In November 2005 Congress reversed US policy on reprocessing -- in part driven by the technical failure of the Yucca Mountain repository program, and perhaps in part by a desire on the part of the French nuclear interests (AREVA, Cogema, Framatome) to access the US tax base. The French have been leaders in nuclear fuel reprocessing and yet their plutonium MOX fuel business has run dry - lacking international customers. In any case, this reversal of decades of US commitment to a "once through" fuel program is deeply disturbing. Aside from global security issues, plutonium generates even more heat for our planet to absorb, has even worse emissions, and in the event of "a Chernobyl" would be twice as deadly.
Finally, as a crowning point - nuclear power is not qualified to operate in extreme weather. As cited above, nuclear reactors - all of them - depend on energy from the grid to operate. Since the core of a reactor continues to generate heat for years, even "off-line," it is vital that emergency cooling equipment be operable around the clock. As is sensible, every reactor site is equipped with back-up power, most often in the form of diesel generators. Unfortunately these generators, in part because of intermittent use, are not terribly reliable. When both the grid and the back-up power fail, the site is said to be in "station blackout." According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, station blackout contributes a full one-half of the total risk of a major reactor accident at US nuclear power stations.
Recent years have seen an escalation in all kinds of extreme weather: intense heat, drought, blizzards, tornados, and perhaps most compelling - hurricanes and cyclones. All of these conditions may contribute to electric grid failures. The loss of grid power will not necessarily trigger a nuclear crisis, but there is an elevated risk. Overall blackout risk increases as the number of outages increases. Nuclear energy is an enormous liability in these turbulent times.
Nuclear power is also incapable of operating in hot water, as evidenced by the heat waves of 2004. A number of nuclear reactors in France were not operable. The reactors were at low power not because of nuclear safety issues - but rather because of the basic design of a nuclear reactor. Essentially an expensive, dangerous "tea pot," a nuclear power reactor harvests the heat from splitting atoms to make steam, to turn a turbine. The closed loop system relies on the heat differential between the temperature of the steam, and the temperature of a condenser, to turn the steam back into liquid to repeat the process. When the water used to cool the condenser gets too warm this differential is lost. The steam no longer condenses back to liquid. When river and lake water gets too hot, electric power cannot be generated. As temperatures rise, nuclear power will be less and less qualified as a means to even try to generate electric power.
Now some conjecture about why anyone would campaign for the "revival" of an unprofitable, unreliable, dangerous, even fraudulent technology like nuclear "power." In a nutshell: to retain centralized control of the supply of energy, as well as control over the timing of the availability of any "alternative."
Fossil fuels - and uranium - are traditionally centralized energy production models. Efficiency is the ultimate in "decentralization" since the factors that will optimize efficiency are unique to each operation. Wind, solar and other renewable resources can be centralized, however the inherent value of distributed generation has become clear in helping to increase overall efficiency of power usage and minimization of power loss throughout the distribution system. Distributed generation is also recognized as means to increase grid stability.
Given the urgency of the climate challenge we face, it is vital to note that energy efficiency, wind, appropriate hydro, biomass and solar are all viable, and available at industrial scale NOW. However for those holding the reins on fossil fuels - particularly oil - there is a distinct (and highly profitable) advantage to forestalling the implementation of any alternative until the full impact of the oil "peak" and resulting energy shortages are experienced. While oil is primarily tied to transport, it is important to note that the Bush administration projects the use of nuclear power reactors to make hydrogen for use in vehicles. Since wind makes more electricity per dollar invested, it is also cost-effective at generating hydrogen than nuclear. Electric cars charged on the grid would vastly increase the demand for electric power - far exceeding traditional electric energy guzzlers like hot water heaters.
Those who promote nuclear expansion are simultaneously promoting a deeper agenda to dominate civil society with a model of central control. Given the security issues associated with nuclear power, (even more so with the use of plutonium fuel) this control may exceed compatibility with democracy. Yet one more reason to oppose this false solution.
###########
1 Contact: Mary Olson NIRS Southeast Office, PO Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802
828-675-1792, nirs@main.nc.us and www.nirs.org
2 National Office of Nuclear Information and Resource Service: 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, Maryland, 20912. 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291 nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org
3 Amory Lovins, More Profit With Less Carbon, Scientific American: September 2005.
4 See for instance, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, (updated edition) W.W. Norton 1994.
5 Cheney was speaking on C-Span in 2004 when he made the statement that there is already an alternative fuel developed that "is carbon-free" - incorrectly referring to nuclear power.
6 Felix Christian Matthes, Nuclear Energy and Climate Change, 2005. Issue Paper # 6, Heinrich Boll Foundation & World Information Service on Energy, at: http://www.nirs.org/ch20/publications/nrandclimate.htm
7 Andrew Sims, Mirage and Oasis""Energy Choices in an Age of Global Warming, 2005. Posted at: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/sewyo355prhbgunpscr51d2w29062005080838.pdf
8 See Wikipedia on line at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/black_start
9 See also Lovin's footnote #44 in Amory Lovins: Nuclear Power Economics and Climate Protection Potential 2005, Rocky Mountain Institute, E-05-08, posted at: http://www.rmi.org/images/other/energy/e05-08_nukepwrecon.pdf .
10 Nuclear Energy Institute advertising campaign.
11 Mary Olson, the Myth of the Millirem, 2004. See http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/mythmiliremfctsht.htm
12 Cindy Folkers, Radiation Basics, 1999. See http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radiationbasics.pdf
13 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, published in the Federal Register: Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement 1990 establishes that the US radiation standard of 100 millirems a year would result (at government assessed levels of risk) in 1 in 286 people exposed suffering fatal cancer. US regulations promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 10, Part 20 allow the public to be exposed to up to 500 millirems a year from combined sources of air, water and sewage, raising the cumulative level of risk, as assessed by that agency (which assumes a linear dose-response relationship) to 1 in 57.
14 Cindy Folkers and Mary Olson, Radiation and Children: The Ignored Victims, 2004. See http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radiationandchildren.pdf
15 National Academy of Sciences, Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII, 2005. Also, Cindy Folkers, US Panel Recognizes No Safe Dose of Radiation, 2005. See: http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radtech/nosafedose072005.pdf
16 See: http://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/tritiumhome.htm .
17 US Department of Energy, Integrated Spent Fuel Database, 1994.
18 See High-Level Nuclear Waste Fact Sheet, 1997, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfcst.htm
19 See Low-Level Radioactive Waste Fact Sheet, 1992, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/llwfct.htm
20 Paul Gunter and Linda Gunter, et al, License to Kill, 2000. See: www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensedtokill/LiscencedtoKill.pdf
21 See news report posted at: http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
22 Amory Lovins, Mighty Mice, Nuclear Engineering International, December, 2005. http://www.rmi.org/images/other/energy/e05-15_mightymice.pdf There are many other citations given by Lovins in his recent review article on economics of nuclear power, see note #51.
23 Nuclear Economics, Safe Energy Communication Council, 1992. This figure does not reflect full costs of long term waste disposition, or any health impacts.
24 Lovins, More Profit with Less Carbon, see note #3.
25 Jim Moltivalli, Catching the Wind, E Magazine, January 2005. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2176
26 See http://www.eande.tv/transcripts/?date=092805
27 Efficiency and conservation are not the same. Conservation is the suspension of use - efficiency is wise use. The opportunity to develop using energy efficient hardware, protocols and strategies is the opportunity to avoid emissions through wise use and relative reduction in overall demand.
28 See note #3
29 Sustainable Energy Blueprint: A Plausible Strategy for Achieving a No-Nuclear, Low-Carbon, Highly Efficient and Sustainable Energy Future. See: http://healthandenergy.com/sustainable_energy_blueprint.htm
30 J. Deutsch and E. Moniz (co-chairs), The Future of Nuclear Power, MIT, 2003.
31 Seattle Times, April 28, 2006, Nuclear Power's New Generation. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002958091_nuclear28.html
32 On September 18, 2001 Mohamed El Beredei was quoted in the world press admitting that if a jumbo jet hit a nuclear reactor it would result in a Chernobyl level release of radioactivity and that in fact, no reactor in the world could withstand such a hit. Unfortunately it does not take an airplane to cause a major reactor accident as has been portrayed in a number of dramatic presentations including China Syndrome; Meltdown; 24 (2005) and West Wing. See also Frank von Hippel, Revisiting Nuclear Power Plant Safety, Science 291:201, 2003.
33 The USA relies upon a publicly administered insurance program for nuclear power (the Price-Anderson Act) that provides a system whereby all reactor operators pay in the event of any one unit having a major accident - and a liability cap, beyond which the industry does not have to pay. It is of interest that while an act of terror would be covered by the program, acts of war are not. The Bush War on Terror has neutralized all liability for the industry.
34 Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance, 2002 (revised and posted in 2005 with updates at: http://www.stormsmith.nl/ )
35 See Basic Info on MOX Fuel: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/basicmoxinfo.htm
36 Frank von Hippel, No Hurry to Recycle, May 2006 Mechanical Engineering.
37 Margaret Meade and Rene Dubos, The Plutonium Economy: A Statement of Concern, 1974 for the US Council of Churches, resulted in a 1976 resolution calling for a moratorium on plutonium fuel use.
38 Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Conference Report -- http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/conferencereport0.pdf
39 Mary Olson, Nuclear Power: The Next Degeneration, 2005.
40 See: http://www.mineweb.net/sections/energy/783025.htm
41 Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Wreck, The Nuclear Monitor, 2006. See: http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm643.pdf
42 Plutonium does not occur on Earth except in trace residues, where it is produced in tonnage quantities inside all nuclear reactors that use uranium fuel. In the USA irradiated reactor fuel contains about 1% plutonium.
43 See note 41.
44 Cogema is a partner in the US MOX fuel program, ostensibly for the "disposition" of weapons grade plutonium in partnership with Russia. AREVA is a full partner in the new Bush/Cheney Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
45 See: MOX at a Nuclear Power Reactor Near You, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/moxandreactor.htm
46 Dr. Edwin Lyman - Public Health Consequences of Substituting Mixed-Oxide Fuel For Uranium Fuel in Light Water Reactors, 1999. Nuclear Control Institute -- http://www.nci.org/k-m/moxsum.htm
47 Summary of findings given in: http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/mox/nirsmcguirecatawbacontentions.htm
48 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-1150, 1990.
49 French reactors off line 2004
50 David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists
51 See article by Amory Lovins cited in note # 9
52 Renewables are Ready - a guide to teaching about renewable energy, published by Union of Concerned Scientists.
53 It should be noted that not all subscribe to the necessity or value of experiencing peak oil - see Amory B. Lovins: Winning the Oil Endgame, 2004. Cosponsored by the US Pentagon.
54 Cindy Folkers: Hydrogen Production By Nuclear Power, 2003. See www.nirs.org/
55 See also, NIRS / WISE, Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change, published in the Nuclear Monitor, February, 2005 posted at: http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf
Paper presented on May 3, 2006
Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations
Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office,
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Contact: Mary Olson NIRS Southeast Office, PO Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802
828-675-1792, nirs@main.nc.us and www.nirs.org
National Office of Nuclear Information and Resource Service: 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, Maryland, 20912. 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291 nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org
Finally, as a crowning point - nuclear power is not qualified to operate in extreme weather. As cited above, nuclear reactors - all of them - depend on energy from the grid to operate. Since the core of a reactor continues to generate heat for years, even "off-line," it is vital that emergency cooling equipment be operable around the clock. As is sensible, every reactor site is equipped with back-up power, most often in the form of diesel generators. Unfortunately these generators, in part because of intermittent use, are not terribly reliable. When both the grid and the back-up power fail, the site is said to be in "station blackout." According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, station blackout contributes a full one-half of the total risk of a major reactor accident at US nuclear power stations.
Recent years have seen an escalation in all kinds of extreme weather: intense heat, drought, blizzards, tornados, and perhaps most compelling - hurricanes and cyclones. All of these conditions may contribute to electric grid failures. The loss of grid power will not necessarily trigger a nuclear crisis, but there is an elevated risk. Overall blackout risk increases as the number of outages increases. Nuclear energy is an enormous liability in these turbulent times.
Nuclear power is also incapable of operating in hot water, as evidenced by the heat waves of 2004. A number of nuclear reactors in France were not operable. The reactors were at low power not because of nuclear safety issues - but rather because of the basic design of a nuclear reactor. Essentially an expensive, dangerous "tea pot," a nuclear power reactor harvests the heat from splitting atoms to make steam, to turn a turbine. The closed loop system relies on the heat differential between the temperature of the steam, and the temperature of a condenser, to turn the steam back into liquid to repeat the process. When the water used to cool the condenser gets too warm this differential is lost. The steam no longer condenses back to liquid. When river and lake water gets too hot, electric power cannot be generated. As temperatures rise, nuclear power will be less and less qualified as a means to even try to generate electric power.
Fossil fuels - and uranium - are traditionally centralized energy production models. Efficiency is the ultimate in "decentralization" since the factors that will optimize efficiency are unique to each operation. Wind, solar and other renewable resources can be centralized, however the inherent value of distributed generation has become clear in helping to increase overall efficiency of power usage and minimization of power loss throughout the distribution system. Distributed generation is also recognized as means to increase grid stability.
Given the urgency of the climate challenge we face, it is vital to note that energy efficiency, wind, appropriate hydro, biomass and solar are all viable, and available at industrial scale NOW. However for those holding the reins on fossil fuels - particularly oil - there is a distinct (and highly profitable) advantage to forestalling the implementation of any alternative until the full impact of the oil "peak" and resulting energy shortages are experienced. While oil is primarily tied to transport, it is important to note that the Bush administration projects the use of nuclear power reactors to make hydrogen for use in vehicles. Since wind makes more electricity per dollar invested, it is also cost-effective at generating hydrogen than nuclear. Electric cars charged on the grid would vastly increase the demand for electric power - far exceeding traditional electric energy guzzlers like hot water heaters.
Those who promote nuclear expansion are simultaneously promoting a deeper agenda to dominate civil society with a model of central control. Given the security issues associated with nuclear power, (even more so with the use of plutonium fuel) this control may exceed compatibility with democracy. Yet one more reason to oppose this false solution.
###########
1 Contact: Mary Olson NIRS Southeast Office, PO Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802
828-675-1792, nirs@main.nc.us and www.nirs.org
2 National Office of Nuclear Information and Resource Service: 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, Maryland, 20912. 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291 nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org
3 Amory Lovins, More Profit With Less Carbon, Scientific American: September 2005.
4 See for instance, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, (updated edition) W.W. Norton 1994.
5 Cheney was speaking on C-Span in 2004 when he made the statement that there is already an alternative fuel developed that "is carbon-free" - incorrectly referring to nuclear power.
6 Felix Christian Matthes, Nuclear Energy and Climate Change, 2005. Issue Paper # 6, Heinrich Boll Foundation & World Information Service on Energy, at: http://www.nirs.org/ch20/publications/nrandclimate.htm
7 Andrew Sims, Mirage and Oasis""Energy Choices in an Age of Global Warming, 2005. Posted at: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/sewyo355prhbgunpscr51d2w29062005080838.pdf
8 See Wikipedia on line at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/black_start
9 See also Lovin's footnote #44 in Amory Lovins: Nuclear Power Economics and Climate Protection Potential 2005, Rocky Mountain Institute, E-05-08, posted at: http://www.rmi.org/images/other/energy/e05-08_nukepwrecon.pdf .
10 Nuclear Energy Institute advertising campaign.
11 Mary Olson, the Myth of the Millirem, 2004. See http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/mythmiliremfctsht.htm
12 Cindy Folkers, Radiation Basics, 1999. See http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radiationbasics.pdf
13 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, published in the Federal Register: Below Regulatory Concern Policy Statement 1990 establishes that the US radiation standard of 100 millirems a year would result (at government assessed levels of risk) in 1 in 286 people exposed suffering fatal cancer. US regulations promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 10, Part 20 allow the public to be exposed to up to 500 millirems a year from combined sources of air, water and sewage, raising the cumulative level of risk, as assessed by that agency (which assumes a linear dose-response relationship) to 1 in 57.
14 Cindy Folkers and Mary Olson, Radiation and Children: The Ignored Victims, 2004. See http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radiationandchildren.pdf
15 National Academy of Sciences, Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII, 2005. Also, Cindy Folkers, US Panel Recognizes No Safe Dose of Radiation, 2005. See: http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radtech/nosafedose072005.pdf
16 See: http://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/tritiumhome.htm .
17 US Department of Energy, Integrated Spent Fuel Database, 1994.
18 See High-Level Nuclear Waste Fact Sheet, 1997, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfcst.htm
19 See Low-Level Radioactive Waste Fact Sheet, 1992, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/llwfct.htm
20 Paul Gunter and Linda Gunter, et al, License to Kill, 2000. See: www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensedtokill/LiscencedtoKill.pdf
21 See news report posted at: http://www.closeindianpoint.org/articles/tjn_071103.htm
22 Amory Lovins, Mighty Mice, Nuclear Engineering International, December, 2005. http://www.rmi.org/images/other/energy/e05-15_mightymice.pdf There are many other citations given by Lovins in his recent review article on economics of nuclear power, see note #51.
23 Nuclear Economics, Safe Energy Communication Council, 1992. This figure does not reflect full costs of long term waste disposition, or any health impacts.
24 Lovins, More Profit with Less Carbon, see note #3.
25 Jim Moltivalli, Catching the Wind, E Magazine, January 2005. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2176
26 See http://www.eande.tv/transcripts/?date=092805
27 Efficiency and conservation are not the same. Conservation is the suspension of use - efficiency is wise use. The opportunity to develop using energy efficient hardware, protocols and strategies is the opportunity to avoid emissions through wise use and relative reduction in overall demand.
28 See note #3
29 Sustainable Energy Blueprint: A Plausible Strategy for Achieving a No-Nuclear, Low-Carbon, Highly Efficient and Sustainable Energy Future. See: http://healthandenergy.com/sustainable_energy_blueprint.htm
30 J. Deutsch and E. Moniz (co-chairs), The Future of Nuclear Power, MIT, 2003.
31 Seattle Times, April 28, 2006, Nuclear Power's New Generation. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002958091_nuclear28.html
32 On September 18, 2001 Mohamed El Beredei was quoted in the world press admitting that if a jumbo jet hit a nuclear reactor it would result in a Chernobyl level release of radioactivity and that in fact, no reactor in the world could withstand such a hit. Unfortunately it does not take an airplane to cause a major reactor accident as has been portrayed in a number of dramatic presentations including China Syndrome; Meltdown; 24 (2005) and West Wing. See also Frank von Hippel, Revisiting Nuclear Power Plant Safety, Science 291:201, 2003.
33 The USA relies upon a publicly administered insurance program for nuclear power (the Price-Anderson Act) that provides a system whereby all reactor operators pay in the event of any one unit having a major accident - and a liability cap, beyond which the industry does not have to pay. It is of interest that while an act of terror would be covered by the program, acts of war are not. The Bush War on Terror has neutralized all liability for the industry.
34 Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance, 2002 (revised and posted in 2005 with updates at: http://www.stormsmith.nl/ )
35 See Basic Info on MOX Fuel: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/basicmoxinfo.htm
36 Frank von Hippel, No Hurry to Recycle, May 2006 Mechanical Engineering.
37 Margaret Meade and Rene Dubos, The Plutonium Economy: A Statement of Concern, 1974 for the US Council of Churches, resulted in a 1976 resolution calling for a moratorium on plutonium fuel use.
38 Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Conference Report -- http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/conferencereport0.pdf
39 Mary Olson, Nuclear Power: The Next Degeneration, 2005.
40 See: http://www.mineweb.net/sections/energy/783025.htm
41 Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Wreck, The Nuclear Monitor, 2006. See: http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm643.pdf
42 Plutonium does not occur on Earth except in trace residues, where it is produced in tonnage quantities inside all nuclear reactors that use uranium fuel. In the USA irradiated reactor fuel contains about 1% plutonium.
43 See note 41.
44 Cogema is a partner in the US MOX fuel program, ostensibly for the "disposition" of weapons grade plutonium in partnership with Russia. AREVA is a full partner in the new Bush/Cheney Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
45 See: MOX at a Nuclear Power Reactor Near You, http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/moxandreactor.htm
46 Dr. Edwin Lyman - Public Health Consequences of Substituting Mixed-Oxide Fuel For Uranium Fuel in Light Water Reactors, 1999. Nuclear Control Institute -- http://www.nci.org/k-m/moxsum.htm
47 Summary of findings given in: http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/mox/nirsmcguirecatawbacontentions.htm
48 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-1150, 1990.
49 French reactors off line 2004
50 David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists
51 See article by Amory Lovins cited in note # 9
52 Renewables are Ready - a guide to teaching about renewable energy, published by Union of Concerned Scientists.
53 It should be noted that not all subscribe to the necessity or value of experiencing peak oil - see Amory B. Lovins: Winning the Oil Endgame, 2004. Cosponsored by the US Pentagon.
54 Cindy Folkers: Hydrogen Production By Nuclear Power, 2003. See www.nirs.org/
55 See also, NIRS / WISE, Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change, published in the Nuclear Monitor, February, 2005 posted at: http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf
Paper presented on May 3, 2006
Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations
Mary Olson, Director of the Southeast Office,
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Contact: Mary Olson NIRS Southeast Office, PO Box 7586 Asheville, North Carolina 28802
828-675-1792, nirs@main.nc.us and www.nirs.org
National Office of Nuclear Information and Resource Service: 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, Maryland, 20912. 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); Fax: 301-270-4291 nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
