'm glad I went!

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference ended with a consensus document affirming the "unequivocal" elimination of nuclear weapons as the mandate of the Treaty. I believe this marks the first time since signing the NPT that the U.S., in particular, has agreed to language that did not include its favorite weasel-word "ultimate" to describe the disarmament obligation. (This has generally been used in the phrase "ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons," meaning not any time soon.)

However, despite the recent World Court interpretation of the NPT that upheld the Article VI obligation to conclude (i.e., achieve) disarmament, there was no definite timeframe for abolition addressed in the consensus statement.

Thus, to NGOs participating at the UN in the Review Conference, the glass could be legitimately viewed, I believe, as half-empty or half-full. My personal perspective is a forward-looking one, and focuses on helping the nuclear-armed nations understand the meaning of "unequivocal," which my dictionary calls "clear and unambiguous." Let's make it real, and real soon!

Peace, Marylia Kelley.

Below is an excerpt from an analysis of the NPT Review Conference outcome, prepared by Rebecca Johnson of The Acronym Institute.

The President of the Sixth Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Ambassador Abdallah Baali of Algeria, finally brought his gavel down on the adoption of a final document containing the consensus views and objectives of representatives of the Treaty's 187 parties on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Despite being more than 24 hours later than scheduled following several sessions that extended deep into the night, there was applause and relief that the NPT review conference, the first since the Treaty was indefinitely extended in 1995, had ended so well. The successful conclusion was viewed as a triumph for the non-nuclear weapon states (especially the New Agenda Coalition of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden) who had effectively pushed through an unequivocal undertaking and next steps on nuclear disarmament, and for the Conference President, whose determination to produce a success, refusal to give up, and personal style of (exhausting) management forced opposing sides to deal with each other and compromise -- or miss their planes and another night's sleep!

The clock had to be stopped at ten to midnight on Friday May 19, as diplomats continued to struggle to resolve the stand-off between the U.S. and Iraq over how to describe Iraq's [behavior] under the Treaty. In addition to assessing the implementation of the Treaty over the past five years, the Conference adopted an important agreement on practical next steps for nuclear disarmament, which had been negotiated between the five nuclear weapon states (Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S.) and the key group of "New Agenda" non-nuclear weapon countries from Africa, Latin America, the Pacific and Europe. Because of long-standing disagreements between the nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states over the fulfillment of disarmament obligations, previous Conferences since 1985 were unable to gather consensus to adopt their final documents. The 2000 Review Conference's achievement is all the more remarkable for taking place at a time of impasse in the disarmament field and deep political divisions between some of the nuclear powers, especially over the ABM Treaty and NATO expansion.

Much has been riding on this Conference, as there has been a growing sense that the non-nuclear weapon states may have given away their leverage in 1995 when they agreed to the indefinite extension of the Treaty in return for principles and objectives on non-proliferation and disarmament, and a strengthened review process. Though much remains to be done, this Conference has shown what can be accomplished when the tools of increased accountability provided in 1995 are effectively employed.

Nevertheless, though the agreements on disarmament may be regarded as a breakthrough, they must be measured against what was missing from the Conference. Politically, this was a lost opportunity to address the proliferation dangers inherent in U.S. plans to deploy national (ballistic) missile defences, and to send a strong message to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament (CD) to stop haggling and get down to negotiating and concluding a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons (fissban). Both issues... were swept under the carpet...

The Review Conference final document contained important paragraphs calling on India and Pakistan to adhere to UN Security Resolution 1172, passed after both countries conducted nuclear tests in 1998, and on the Middle East, calling for a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and naming Israel among the four remaining states (India, Israel, Pakistan and Cuba) which are urged to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapon states. There were useful agreements on nuclear safety and liability, but most worryingly, sections dealing with export controls on nuclear materials and technology were watered down or lost altogether, and there were disturbing signs that Russia, China and France wished to weaken the agreements on full-scope safeguards. Nevertheless, the Conference did reaffirm the 1995 commitment to making full-scope safeguards a condition of supplying nuclear-related technologies and material...

In the agreement brokered first in a subsidiary body chaired by Ambassador Clive Pearson and then in intense negotiations with the New Agenda Coalition, summarized below, the nuclear powers pledged an "unequivocal undertaking... to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals." The NPT Parties underscored the necessity of achieving the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and prompt negotiations on a fissile material production ban, presently deadlocked in the Conference on Disarmament. While supporting the full implementation of START II, recently ratified by the Russian Duma, the parties urged the U.S. and Russia to conclude START III. Raising concerns that the nuclear powers had not been taking their disarmament obligations seriously enough and that progress had stalled since the end of the Cold War, the non-nuclear powers identified several important steps which must be pursued over the next five years in addition to the bilateral strategic arms reductions currently underway. According to the programme of action contained in the agreement on next steps, the nuclear powers have promised:

* further unilateral efforts to reduce their nuclear arsenals;

* to provide more information on their nuclear capabilities and the implementation of disarmament agreements;

* to reduce their non-strategic [i.e., tactical or short range] nuclear weapons;

* concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapon systems [i.e., de-alerting, though unspecified as to particular measures];

* a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies [an oblique reference to first use, again no specific measure or set of measures was outlined];

* involvement by all five nuclear powers "as soon as appropriate" in nuclear reduction and disarmament negotiations.

Furthermore, the programme of next steps for nuclear disarmament called for a moratorium on nuclear testing pending entry into force of the CTBT, and emphasized the "principle of irreversibility" in nuclear arms control. This is important because of the current tendency among some of the nuclear states to recycle the plutonium or other components from dismantled nuclear weapons so that they can be used again to make new or refurbished nuclear warheads.

---

DC Days: Effective and Empowering

In May, a team of seven Tri-Valley CAREs members participated in the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability's annual "DC Days," along with 100 colleagues from 38 groups across the U.S. and Russia whose members are affected by nuclear weapons facilities. Here are four of our DC stories, including one in poetry.

Erek Dyskant: This was my first DC Days. I arrived in the steaming heat feeling overwhelmed. During the all-day training on Sunday, it made me feel up on the issues, although still quite overloaded. The ANA "team leaders" (and everyone else) were wonderful, and by the end of DC Days, I felt like, well almost, a pro. I met with members of Congress, the DOE, and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. There was an amazing spectrum of responses and interest. One of the high points was during a meeting with the chief legislative aide of a representative who, at first, seemed extremely skeptical. Then, he asked for a list of things we supported and, much to our surprise, he announced he would recommend that his boss support two of them. I left with a feeling of effectiveness.

Janis Kate: It's too soon to know what my impact was on the people I met with on Capitol Hill, but I can tell you about the impact DC Days had on me. It was empowering to be part of a similarly concerned and dedicated group of people. Sometimes I feel like a lone voice in the (disappearing) forest espousing environmental integrity and an end to nuclear weapons testing -- being involved in DC Days revitalized my determination to pursue our Tri-Valley CAREs goals of peace & justice for people and environment.

DC Days is a real-life education in how bills get passed (or defeated) in Congress. I learned how important it is to follow the progress of issues in order to make timely communication with legislators. I foresee that my face to face meetings will lay the groundwork for the future, as it will be easier for me to compose a letter to someone I have met; I return home resolved to keep the lines of communication buzzing!

Barbara Dyskant: This was a powerful experience for me. The training and the planning were superb. There were always folks to go to for help, and always camaraderie. Also, what stood out were the surprises; some decision-makers we expected to be the most resistant were the most receptive. We were repeatedly thanked, and told we were depended on for information. Not everyone agreed with us and we learned how to handle that. Another high point was Congressman Markey's comment that we need to measure our achievements not only by the reforms we get, but also by the evil we stop. It tells me we're accomplishing much more than we'll ever know. This all adds up to a resounding renewal of my commitment to continue working together for peace, justice and the environment.

---

Reflections on DC Days 2000

by Jo Ann Frisch

A choreographed whirlwind!
Training, strategy, legislative visits.
Assess, evaluate, gain confidence
and plan some more.

Blisters, sore feet, sweat,
Tears, fears, disappointment.
I know nothing! I'm no expert.
Is it worth it?

We are here together,
some new, some familiar.
Clever, dedicated, smart.
Our mission;
No new nuclear weapons.
No way, no how.
Clean up the mess, reduce,
dismantle, disarm.

We hold DOE and our legislators'
feet to the fire in friendly persuasion.
How dare the "experts" say
we must play the nuclear game.

We have treaties to keep;
Non-Proliferation,
Comprehensive Test Ban.
The whole world watches and waits.

No more money for nuclear weapons.
It's such a waste.
You play with fire,
You're gonna get burned!
Our kids, your kids, each other.
We demand nothing less than
World Peace.

Would I do DC Days again?
In a heartbeat!

---

Thursday, June 15
Tri-Valley CAREs meets
7:30 PM, Livermore Library
1000 So. Livermore Ave.
(925) 443-7148 for details

Calling all peace, justice and environmental advocates. Join us and help create positive change-in our communities and in our world. At our June meeting we will discuss new opportunities for stopping nuclear weapons programs, including the National Ignition Facility. Come and learn what you can do to promote cleanup of nuclear pollution locally and elimination of nuclear weapons globally. Working together, we are making a difference.

Thursday, July 6
Tri-Valley CAREs' mailing party
7 PM, Tri-Valley CAREs' offices
2582 Old First St., Livermore
(925) 443-7148 for directions

This is the social event of the season, and you are cordially invited. Help us prepare the July edition of Citizen's Watch for the post office. Affix labels, munch snacks and make new friends.

Sunday, August 6
"Millennium of Peace" Hiroshima commemoration and peace gathering
8 AM, rally at Livermore Lab
Corner of East Ave. and Vasco Rd.
11 AM, Abolition 2000 Northern CA gathering at Tri-Valley CAREs offices
2582 Old First St., Livermore
(925) 443-7148 for details

Commemorate the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan at Livermore Lab-where new nuclear weapons are designed. This year's theme is "Millennium of Peace." Speakers will include Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Energy in Space, Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley CAREs and Jackie Cabasso of Western States Legal Foundation. The program begins at 8 AM at the corner of East and Vasco, and will be followed by a procession to the Livermore Lab's gates. A nonviolent action is planned for those who choose to risk arrest. After the commemoration, at 11 AM, an open meeting of the Northern California Abolition 2000 network will begin. We will order pizza-or you may bring a brown bag lunch. Everyone is welcome, but RSVP to (925) 443-7148 to facilitate planning.

Tuesday, August 8
"Return of Star Wars: The Weaponization of Space"
An evening with Bruce Gagnon
7 PM, time approximate
Location to be arranged.

Circle your calendar now, and check our July Citizen's Watch for details. Plans include a "pot luck" dinner, talk and discussion on missile defense with Bruce Gagnon. Call Sally at (925) 443-7148.

Tri-Valley CAREs
needs a "few good volunteers"
(15 to be exact)
from 10 AM to Noon
Saturday, June 10

Thanks to the artistic vision and skill of several Bay Area activists, a set of banners has been created each depicting names of U.S. nuclear tests. Additional cloth panels call for a nuclear weapon-free world and for an end to all nuclear tests, including "subcritical" experiments involving plutonium being detonated today. These attractive banners are all mounted on bamboo carrying poles.

Here's where you come in.

Tri-Valley CAREs has entered this display in the annual Livermore Parade on June 10 in downtown Livermore, just off Second and "L" Streets. We need adults & kids to hoist poles, hold signs or to pass out leaflets to the crowd. If you can help, please call Marylia or Rene' at (925) 443-7148.

Back to Citizen's Watch Index