*****************************************************************
03/19/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.68
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 US: Salon: Pentagon cooked WMD books
2 Asia Times: When weapons come back to haunt Disarming Iraq
3 The Australian: Editorial: We were right to go to war against Iraq
4 Globe and Mail: Canada got it right on Iraq
5 FT: Islamabad seeks third Chinese reactor
6 Korea Herald: KEDO to sign immigration pact with N. K.
7 US: [NukeNet] Addressing the Unthinkable, U.S. Revives Study of
8 US: ICT: United States wants international ruling kept secret
9 US: Courier post: Study: Clean energy would create jobs
10 US: MoJo: The "A" Word
11 AU SMH: Washington plans reaction to nuclear strike -
12 US: GT: Because of U.S. foreign policy, nuclear dangers are even gre
13 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Funding sought for nuke test site
14 Pravda.RU: Science and technology in Russia
15 Scotsman: Saddam Had Wmds on War Eve Says Israeli General
NUCLEAR REACTORS
16 US: [NukeNet] Impact of a Meltdown at Nuclear Plant : From NRC & Nuc
17 US: Impact of a Meltdown at Nuclear Plant : From NRC & Nuclear Indu
18 [NukeNet] PSEG promises reforms - Courier Post
19 US: Rutland Herald: Close scrutiny
20 Xinhuanet: China committed to peaceful use of nuclear energy - Jiang
21 Toronto Star: EDITORIAL: Reasonable ideas to keep lights on
22 toronto star: Manley urges more nuclear power
23 US: Courier Post: Utility promises nuclear reforms
24 Toronto Star: Ontario's hydro bill: $40B
25 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with Nebraska Public Power District to Discuss
26 US: Burlington Free Press: Nuclear safety review needed
NUCLEAR SAFETY
27 US: [DU-WATCH] KUCINICH WANTS BAN ON RADIOACTIVE MUNITIONS
28 [du-list] DU leads to sufferng in Iraq
29 US: Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Inslee, Dicks briefed on nuclear mis
30 US: Seattle Times: Inslee, Dicks want Navy to be open about nukes
31 Bellona: Italian delegation visited Zvezdochka shipyard
32 US: THE SUN: Lawmakers briefed on 'serious' nuke incident
33 US: mcall.com: Settlement judge named in Milford irradiator dispute
34 Mos News: Russia Starts Building New Nuclear Submarine
35 asahi.com Kazuko Ito: Depleted uranium leads to suffering in Iraq
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
36 US: Deseretnews: Envirocare rival denied permit
37 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Atlas cleanup criticized as slow to start
38 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Landfill company to appeal denial
39 US: Salt Lake Tribune: N-waste piles up at Envirocare; state orders
40 US: Deseretnews: Nuclear waste could be sent to San Juan
41 Las Vegas SUN: Radio ads ask Ensign to block energy legislation
42 US: Times Argus: Nuclear waste may need state input
43 US: Newsday: Facility to handle nuclear waste completed at West Vall
44 Pahrump Valley Times: Nevada charges 'sabotage' in lawsuit (Yucca)
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
45 UN Nuclear Chief Urges New Rules To Fight Spread Of Weapons Of Mass
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
46 Winnipeg Sun: Energy study due back in April - Sale
47 Daily Camera: Editorials Don't fence us out
48 Oak Ridger: Funding K-25 preservation work
49 Idaho Statesman: Energy chief asks students to be part of nuclear fu
OTHER NUCLEAR
50 Google News Alert - nuclear
51 RIT: New knowledge about plutonium calms scientists
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Salon: Pentagon cooked WMD books
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:04:00 -0600 (CST)
Dear MoveOn member,
Salon.com has just broken a major story detailing how the Pentagon created a special office to manipulate intelligence data on Iraq and WMDs. It's written by Karen Kwiatkowski, a military offer who was part of this unit, telling us the inside story in her own words.
Click here to read the full story:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
The Salon story makes it even clearer than before that the Bush administration deliberately misled us in the run-up to the war in Iraq a year ago. The problem was not bad intelligence -- it was deliberate distortion of the facts.
It's Congress' duty to hold President Bush accountable for misleading us. Please call your Senators and Representative now:
Senator Christopher S. Bond
Washington, DC: 202-224-5721
Senator Jim Talent
Washington, DC: 202-224-6154
Congressman Kenny C. Hulshof
Washington, DC: 202-225-2956
Make sure they know you're a constituent, then urge them to:
"Censure President Bush -- formally reprimand him for misleading us
about Iraq's WMDs."
Give them some reasons why Censure is necessary. Some good ones include:
- 553 American soldiers have given their lives in Iraq;
- Tens of thousands of our troops remain in harm's way there;
- A year later, we seem to have no exit strategy;
- Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed;
- The President took us to war based on assertions he knew were untrue -- for more info, see http://www.moveon.org/censure/ad-doc.html ;
- Congress has a constitutional duty to act as a check on the president.
The new Salon story is important, not only because of its revelations about how the Pentagon cooked the books on WMDs, but also because it's the first piece by Salon's new Washington, D.C. bureau.
Strong, independent news sources are more important now than ever, as
traditional media become increasingly concentrated under the control of just a few corporations, and with major outlets like CBS nakedly kowtowing to partisan interests like the Bush re-election campaign. In this context, Salon's new Washington, D.C. bureau is a major step forward for all of us.
We hope you'll take a few minutes to read their important article today. You can access it at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
Thank you.
Sincerely,
- Carrie, Joan, Noah, Peter, and Wes
The MoveOn.org team
Wednesday March 10th, 2004
_______________
*****************************************************************
2 Asia Times: When weapons come back to haunt Disarming Iraq
[http://www.atimes.com
by Hans Blix
Reviewed by Ian Williams
When Hans Blix came to the United Nations for a press conference
and book-signing on the eve of the anniversary of the war in
Iraq, it was almost like a popular demonstration in his support.
Within half an hour some 300 people had bought his book Disarming
Iraq and were lined up to have it signed by Blix, former head of
the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection
Commission (UNMOVIC), created to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD).
As they did so, UN staff, ambassadors and others expressed their
appreciation of his integrity and honesty in admitting that no
WMD had been found. Telling the truth these days seems to be rare
enough to receive special recognition, and in a world short of
heroes, the softly spoken, avuncular Swede is as close to one as
it gets - a multilateral David against the unilateral Goliath.
Even so, Blix was careful in his accusations, even of those who
vilified him. When asked for his opinion of neo-conservative
Richard Perle, former chairman of the US Defense Policy Board,
who a year before had gloated "the UN is dead - thank God",
referring to UNMOVIC's failure to find WMD and the Security
Council's failure to take British Prime Minister Tony Blair and
US President George W Bush's word for it, Blix was dismissive,
referring to Perle as "an exotic". And he commented laconically,
"It is an interesting notion that when a small minority has been
rebuffed by a strong majority, it is the majority that has failed
the test."
As a post mortem, he said: "In March 2003, the policy of
containment was abandoned in the case of Iraq ... a combined UN
and International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] inspection force of
fewer than 200 inspectors costing perhaps [US]$80 million a year
was pushed out and replaced by an invasion force of some 300,000
costing approximately $80 billion a year."
But Blix was not always everyone's favorite poster child, even if
one poster from a New York antiwar demonstration proclaimed "Blix
Not Bombs". He previously was attacked for providing excuses for
war when he reported accurately on the lack of cooperation by
president Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime. He then was
attacked by the other side when he reported that the inspections
to find WMD in Iraq were going ahead relatively unhindered and
had not turned up anything. His accusers variously charged him of
accelerating or slowing down the rush to war, which shows how
much of a different universe he was in. "It was like reporting on
the weather," he said. "If it is sunny, that's what I report, and
if later it snows, I report that as well."
In the days of expedient reports, with civil servants and
intelligence agencies rushing to feed the prejudices of their
masters, objectivity like Blix's stands out. In fact, a thread
throughout the book is "the lack of critical thinking" posed by
the governments involved. He characterized the Bush
administration view by saying, "The witches exist. You are
appointed to deal with these witches; testing whether there are
witches is only a dilution of the witchhunt."
When the Iraqis delivered the famous 12,000 pages of full, frank
and open disclosure demanded by the US Security Council, "my
reaction was that this is devoid of new evidence", but the US
reaction was that it was false and there were omissions. But, he
asked with a smile, "Are there omissions if you don't include
documents that you do not have?"
While he was careful not to fall into hero worship of French
President Jacques Chirac, who he remarked operated on the dual
principle of high-principled rhetoric and the rough-and-tumble of
French politics, he quoted him approvingly. "I went to see him
before the war, and by then we had begun to have some doubts, but
certainly, by and large, we thought there were weapons. But he
doubted it and he also was among the first who doubted the
intelligence reports. He said that the agencies 'intoxicate each
other'."
Blix recalled that his own first suspicions that Saddam Hussein
might have been telling the truth about destroying the WMD was in
January 2003. "We received tips about sites from Western
intelligence agencies and when we went to them we did not find
any weapons of mass destruction. Then we realized that although
this intelligence was the best they had ... it did not give us
anything."
He added, "Now I feel that the most important thing that could
have happened is if the Iraqis had allowed the inspections to go
on all of the sites that the agencies had claimed had weapons of
mass destruction, and perhaps it would have dawned on them that
the intelligence was not so good."
An optimist, Blix said he did not really give up hope that
inspections could avert war until US assistant secretary of state
John Wolf "phoned and told us 'you better move out'". That same
week, the British were working on a resolution requiring Saddam
to make a television speech in Arabic with five different
benchmarks. And according to Blix, if Saddam had grasped that and
made a spectacular speech, "who knows what would have happened?
It could have changed the situation. I don't think anything is
done until it's really done," he said.
When probed at the seeming naivete of ignoring the clear signals
of war from the Bush administration, he recalled that Paul
Wolfowitz as late as January 2003 "made an interesting comment
that a regime change is one thing, but however, if a regime
changes its character, that will also be a regime change. So one
had the impression, yes, they could live with Saddam provided he
changed his manners."
Indeed, looking back at the early days of the Bush
administration's support for "smart sanctions", Blix commented
that "certainly [Secretary of State] Colin Powell was no more
hawkish than [his predecessor Madeleine] Albright at the
beginning. I don't think they had plans for occupation then,
although it may have been in the formative stages. Nothing really
happened until [September 11, 2001] - without that they may have
continued the policy of containment. But in that case, I'm not
sure the inspectors would have got in. It would not have happened
easily without the military buildup."
As for the military plans that were afoot from the summer of
2002, he compared them with laying railway tracks. "You can build
them, but the speed and route of the trains to run on them are
still under control," Blix said.
He also is keen on reminding those who question him that in fact
he is no pacifist, and that "like Kofi Annan, who talks of
diplomacy supported by military pressure, I doubt they would have
gone along with inspections if it was not for the beginning of
military buildup in summer 2002". He remembered that at that
time, "We were in the dialogue between [the] UN and Iraq under
Kofi Annan's leadership, [and] the Iraqis were really wriggling
quite a lot and were not very forthcoming. They were saying,
'Maybe they will have the inspections in the context of many
other things,' a sort of bizarre game-playing."
Which leads to the bigger question. Why did Saddam Hussein, in
effect, try to bluff the world into thinking that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction when it now appears that it did not?
Blix mused: "My first speculation is that while the UN
resolutions would let off the sanctions provided he came clean on
the weapons, he nevertheless would hear many times from the US
spokesman that only the disappearance of Saddam would lead to
that result - that did not give him many incentives. So he felt
he could play cat-and-mouse with the inspectors anyway - they did
not have any importance."
Alternatively, Blix said, "He might have put a sign on the door
saying 'beware of the dog' without having the dog. He might have
then sent a signal to [the] neighbors, who would think, well,
although he denied [having] weapons, maybe they are there - and
he might look dangerous."
He also suggested that Saddam's bluff could have been based on
wounded pride and a fear of what would happen once he "let
inspectors into ministries, his own palaces and so forth", Blix
said, adding, "they knew that some of the UNSCOM [United Nations
Special Commission] inspectors had reported on military sites
they saw directly to their authorities. And perhaps thereafter
the sites could become bombing targets."
While allowing the possibility that Blair and Bush were sincerely
misled, and "intoxicated" by their intelligence agencies, he was
clear that the invasion was both unwise and illegal. "Saddam
Hussein posed no threat to his neighbors, although he was indeed
a terror to his own people." In the end, Blix said, "I don't
think that it is valid to maintain that these resolutions gave
authority to individual members of the Security Council to go to
war. I think the SC owns its resolutions and it was for the
council to authorize action, not the individual states [to]
arrogate themselves that authority."
He concluded that the whole sorry episode has several positive
features. One of them, "it has to be admitted, is the removal of
Saddam Hussein", Blix said. The other is a renewed drive to
reinforce the superiority of multilateral weapons inspections
that can be independent and that produce findings that are not
likely to be "sexed up" by governments, and which ensure that
those gains outweigh the "greater price" of the invasion "in the
compromised legitimacy of the action, in the damaged credibility
of the governments pursuing it and in the diminished authority of
the United Nations".
While he wonders whether some of the UN's more fervent fans
actually do more harm than good with their uncritical support, he
is a great supporter of multilateral institutions. Since his
retirement from the UN, the Swedish government has made him head
of an international commission on disarmament and
non-proliferation, which he hopes will produce some "doable and
constructive" findings, although he noted that "news of the new
American bunker-buster nuclear bombs may make it harder to raise
enthusiasm for a non-proliferation conference in 2005". And as is
typical of his style, he did not name the US president when
discussing those responsible for the decision to invade Iraq,
even as he made it plain about whom he was speaking.
But with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar down, British
Prime Minister Blair losing support and US Democratic
presidential nominee John Kerry gaining in the polls, perhaps it
is unnecessary. Blix's book once again brings the missing weapons
back to haunt those who fought a major war to hunt the Snark that
was not there.
Disarming Iraq by Hans Blix. Pantheon. March 2004. ISBN:
0-375-42302-8. Price US$24.00.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
3 The Australian: Editorial: We were right to go to war against Iraq
[March 20, 2004]
THERE is no such thing as a good war. Every death is a wicked
waste, every ruined home a mark of misery. But there are just
wars democracies must fight, and last year's campaign to disarm
Saddam Hussein was one such struggle. A year on, we must consider
it a success in the continuing campaign against global terror.
The dictator's disgusting regime is gone forever. The prospect of
a democratic Iraq serves as a potential model to replace the
motley collection of dictatorships that pass for governments
throughout the Middle East. Regimes that share Saddam's grotesque
fascination with weapons of mass destruction have moderated their
ambitions. Iran is co-operating with the United Nations over its
nuclear program. Libya has abandoned its longstanding fascination
with terror and has effectively disarmed.
The war itself was a model of military art and fought with
remarkable restraint. The tens of thousands of civilian deaths
the doomsayers anticipated simply did not occur. Ordinary Iraqis
are at more risk from terror attacks today than they were during
the invasion. But having been proved wrong on what the war would
bring has not stopped Australians who were willing to see Saddam
remain in power continuing to condemn the campaign. They claim
the allies' declared reason for fighting, to remove the Iraqi
dictator and clean out his arsenal of WMD, was a lie from the
start. Some even give credence to allegations that it was all an
American plot to seize Iraq's oil. They say the lack of UN
sanction made the invasion illegal. And they argue that rather
than making the world safer, participating in the war only
increased the risk of terror attack for the allied nations. None
of these arguments is supported by a convincing case. The oil
argument is easily disproved. From the end of the war, the US's
occupying authority has worked extraordinarily hard to get Iraq's
oil industry back into production under Iraqi control. Records
from Saddam's regime that suggest many European opponents of the
war, including senior French officials and outspoken British MP
George Galloway, acquired oil from the dictator on favourable
terms over the years, cripples this claim's credibility.
Certainly, no WMD stockpiles have been found since the war ended.
While chemical and biological weapons caches, more likely the
infrastructure to create them, may yet be discovered in Iraq, it
appears that Western intelligence monstrously misjudged the
extent of Saddam's existing arsenal. But this does not mean the
allied governments were wrong to fight. On all the evidence they
had, both contemporary intelligence and the undisputed historical
record, Saddam had form for using the most grotesque chemical
weapons against foreign foes and his own people alike, and there
was no reason to think he would act differently given a future
need and opportunity. Early last year, Saddam gambled he could
continue to bluff the world, as he had done throughout the 1990s,
and that the West would lack the courage to remove him. To let
him continue would have only encouraged other rogue states
ambitious to acquire nuclear weapons. Saddam's defeat sent
dictators around the world a clear message -- they can no longer
hope to hold the world hostage by acquiring WMD.
By removing Saddam the allies did the world a great service, one
which the UN lacked the cohesion and courage to accomplish. The
argument that without UN sanction the war was illegal is
specious. The world body had spent a decade trying to force
Saddam to abandon his weapons. In November 2002, the Security
Council passed Resolution 1441, which ordered him to meet his
obligation to the international community and disarm, an
instruction he was not willing to demonstrate he had obeyed. This
was more than enough sanction for war, and the US and Britain
made a tactical mistake in going back to the Security Council for
more approval than they needed. The result was that members of
the Security Council, especially France, were able to play
politics for their own national advantage over what was an open
and shut case. Just as the League of Nations failed to stand up
to Germany, Italy and Japan as they broke treaties and invaded
countries through the 1930s, the UN demonstrated last year that
it lacked the stomach to subject Iraq to the rule of law.
It is the argument that the war increased the risk of terrorism
that is most misplaced and demonstrates the inability of critics
of the invasion to understand that seeking to buy off tyrants and
terrorists never works. Australia's participation in the war
certainly did not endear us to Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida
organisation and his allies in our region, Jemaah Islamiah. But
we had already earned their hatred by helping the people of East
Timor and because of who we are -- a secular democracy that
enshrines human rights rather than the rule of a specific
religion. Islamic terrorists are motivated by a desire to
establish a clerical style of government that dates from the
Middle Ages. Short of adopting a perverted misreading of the
Koran, there is nothing we could do that would placate them.
Spain's former government supported the war, even though it sent
no troops into combat. But bin Laden has damned the Spanish for
expelling Muslim occupiers in the 15th century. The Madrid
bombing is just as likely to be punishment for the latter as the
former. And, while France opposed the war, the decision of its
parliament last month to forbid Muslim girls from wearing head
scarves to school is more than enough to make it a terror target.
As the Bali bombing demonstrates, Australians were at risk long
before Iraq - and terrorists who were no friends to Saddam
Hussein will want to murder as many of us as they can for years
to come. This appalling situation makes the only point of any
substance against the case for removing Saddam, that it diverted
attention from the campaign to capture or destroy the terror
networks.
Certainly, JI presents a far greater immediate risk to Australia
than Saddam did. But such tactical thinking ignores the bigger
strategic picture. After September 11, we were told to address
the causes of terror rather than to just try to stop bin Laden
and his ilk from slaughtering more innocent people. This is
exactly what is now happening in Iraq. The way to halt all but
religious fanatics embracing terror is to demonstrate that the
way of the West can improve the lives of ordinary people in
Muslim countries. A stable, democratic Iraq, where citizens are
protected by the rule of law rather than ruled by religious
zealots or totalitarian thugs, will be a beacon of hope for
Muslims around the world. The terrorists know, and fear it, and
they are now murdering ordinary Iraqis in Baghdad in a desperate
attempt to stop the nascent Iraqi democracy taking hold.
Democracies rarely go to war, except when the values that
distinguish them from dictatorships are attacked. The campaign to
end Saddam's regime, and the continuing struggle against terror,
are and were different parts of the same war. The US and its
allies, Australia among them, must not abandon Iraq or renounce
their role in the war in a desperate attempt to appease the
terrorists. The lesson of Iraq is that Saddam was finally
defeated when the coalition of the willing stood up to him. To
beat Osama bin Laden, and everything he represents, we must do
the same.
privacy © The Australian
*****************************************************************
4 Globe and Mail: Canada got it right on Iraq
[globeandmail.com]
We should not shrink from disagreeing with the United States
when it is wrong -- and it was wrong to go to war, says former UN
ambassador PAUL HEINBECKER
By PAUL HEINBECKER Friday, March 19, 2004 - Page A17
Rarely in life is a decision so quickly and thoroughly vindicated
as Canada's decision to opt out of the war in Iraq. A year later,
the stated casus belli has evaporated. No weapons of mass
destruction have been found, despite the best efforts of more
than a thousand American weapons inspectors with free rein. No
connection to al-Qaeda has been established. No persuasive
argument endures about the urgency of the U.S. need to act.
It is no clearer today than it was a year ago what Washington's
purposes were in invading Iraq.
A year ago in New York, I led a Canadian effort to find a
compromise between Washington, in its determined march to war,
and others -- in fact, the great majority of others -- equally
determined to give the UN weapons inspectors more time to do
their jobs. The substance of the compromise consisted of setting
a series of tests of Iraqi co-operation, on a pass-or-fail basis,
and a limited time frame within which to assess results. We knew
the odds against selling the compromise were long, but we
believed the consequences of a war made the effort mandatory.
Many, including members of the so-called coalition of the
willing, encouraged us to persevere. Most, including me,
disbelieved the allegations emanating from the White House about
Iraqi nuclear weapons. Few were persuaded by the "intelligence"
presented to the UN Security Council and to the world by the U.S.
Secretary of State and the director of the CIA. There is little
doubt that it would have been in everyone's interests, especially
Washington's, to have accepted the compromise. In the end, the
horses would not drink. The war proceeded, with consequences that
the world is still trying to calculate.
The most obvious consequence is that the United States and its
posse are caught in a morass. They cannot end the occupation
precipitously without triggering a civil war and undoing the good
they have done in removing Saddam Hussein. They cannot stay in
Iraq without losing more soldiers and more money. Echoes of
Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Iraqi toll also rises. As one Arab
ambassador at the United Nations put it, the Americans have
swallowed a razor and nothing they do now will be painless or
cost-free.
The cost to U.S. interests extends well beyond Iraq. In December,
the U.S. Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and
Muslim World, headed by former U.S. ambassador to Israel and
Syria, Edward Djerejian, reported that "the bottom has indeed
fallen out of support for the United States." According to a poll
released this week by the Pew Research Center, international
discontent with the United States and its foreign policy has
intensified rather than diminished since last year. In some
Muslim countries, support for the United States is in the single
digits. Pew found little change in the overwhelmingly negative
attitudes of countries toward the Iraq war. In Britain, support
has plummeted from 61 per cent last year to 43 per cent now. The
Globe and Mail/CTV News poll found that two-thirds of Canadians
believe that President George W. Bush "knowingly lied to the
world" about Iraq.
Nor are all the critics foreign. The war, according to a report
of theU.S. Army War College, was a strategic error, a distraction
from the war on terrorism. Beyond the neo-cons, few see terrorism
as monolithic. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
found that weapons of mass destruction were not an immediate
threat, inspections were working, the terrorism connection was
missing and war was not the best or only option.
Most of the extraordinary foreign disaffection with the United
States can be traced to U.S. foreign policy, rather than to the
United States per se.
The world respects the United States for its economic,
technological and cultural successes. The world respects the
United States for its decisive roles in the Second World War, in
defeating Soviet communism and in preserving stability among
China, Japan, Russia and the Koreas in the strategically
precarious northwest Pacific.
An equally long list of errors can also be readily drawn from
U.S. foreign policy: from overthrowing the democratically elected
government of Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in the fifties
(for which we all are still paying), to Cuba in the sixties,
Chile and Vietnam in the seventies, Iraq in the eighties and
Afghanistan (including supporting the Taliban and al-Qaeda) in
the nineties.
The United States has not -- Secretary of State Colin Powell's
assertions on the eve of the war notwithstanding -- earned the
world's trust.
What lessons should Canada learn from the Iraq experience? First
and foremost, that values matter in foreign policy. Reduced to
its basics, participation in the Iraq war would have meant
sending young Canadians to kill, and be killed by, young Iraqis
for the sake of maintaining friendly relations with Washington.
Second, going along to get along has never made good public
policy, or good politics, either. The Canadian government looked
at the evidence Washington presented and voted its conscience.
Another government, the Spanish, looked at the same evidence, and
voted its interests, specifically its interests with Washington.
One is in office and the other is not.
Third, the Iraq war demonstrates the limits of intelligence. The
U.S. administration and others made intelligence pivotal to their
decision-making. The Canadian government used it as one input
among many. One government is embarrassed and the other is not.
Time, and enquiries, will tell whether the intelligence in the
United States and Britain was just catastrophically bad,
politically manipulated or both. The Canadian analysis was
better.
Fourth, Canada does not have to choose between the UN and the
United States. To be respected in Washington, we need to be
effective in the world, including at the UN. The converse is also
true; effectiveness in New York depends on visible influence in
Washington.
Finally, we should not shrink from disagreeing with U.S.
administrations when they are wrong any more than we should
shrink from agreeing with them when they are right. We should
call them as we see them. We did so on Iraq, and we have been
vindicated.
Paul Heinbecker is director of the Laurier Centre for Global
Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University
and senior research fellow at the Centre for International
Governance Innovation, both in Waterloo, Ont. He was Canadian
permanent representative and ambassador to the United Nations
until January, 2004.
[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/]
*****************************************************************
5 FT: Islamabad seeks third Chinese reactor
By Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad
Published: March 18 2004 4:00 | Last Updated: March 18 2004
4:00
Pakistan is negotiatingwith China to buy a third nuclear power
reactor for installation in Karachi, the southern port city.
The move underlined Islamabad's increasing reliance on Beijing as
its main supplier of nuclear power reactors, senior officials
involved in the negotiations said.
Earlier this month, a team of Pakistani nuclear officials
secretly visited Beijing to conclude the technical agreement for
the second Chinese reactor to be built at Chashma, 280km south of
the capital Islamabad, bringing the two sides close to a final
deal.
The proposed reactor at Chashma, known as C-2 or Chashma-2, whose
final price is expected to be settled later this year, would be
built alongside the first Chinese reactor that went into
operation in 1999. Both have a capacity of 300MW.
The third reactor, known as K-2 or the second in the series of
Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP) reactors, is proposed to be
built near a 137MW nuclear power reactor supplied by Canada in
1971. "Now, as we proceed, K-2 will be our next plant," said a
senior Pakistani official.
Western diplomats said they expected Pakistan and China to begin
technical negotiations this summer to finalise details such as
the size and design of the proposed reactor in Karachi.
Some diplomats said Pakistan might be seeking a 600MW reactor for
Karachi to overcome the frequent power shortages in its largest
business city, where prolonged power cuts have provoked public
protests in the past few years.
Pakistan has recently been at the centre of global concerns over
nuclear proliferation after it was revealed that A.Q. Khan, the
father of its nuclear bomb project, oversaw a network of rogue
scientists who sold nuclear knowhow and technology, to Iran,
Libya and possibly North Korea.
But Pakistani officials said agreements with China for the two
reactors would be subject to strict safe-guards.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. "FT" and
"Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy
*****************************************************************
6 Korea Herald: KEDO to sign immigration pact with N. K.
2004.03.20
North Korea and a U.S-led international consortium responsible
for building two nuclear power plants in the North are soon to
sign a memorandum of understanding on immigration control
procedures at a construction site in the North, South Korean
officials said yesterday.
The accord mandates, among other things, officials of the
U.S.-led Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization to
inform North Korea of their visit five days before their trips
to the site in the Kumho area on the North's northeastern coast.
"The memorandum of understanding deals with immigration control
and other overall procedures," Lee Joon-jae, a special adviser
to KEDO's executive board chairman Chang Sun-sup, said.
*****************************************************************
7 [NukeNet] Addressing the Unthinkable, U.S. Revives Study of
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:10:16 -0800
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/national/19NUKE.html
Addressing the Unthinkable, U.S. Revives Study of
Fallout
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 19, 2004
o cope with the possibility that terrorists might
someday detonate a nuclear bomb on American soil,
the federal government is reviving a scientific
art that was lost after the cold war: fallout
analysis.
The goal, officials and weapons experts both
inside and outside the government say, is to
figure out quickly who exploded such a bomb and
where the nuclear material came from. That would
clarify the options for striking back. Officials
also hope that if terrorists know a bomb can be
traced, they will be less likely to try to use
one.
Advertisement
In a secretive effort that began five years ago
but whose outlines are just now becoming known,
the government's network of weapons laboratories
is hiring new experts, calling in old-timers,
dusting off data and holding drills to sharpen its
ability to do what is euphemistically known as
nuclear attribution or post-event forensics.
It is also building robots that would go into an
affected area and take radioactive samples, as
well as field stations that would dilute dangerous
material for safe shipment to national
laboratories.
"Certainly, there's a frightening aspect in all of
this," said Charles B. Richardson, the project
leader for nuclear identification research at the
Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. "But
we're putting all these things together with the
hope that they'll never have to be used."
Most experts say the risk of a terrorist nuclear
attack is low but no longer unthinkable, given the
spread of material and know-how around the globe.
Dr. Jay C. Davis, a nuclear scientist who in 1999
helped found the Pentagon's part of the
governmentwide effort, said the precautions would
"pay huge dividends after the event, both in terms
of the ability to identify the bad actor and in
terms of establishing public trust."
In a nuclear crisis, Dr. Davis added, the
identification effort would be vital in "dealing
with the desire for instant gratification through
vengeance."
Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on the
program last fall, Dr. Davis said. The National
Security Council coordinates the work among a
dozen or so federal agencies.
The basic science relies on faint clues - tiny
bits of radioactive fallout, often invisible to
the eye, that under intense scrutiny can reveal
distinctive signatures. Such wisps of evidence can
help identify an exploded bomb's type and
characteristics, including its country of origin.
Solving the nuclear whodunit could take much more
information, including hard-won law enforcement
clues and good intelligence on foreign nuclear
arms and terrorist groups. For that reason,
several federal agencies are involved in the
program, among them the Department of Homeland
Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The program addresses true nuclear weapons as well
as so-called dirty bombs, ordinary explosives that
spew radioactive debris.
"It's a very hard job," said William Happer, a
physicist at Princeton who led a panel that
evaluated the identification work.
Mr. Happer said he was worried that a rush for
retribution after a nuclear attack might cut short
the time needed for careful analysis. "If we lose
a city," he said, "we might not wait around that
long."
The effort to fingerprint domestic nuclear blasts
is part of a larger federal project to strengthen
the nation's overall defenses against
unconventional terrorist threats. Mostly, the goal
is prevention. For instance, the government
recently sent teams of scientists with hidden
radiation detectors to check major American cities
for signs that terrorists might be preparing to
detonate radiological bombs.
In contrast, the identification program seeks to
increase the government's knowledge and options
should prevention fail. "We're trying to resurrect
some of our capability," said Reid Worlton, a
retired nuclear scientist from the Los Alamos
weapons laboratory in New Mexico who has been
called in to aid the fallout endeavor. "It sort of
died. They're not doing radiochemistry on nuclear
tests anymore, so it's hard to keep these people
around."
The effort draws on work that began at the
dawn of the atomic era. Scientists working on the
Manhattan Project built an array of devices to
monitor nuclear blasts in the New Mexico desert in
July 1945 and at Hiroshima and Nagasaki a month
later. The experience helped scientists learn what
to look for.
The first hunt zeroed in on the Soviet
Union. In the late 1940's, military weather planes
used paper filters to gather dust particles around
the periphery of Russia, and scientists in the
United States who analyzed the data at first
sounded dozens of false alarms, said Jeffrey T.
Richelson, an intelligence expert in Washington.
Advertisement
Then, on Sept. 3, 1949, a weather plane
flying from Japan to Alaska picked up a slew of
atomic particles. "That was the real thing," Mr.
Richelson said. Twenty days later, President Harry
S. Truman announced that the Soviets had exploded
their first nuclear device.
The ranks of fallout investigators swelled
during the cold war as foreign nations conducted
hundreds of atmospheric nuclear tests. By all
accounts, the sleuths made many important
discoveries about the nature and design of foreign
nuclear arms.
In time, the ranks dwindled as more and more
nations decided to move their test explosions
underground, eliminating fallout. The last nuclear
blast to pummel the earth's atmosphere was in
1980, and the last known underground test,
conducted by Pakistan, was in 1998.
As the terrorist threat rose in the 1990's,
the government began to consider the quandary that
would arise if a nuclear weapon exploded on
American soil. In 1999, Dr. Davis, then head of
the Defense Threat Reduction Agency at the
Pentagon, began an effort to address the
identification problem by financing research at
the nation's weapons laboratories, many of them
run by the Energy Department.
The first money came in late 2000, Dr. Davis
said, and the attacks of September 2001 "made it
clear that a very organized event on a large scale
was credible." That perception, he said, helped
the effort expand.
The secretive work won rare public praise in
a June 2002 report ("Making the Nation Safer")
from the National Research Council of the National
Academies, the country's leading scientific
advisory group. Having the ability to find out who
launched a domestic nuclear strike, the report
said, could deter attackers and bolster threats of
retaliation. The report urged that the program go
into operation "as quickly as practical" and that
the government publicly declare its existence.
Since then, weapons laboratories and other
federal agencies have worked hard on the problem.
"They're making progress but they've got a ways to
go," said Mr. Worlton, the retired Los Alamos
scientist.
In a drill this year, dozens of federal
experts in fallout analysis met at the Sandia
laboratories in Albuquerque to study a simulated
terrorist nuclear blast. Mr. Worlton said they
were broken into teams and given radiological data
from two old American nuclear tests, whose
identities remained hidden, and were instructed to
try to name them. Some teams succeeded, he said.
Mr. Richardson of Sandia said the laboratory
was developing a land robot that could roll up to
10 miles to sample fallout and return it to human
operators for analysis. It could also radio back
some results if it became stuck. Mr. Richardson
said the robots, now in development, are to be
ready in a couple of years.
Experts say a new aircraft for atmospheric
sampling of nuclear fallout is also in
development. The Air Force currently has one, the
WC-135W Constant Phoenix, for such work. It was
first deployed in 1965.
Weapons experts say getting samples fast is
important because some radioactive debris can
decay rapidly. If captured quickly, they can shed
light on a weapon's design.
One way of trying to identify a bomb's
origin positively, several experts say, is to
match debris signatures with libraries of
classified data about nuclear arms around the
world, including old fallout signatures and more
direct intelligence about bomb types,
characteristics and construction materials.
"If you're talking about a stolen device,
you might try to do that," Mr. Richardson said.
"But if it's improvised, that's less likely to
work. It might not look like things you've seen
before."
A further complication is that even knowing
who made a bomb may say little about who detonated
it. In a 1991 Tom Clancy novel, "The Sum of All
Fears," Islamic terrorists find and rebuild an
Israeli nuclear weapon and set it off at the Super
Bowl.
Federal experts say complex threat scenarios
(for instance, an American warhead being stolen
and detonated in an American city) mean that many
types of intelligence might be needed for
successful identification. Over all, it is unclear
how much money the government is spending on the
effort.
Private experts offered suggestions for
improvement. Dr. Happer of Princeton, who heads a
university board that helps oversee campus
research, said the program might be cooperating
too little with nuclear allies. "It's to our
advantage," he said, "for all of us to share."
Dr. Davis, the former head of the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency, made several policy
recommendations last April in an article for The
Journal of Homeland Security. He said the F.B.I.
should lead the program, presidentially appointed
overseers should guide it, goals should be set for
how long analyses should take and legal issues of
prosecution should be examined.
In an interview, Dr. Davis said his
suggestions had made little headway, partly
because of the topic's grisly nature. "This is an
ugly subject because your best effort is going to
be barely adequate," he said. "That's not the kind
of phrase people like to hear."
Mr. Richardson of Sandia said that the
attribution effort had made good technical
progress and had already some ability to identify
an attacker.
"We're hoping for deterrence," he said. "We
don't want anybody to think they can get away with
it."
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://chrome.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
8 ICT: United States wants international ruling kept secret
[2004/03/19]
Posted: March 19, 2004 - 10:49am EST
by: Brenda Norrell / Southwest Staff Reporter / Indian Country
Today
PHOENIX - The United States is attempting to keep secret an
international ruling that affects American Indians and property
rights. The ruling, in the case of the Western Shoshone, calls
for a review of all U.S. law and policy regarding indigenous
peoples and in particular the right to property.
On Indigenous Peoples Day, Western Shoshone Carrie Dann
said, "The U.S. was found to be in violation of international law
- found to be violating our rights to property, to due process
and to equality under the law.
"They have been told to remedy this situation and to
review all law and policy relating to indigenous peoples in the
United States."
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
Organization of American States issued its final report in the
case of Dann v. U.S. It is the first judicial review of the
United States law and policy regarding indigenous peoples within
its borders.
Julie Fishel, attorney for the Western Shoshone Defense
Project, said the United States does not want American Indians to
learn about the ruling.
"They are nervous about this," Fishel said.
The OAS ruling focuses on the Dann’s right to their
ancestral land and the violation of their human rights. In her
statement on March 11, Dann said the U.S. is violating the 1863
Treaty of Ruby Valley.
"They tell us our lands are federal lands," Dann said,
speaking of the ranch where her family has lived for generations
in Crescent Valley.
Western Shoshone have lived on the land, now called
Nevada, for more than 4,000 years. However, Western Shoshone land
is being seized for open pit cyanide leach gold mining and the
Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, a mountain that
Shoshone hold sacred.
Dann said, "At the Nevada Test Site, the current
administration wants to reopen nuclear testing and are conducting
biological and chemical testing and development at the new
Federal Counterterrorism Facility."
"As we see it, these activities are done only for the
benefit of the multinational corporations, not for the benefit of
the people. On our lands alone, companies such as Placer Dome,
Newmont, Barrick, Halliburton, Bechtel and Lockheed Martin are
poisoning our air and water and ripping apart our Mother Earth."
Hundreds of the family’s livestock have been seized by
the Department of Interior under military-style attacks.
"We are placed under constant surveillance by armed
federal rangers and helicopter flyovers. We remain on the land of
our ancestors.
"The U.S. Congress and the corporations are waving money
and other deals under the noses of our people." Dann said it is
the responsibility of the people to preserve life for the future
generations.
Carrie and her sister Mary have fought the United States
all the way to the Supreme Court. After 10 years of legal
proceedings, the Organization of American States ruled in favor
of the Western Shoshone.
The OAS report came on Jan. 9, 2003, 10 years after
sisters Mary and Carrie Dann filed a petition for redress. During
the proceedings, several other Western Shoshone communities
joined the petition in amicus curiae briefings. The Western
Shoshone Nation Council, the traditional governing body, filed a
supporting brief.
The case states that the U.S. argued to the Indian Claims
Commission that Western Shoshone had lost their land due to
"gradual encroachment" of whites, settlers and others. The
Western Shoshone argued that the U.S. claim was in violation of
its own laws and international human rights laws to which the
U.S. is bound as a member of the OAS.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights agreed with
the Western Shoshone. The final report found the United States in
violation of the right to property, right to due process and
right to equality under the law.
The final report issued two recommendations to the United
States. The first was to remedy the situation of the Western
Shoshone, either legislatively or by providing a hearing on the
issue of title.
The OAS also recommended that all U.S. law and policy
regarding indigenous peoples, in particular the right to
property, be reviewed.
Dann said, "We will never give up our resistance. We
cannot. It is not for us but for those yet to come."
Seated on the grass at the Nahuacalli, the Indigenous
Embassy and community center of Tonatierra, Carrie Dann was asked
what she wanted most.
"Liberation," Dann said.
"I’ve been waiting all my life to be liberated from the
federal government."
Recalling President Bush’s words, she said, "Bush said,
‘We are not the conquerors, we are the liberators.’
"I’m still waiting for the day when the indigenous will
be liberated from the control of the United States government."
*****************************************************************
9 Courier post: Study: Clean energy would create jobs
[http://www.courierpostonline.com
Friday, March 19, 2004 By PAMELA KROPF Gannett State Bureau
TRENTON
The development of clean energy throughout the Mid-Atlantic
region would promote job creation and benefit the Garden State's
economy, a new report released Thursday by New Jersey Public
Interest Research Group shows.
According to the report - which compared job creation from clean
energy technologies to those using fossil fuels - renewable
energy, such as from wind and solar resources, would create jobs
in manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance, as
well as reduce environmental toxics.
"As this report shows, clearly New Jersey will only benefit from
increased clean energy development," Emily Rusch, energy advocate
for NJPIRG, said. "Wind and solar not only reduce air pollution
and nuclear waste, prevent natural gas spikes and increase
reliability, but clean energy also benefits our work force and
the economy."
Upfront costs
The report states high system construction costs would be
followed by extremely cheap production, but the biggest
impediment to developing renewable energy is upfront costs.
"Renewable energy producers are financing 30 years worth of
power all at once," the report states. "Coal and natural gas
generation, on the other hand, spread the costs of fuel over the
lifetime of the plant with the expectation that price
fluctuations will be absorbed by the consumer."
To help with high costs, Gov. James E. McGreevey started the New
Jersey Clean Energy Program, which includes financial incentives
- of up to 60 percent - to owners who install qualified clean
energy generation systems, such as photovoltaic (solar electric)
systems and wind generators, in the state.
"Renewable energy is clearly the energy of the future and this
administration is committed to leading the way," McGreevey said
in a prepared statement.
Rusch said residents wishing to install solar power in their
homes could accrue costs of $6,500 to $10,000 - after the
governor's rebate programs.
According to the Board of Public Utility's 2002 Annual Report,
renewable energy is cost-effective in the long run.
"The sun and wind will never raise their fuel prices," the
report states.
Findings in NJPIRG's report include:
+ Electricity rates paid by consumers - especially during
summertime peaks - would be reduced;
+ The National Renewable Energy Laboratory predicts that by 2030,
10 percent of the United States electricity demand will be met
with solar energy.
+ If one out of 10 Mid-Atlantic homes used some solar power,
25,390 yearlong and permanent jobs would be created, totaling a
payroll of $364 million by 2014;
+ $23 million in royalties would be paid to rural landowners who
lease land for wind generation.
Existing standards
New Jersey already has Renewable Portfolio Standards - which
require a portion of electricity provided to consumers to come
from clean, renewable resources.
"We are overall comfortable with the standards," Leslie
Cifelli, spokeswoman for PSE, said.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 269
in Trenton has already begun training its members to be employed
as solar installers.
"We've trained more than 50 of our members to install PV (solar
photovoltaic) systems," said Clifford Reisser, training director
for the IBEW Southern New Jersey chapter. "The bottom line is,
this means jobs for our members."
Reisser said the IBEW building has four PV systems.
"We've reduced our electric bill by 65 percent," Reisser said.
*****************************************************************
10 MoJo: The "A" Word
[MotherJones.com] [Mother Jones] [News]
[http://www.motherjones.com/toc/2004/03/index.html]
March 19, 2004
The Wall Street Journal editorialized the other day that the
lesson the world's terrorists would take away from the Spanish
election was the following: "That by murdering innocents they
were able to topple one of the pillars of the Western anti-terror
alliance."
The editorial continued: "The illusion that it is possible to
purchase peace with appeasement or neutrality is always powerful
in any war. The burden of self-defense is expensive and painful.
The British preferred Chamberlain to Churchill in the late 1930s,
while millions marched in Europe in 1982 against Ronald Reagan's
deployment of nuclear missiles to deter the Soviet Union. Mr.
Aznar has good historical company."
New York Times columnist David Brooks opined that "some
significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized
after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out
the old government and replace it with one whose policies are
more to Al Qaeda's liking," and followed up, "What is the Spanish
word for appeasement?"
Tom Friedman, in a column titled, "Axis of Appeasement," observed
that "a Spanish pullout from Iraq would only bring to mind
Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the
Munich pact with Hitler: 'You were given the choice between war
and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.'"
And Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, offered that the
Spanish people "chose to change their government and to, in a
sense, appease terrorists."
Yes, the "A" word -- Appeasement -- has made a comeback. The
reference
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/britain/cen_munich.shtml]
is to a meeting, in September, 1938, in Munich between British
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. Hitler
demanded that Sudetenland, then Czechoslovak land, be ceded to
Germany because it was settled by Germans. Chamberlain, to his
eternal shame, agreed -- and that agreement became know as
Appeasement.
The word is meant to sting, and it's especially insulting and
undiplomatic directed towards a continent where tens of millions
of lives were lost as a result of Nazi aggression and in a
country that is in national mourning over the loss of 201 lives
as a result of an Al-Qaeda related bombing. As the French daily
Le Monde rightly pointed out, the appeasement argument shows "a
lot of contempt for the Spanish people who live daily with the
threat of terrorism." And Jonathan Freedland, writing
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1171082,00.ht
ml] in the Guardian, observes that "the menace of al-Qaida is
real and serious enough without making hyperbolic comparisons to
the Third Reich."
And anyway, the analogy doesn't work. Freedland says there are
"two grave errors that underlie this latest argument from the
right. One is a misunderstanding of democracy, the other is a
failure to make crucial distinctions."
The first mistake is the more surprising, for no word is invoked
more often in support of the "war on terror" than democracy. Yet
these insults hurled at the Spanish show a sneaking contempt for
the idea. For surely the Spanish did nothing more on Sunday than
exercise their democratic right to change governments. They
elected the Socialist party; to suggest they voted for al-Qaida
is a slur not only on the Spanish nation but on the democratic
process itself, implying that when terrorists strike political
choice must end.
Consider, too, that the Spanish people, as they headed to the
polls, had reason to think their government wasn't being entirely
straight with them about the bombings. The widespread impression
that the government withheld evidence and misled the public to
influence the outcome of the election certainly had an impact
[http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmp
lh&ArticleId=510736] on the result.
The government's handling of the bombing was also reminiscent of
its exaggeration of intelligence evidence and "going over the
heads of the voters" in the run-up to the Iraqi War. The cynical
attempt to manipulate the nation's tragedy for political benefit
only gave credence to criticisms of the Popular Party's lack of
transparency and honesty with the voters. As Le Monde
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3956-2004Mar18.ht
ml] points out:
The handling of the information, backed by pressure on the big
media, revived the memory of other deceptions, such as the
presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which Mr. Aznar
refused to explain … The Spanish right was beaten by itself, by
turning to methods that it unfortunately does not have a monopoly
on…That is why Spaniards' fresh start, far from amounting to
resignation in the face of terrorism, is a lesson in democracy.
Another error of those who criticize the Spanish vote, says
Freedland, is a "failure to distinguish between the war against
al-Qaida and the war on Iraq."
About 90% of the Spanish electorate were against the latter;
there is no evidence that they were, or are, soft on the former.
On the contrary, there have been two mass demonstrations of
Spanish opinion in the past few days: let no one forget that 36
hours before the election, about 11 million Spaniards took to the
streets to swear their revulsion at terrorism. It takes some
cheek to accuse a nation like that of weakness and appeasement.
As a Guardian editorial further points out
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1171082,00.ht
ml] :
"The Spanish electorate were not voting for a cave-in to
al-Qaida. On the contrary, many of those who opposed the war in
Iraq did so precisely because they feared it would distract from
the more urgent war against Islamist fanaticism. (Witness the US
military resources pulled off the hunt for Bin Laden in
Afghanistan and diverted to Baghdad.) Nor was it appeasement to
suggest that the US-led invasion of an oil-rich, Muslim country
would make al-Qaida's recruitment mission that much easier."
Instead of taking cheap shots at the Spanish voters, who did
nothing more -- or less -- than exercise their right to vote,
U.S. commentators and politicians should take a sober look at the
reasons behind the Popular Party's downfall. Many of the
criticisms leveled at Aznar are echoed in the United Kingdom and
the United States. If they are serious about about effectively
pursuing the "war on terrorism," not to mention re-election, Bush
and Blair should take heed. [.] [Email] E-mail article [Print]
© 2003 The Foundation for National Progress
*****************************************************************
11 AU SMH: Washington plans reaction to nuclear strike -
smh.com.au [Sydney Morning Herald Online]
By William Broad March 20, 2004
To cope with the possibility that terrorists might some day
detonate a nuclear bomb on US soil, the Government is reviving a
scientific art that was lost after the Cold War: fallout
analysis.
The goal, officials and weapons experts say, is to figure out
quickly who exploded such a bomb and where the nuclear material
came from. That would clarify the options for striking back.
Officials also hope that if terrorists know a bomb can be traced,
they will be less likely to try to use one.
In a secretive effort that began five years ago but whose
outlines are just now becoming known, the Government's network of
weapons laboratories is hiring new experts, calling in
old-timers, dusting off data and holding drills to sharpen its
ability to do what is euphemistically known as nuclear
attribution or post-event forensics.
It is also building robots that would go into a destruction zone
and take radioactive samples, as well as field stations that
would dilute dangerous material for safe shipment to national
laboratories.
"Certainly, there's a frightening aspect in all of this," said
Charles Richardson, the project leader for nuclear identification
research at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. "But we're putting all these things together with the
hope that they'll never have to be used."
Most experts say the risk of a terrorist nuclear attack is low
but no longer unthinkable, given the spread of material and
know-how around the globe.
Jay Davis, a nuclear scientist who in 1999 helped found the
Pentagon's part of the government-wide effort, said the
precautions "will pay huge dividends after the event, both in
terms of the ability to identify the bad actor and in terms of
establishing public trust".
In a nuclear crisis, Dr Davis added, the identification effort
would be vital in "dealing with the desire for instant
gratification through vengeance".
The basic science relies on faint clues - tiny bits of
radioactive fallout, often invisible to the eye, that under
intense scrutiny can reveal distinctive signatures. Such wisps of
evidence can help identify an exploded bomb's type and
characteristics, including its country of origin.
Solving the nuclear whodunit could take much more information,
including not only hard-won law enforcement clues but good
intelligence on foreign nuclear arms and terrorist groups.
The program addresses true nuclear weapons as well as so-called
dirty bombs - ordinary explosives that spew radioactive debris
over an area.
William Happer, a physicist at Princeton who led a National
Academies panel that evaluated the identification work, said a
rush for retribution after a nuclear attack might cut short the
time needed for careful laboratory analysis.
"If we lose a city," he said, "we might not wait around that
long."
The effort to fingerprint domestic nuclear blasts is part of a
larger federal project to strengthen overall defences against
unconventional terrorist threats. Mostly, the aim is prevention.
For instance, the Government recently sent scientists with hidden
radiation detectors to check American cities for signs that
terrorists might be preparing to detonate radiological bombs.
The New York Times
Copyright © 2004. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
12 GT: Because of U.S. foreign policy, nuclear dangers are even greater
- gainesvilletimes.com
Opinion - Friday, March 19, 2004
By Joan King
COLUMNIST
I was 13, a teen-ager reluctantly cleaning up her room, when the
radio announced the United States had dropped an atomic bomb on
Hiroshima.
I raised three children during the Cold War and remember sending
them off to school during the Cuban missile crisis wondering if
I'd ever see them again, but it wasn't until they were older that
I became actively involved in nuclear issues.
Over the years, I've attended Department of Energy workshops,
toured the Savannah River Site (it's a bomb plant, folks; it
hasn't produced the first kilowatt of electricity), visited
radioactive waste dumps in Nevada and help facilitate educational
programs for Congressional staffers in Washington.
Are we any safer now than during the Cold War? I don't think so.
The United States still has 2,300 nuclear missiles on high alert
(I'm told that means 15 minutes to launch), and you better
believe other nuclear nations are equally ready to fire. The
world is probably in greater jeopardy today than it has ever
been, but public concern is almost nonexistent.
This has allowed our government to all but ignore nuclear
proliferation. Now that Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's leading
nuclear scientist, has confessed to running an international
black market in nuclear weapons materials, this is no longer
possible. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is so dependent
on Pakistan's cooperation with its war on terrorism, there's very
little it can do about it.
Pakistan, of course, officially denies any part in this black
market. It's all Dr. Kahn's doing, they say, but Pakistani
President Pervez Musharraf just pardoned Kahn calling him a
national hero. Now it's back to business as usual.
Pakistan continues to receive U.S. support. Nearby the United
Arab Emirates continue to get U.S. weapons and missile-defense
deals despite the fact that they serve as a black market transfer
point, and the international trade in nuclear materials
continues.
The problem is not new. International intelligence agencies have
known about it for 20 years. As a former CIA director, the first
President Bush must have known, but it can't be blamed on one
party or one administration. However, no administration has tied
its own hands like that of George W. Bush.
President Bush's war on terrorism and his need to capture Osama
bin Laden, thought to be hiding in northern Pakistan, require
that the administration pretend Pakistan is not involved in
promoting nuclear proliferation around the world. The
administration's need to maintain troops in the Persian Gulf to
safeguard its oil supply requires that it ignore black-market
transfer points in the United Arab Emirates.
The White House admits that SMB Computers, a company in Dubai,
one of the Emirates' sheikdoms, has served as a front for this
underground nuclear network. They know that Malaysian high-speed
gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium for Libya's nuclear weapon
program were shipped through Dubai.
This is absurd! The administration says it is fighting terrorism,
but it turns a blind eye to a network that sells weapons of mass
destruction to anyone with enough money to buy them. Meanwhile
North Korea openly admits its nuclear ambitions and sells missile
delivery systems to nations hostile to the United States.
This is foreign policy run amok. The world is not safer today
than when Bush took office; just the opposite. The nuclear
balance that afforded some protection during the Cold War years
is gone. We are not facing one enemy, we are facing many, and we
seem to be making more every day.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know we're headed in
the wrong direction. We need to reduce our need for oil, not just
foreign oil, though that is the first step. Nuclear energy is not
the way to do it. Any country that has a nuclear energy facility
can, if it is determined to do so, produce weapons-grade
plutonium from the resulting nuclear waste.
Sure, there are safeguards, but they can never be perfect. Dr.
Khan's confession demonstrates there is already an international
black market in nuclear weapons materials. The Bush
administration's lack of response demonstrates how it has tied
its own hands.
Writing in the March 8 New Yorker, Seymour Hersh quotes a source
in Europe: "Iraq is laughable in comparison with this issue. The
Bush administration (has been) hunting the shadows instead of the
prey."
My thanks to The Times, which once again provided better coverage
on an issue important to all Georgians than did the Atlanta
papers.
This concerns a protest at the state Capitol over recent cuts in
funding for monitor radioactive contamination around the Savannah
River Site on Georgia's border with South Carolina. While the AJC
buried the information in its Metro section, The Times printed it
on page 5.
Funding for is expected to end next month. The SRS contains a
40-year accumulation of highly radioactive nuclear waste from
years of nuclear weapons production, and contamination from the
plant is leaking into the ground water and the Savannah River
itself.
Without monitoring Georgia has no early warning system and no way
to protect its citizens from future leaks. If anyone wants more
information, I invite them to contact me through the paper.
Joan King is a resident of Sautee. Her column appears biweekly.
Originally published Friday, March 19, 2004
Copyright ©2004 The Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
13 Salt Lake Tribune: Funding sought for nuke test site
March 19, 2004
By Christopher Smith
The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON -- There are no federal plans to resume nuclear
bomb tests, but $30 million is necessary to get the Nevada Test
Site primed for quick resumption of underground detonations
should the need arise, the head of the nation's nuclear weapons
program told a congressional committee Thursday.
President Bush has "made it clear we have no current
intentions for resuming testing," National Nuclear Security
Administration Administrator Linton Brooks told the House Armed
Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee. But Brooks said the
White House believes improving the Nevada site's "readiness
posture" for testing is vital to ensure the safety, security and
reliability of the nation's existing arsenal of nuclear bombs.
Thousands of Utahns blame illnesses, including the deaths of
family members, on nuclear testing beginning in the 1950s that
rained fallout over wide areas of the nation. Under a
moratorium, no nuclear weapons have been tested by detonation in
the United States since 1992.
Last week, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, introduced legislation
requiring any resumption of nuclear bomb testing to be
accompanied by federal programs to protect the health and safety
of Americans downwind from fallout or contamination caused by
radiation exposure. Rep. Shelly Berkley, D-Nev., is the only
House member thus far to sign on as a co-sponsor.
The fiscal 2005 budget request for the National Nuclear
Security Administration, an agency within the Department of
Energy, would allow a nuclear detonation test to be carried out
within 18 months of orders by the president, compared with the
current 24- to 36-month preparation time. The funding would
serve as "a hedge against the possibility a problem can't be
confirmed or a repair can't be certified without a test," said
Brooks.
Nuclear weapons watchdogs say a nuclear bomb detonation
could actually be put together in a matter of weeks, if
necessary. They argue the agency is measuring the readiness
posture from the moment a flaw is discovered in a bomb until a
new replacement device is built and tested in a detonation,
rather than merely the time it would take to demonstrate to the
world that an aging weapon in the U.S. arsenal still works.
"DOE is a past master at using shorthand to persuade
Congress that more needs to be done than actually needs to be
done," said Chris Paine, senior nuclear weapons analyst with the
Natural Resources Defense Council. "Last year on their request
for test readiness, the money got through, but I wouldn't say
Congress was thrilled about it because there were attempts to
take it out."
If efforts are going to be made to trim the National Nuclear
Security Administration's $9 billion request this year, it
likely will come from deficit hawks on the House Appropriations
Committee rather than members of Armed Services, comprised
primarily of members who look out for military installations or
weapons labs in their home districts.
While the Department of Defense is preparing a review of the
necessary size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile based on projected
enemy threats, "we can expect nuclear weapons to remain a
cornerstone of our national security posture for the foreseeable
future," said Strategic Forces subcommittee Chairman Rep. Terry
Everett, R-Ala.
[csmith@sltrib.com]
Copyright Salt Lake City Tribune
*****************************************************************
14 Pravda.RU: Science and technology in Russia
13:58 2004-03-19
* Russia's prospected and accumulated reserves of uranium and
plutonium will ensure the stable development of the country's
nuclear power engineering until the end of the 2030s, says a
nuclear industry leader Igor Borovkov. After that, the Russian
nuclear power engineering will resort to fast neutron reactors
and thermonuclear plants.
Russia's nuclear energy is developing at a stable pace. In the
past five years, electricity generation at nuclear power plants
rose by 40% and their share in the power balance of European
Russia topped 20%, annually replacing about 40 bln cubic metres
of natural gas in the country's energy balance and increasing
replacement by up to 3 bln cu m every year.
The cost of electricity produced at nuclear plants is 10-13%
cheaper. Russia's Energy Strategy provides for the development of
nuclear power engineering at two times the pace of other energy
branches. By 2020, the production of electricity at nuclear power
plants will reach 270-300 bln kWh a year, or double the current
figure.
* Academician Alexander Lisitsin spoke at the 8th international
conference on modern methods and equipment of ocean studies about
four-dimensional oceanology. The ocean is usually studied as a
three-dimensional object, with latitude, longitude and depth. The
academician adds the fourth dimension, time. He suggests that
seabed sediments, silt and sand, which store information about
changes on the Earth in the past 160 mln years, should be viewed
as the time element.
Four-dimensional oceanology could become instrumental in studying
climate changes and trends, as a study of sediments could raise
the veil of the secrecy over warm and cold periods in the past
and present and predict them in the future.
* Scientists at the Institute of Comprehensive Social Studies of
the Russian Academy of Sciences have proved wrong the general
belief that weak migration in Russia keeps back the development
of the labour market. The scientists showed that the influx of
migrants in modern Russia is registered not only in large cities
but also in the provinces. As many as 13% of provincial residents
have come to their current place of residence and work in the
past decade, that is, during the reform period.
The overwhelming majority of urban dwellers in Russia have
similar possibilities and mobility. Selective polls in 2003
involved about 1,800 respondents in all types of urban
settlements. According to official data, there were 1,098 cities
in Russia with an aggregate population of over 105 mln.
* Absorption has a vital role in many branches of production and
life. The cigarette filter is the most pleasant example of
absorption of substances (though dangerous, in this case).
Siberian chemists have created a new class of absorbing
substances, the organosilicon sorbents, which can be applied in a
variety of spheres. Their production is simple, they are very
strong and very resistant to high temperature and chemicals.
The scientists have created and applied methods of determining
silver, gold and platinum content in gold-bearing sands and
polymetallic ores based on the new sorbents, which are also used
to monitor Lake Baikal, the planet's largest fresh water body.
The new sorbents can be also used for the utilisation of silver
from cine- and photo wastes and for purifying industrial sewage
from quicksilver, lead, arsenic and other toxic agents.
And lastly, cigarette filters made of the new material make
smoking less dangerous and are much safer than current filters.
© RIAN
Copyright ©1999 by " [http://www.pravda.ru/] ". When
*****************************************************************
15 Scotsman: Saddam Had Wmds on War Eve Says Israeli General
[http://www.scotsman.com
Saturday, 20th March 2004
A retired Israeli general claimed today that on the eve of the US
led war on Iraq a year ago, Saddam Hussein had chemical and
biological weapons and was in the early stages of producing
nuclear arms.
Major General Amos Gilad, who was heavily involved in Israel’s
preparations for the US attack on Iraq, provided no proof to back
up his statements, but said weak American intelligence was the
reason the arsenal was not uncovered.
“Unequivocally, Saddam had such weapons,†Gilad told the
Israeli newspaper Maariv.
“In checking with very reliable sources around the world, I
found that on the eve of the war, Iraq had a military plan for
biological weapons, and it had chemical weapons,†he said.
“ Regarding nuclear weapons, they were in the first stages of
development.â€
Gilad, previously a government adviser on Palestinian affairs,
served as a spokesman during the Iraq war and was responsible for
preparing Israelis for the possibility of an Iraqi attack.
Faulty US intelligence and a low level of preparation made it
almost impossible for the American soldiers to find weapons of
mass destruction, Gilad said.
At the time of the US led invasion, there were â€suspicious
objects, such as chemical and biological weapons,†in different
parts of Iraq, he said. However, the United States did not
immediately enter the areas were these objects were spotted,
Gilad said.
scotsman.com
*****************************************************************
16 [NukeNet] Impact of a Meltdown at Nuclear Plant : From NRC & Nuclear
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:06:40 -0800
Just do a little simple arithmetic re 1982 $$ vs. 2004 $$ re
increase in early fatalities by a factor of 3 to 4 for Indian
Point, TMI or the NPP[s] of your choice. One year's worth of
data? No cancers included in this "epidemiology"? What kind of
Orwellian "study" is this? What are they trying to hide and why
the cut off at one year excluding cancers?! Peak rates of death
are 15 to 20 years after the accident and/or attack. Does this
increase in early fatalities include the spreading of the
accident or attack to the spent fuel pool? If anyone knows please
let me know.
>From the report:
Some experts claim that the assessment of the dangers inherent
in any and all commercial nuclear power plants has several
faults. Among the faults -- any accident can spread to the spent
fuel pool where huge amounts of radioactive waste are stored.
The authors of the Reactor Safety Study concluded that changing
some of the criteria for data gathering would actually increase
the number of early fatalities by a factor of 3 to 4 depending
upon circumstances [NUREG-0340].
Since the CRAC-2 model considers only one year's worth of data
and does not model precipitation frequency beyond a distance of
30 miles from the reactor, the model cannot adequately
characterize the frequency of precipitation events or range of
fallout.
Early fatalities are deaths due to radiation exposure from causes
other than cancer occurring within one year of the accident.
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html Impact of a Meltdown at
Nuclear Plant Consequences of Reactor Accident (CRAC-2) Report --
NRC & SANDIA STUDIED MELTDOWNS/RISKS AT US NUCLEAR PLANTS in
1982!
Following is an alphabetical listing of every
commercial nuclear power plant in the US, extant, or under
construction at the time this report was published in 1982. The
4 categories listed are:
Peak Early
Fatalities Peak Early
Injuries Peak Cancer
Deaths Property
Damage
The numbers given are in case of a class-9, or worse
case scenario meltdown, and are based on 1982 population data and
on 1982 dollars. This report was mandated by the Nuclear
regulatory Commission and carried out by the Sandia Labs of New
Mexico. The Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences (CRAC-2)
report was published by Congress November 1, 1982. It was also
printed by the Washington Post the same day. Other major media,
including the New York Times published it shortly thereafter.
Some experts claim that the assessment of the dangers
inherent in any and all commercial nuclear power plants has
several faults. Among the faults -- any accident can spread to
the spent fuel pool where huge amounts of radioactive waste are
stored. The authors of the Reactor Safety Study concluded that
changing some of the criteria for data gathering would actually
increase the number of early fatalities by a factor of 3 to 4
depending upon circumstances [NUREG-0340].
"Peak" does not necessarily mean worst case results
because the CRAC-2 model is acknowledged by its authors to have
uncertainties in its meteorological modeling capability. Since
the CRAC-2 model considers only one year's worth of data and does
not model precipitation frequency beyond a distance of 30 miles
from the reactor, the model cannot adequately characterize the
frequency of precipitation events or range of fallout.
Economic costs, not included are: the cost of
providing health care to the affected population; all onsite
costs; litigation costs; direct costs of health effects; and
indirect costs.
Early fatalities are deaths due to radiation exposure
from causes other than cancer occurring within one year of the
accident. However, fatalities will continue over hundreds,
possibly thousands of years. Fatalities in the populace directly
exposed to the accident will take place over a period long after
one year, much of these deaths taking decades to occur. Ionizing
radiation can cause aberrations in the genetic pool, hence the
hundreds or thousands of years over which fatalities will occur.
It should be noted that the evacuation
model for CRAC-2 does NOT account for actual site
conditions such as bottlenecks and terrain
barriers which can cause major evacuation routes
to overlap the area likely to be covered by the
plume once a release of radioactivity occurs.
You can get a copy of the report from the Nuclear
Information Resource Service at: Phone:202-328-0002,
Fax:202-462-2183.
Reactor/Location Peak Early Fatalities
Peak Early Injuries Peak Cancer Deaths Property
Damage
(in Billions-1982 $)
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 & 2,
Russelville, Arkansas Unit I - 1,900
Unit 2 - 2,100 Unit I - 3,400
Unit 2- 4,000 Unit I -2,900
Unit 2 -3,000 Unit I - $68.1 Billion
Unit 2 - $84.9 Billion
Beaver Valley Units 1 & 2
Shippingport, PA Unit I - 19,000
Unit 2 - 19,000 Unit I-156,000
Unit 2-156,000 Unit I -28,600
Unit 2 -24,000 Unit I - $122 Billion
Unit 2 - $111 Billion
Bellefonte Units 1 & 2
Scotsboro, Alabama Unit I - 3,600
Unit 2 - 3,600 Unit I - 7,700
Unit 2 - 7,700 Unit I - 4,500
Unit 2 - 4,500 Unit I - $86.1 Billion
Unit 2 - $82.7 Billion
Big Rock Pt. #1, Charlevoix, MI 3,450
6,030 10,900 unavailable
Braidwood, Units 1 & 2
Joliet, IL=L Unit I - 6,750
Unit 2 - 6.750 Unit I -63,300
Unit 2--63,300 Unit I-14,200
Unit 2-14,200 Unit I - $127 Billion
Unit 2- $122 Billion
Browns Ferry Units 1,2,3
Decautur, Alabama Unit 1 - 18,000
Unit 2 - 18,000
Unit 3 - 18,000 Unit I - 42,000
Unit 2 - 42,000
Unit 3 - 42,000 Unit I - 3,900
Unit 2 - 3,900
Unit 3 - 3,900 Unit 1 - $67.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $69.1 Billion
Unit 3 - $73 Billion
Brunswick, Units 1 & 2,
Brunswick, N. C. Unit 1 - 7,500
Unit 2 - 7,500 Unit 1 - 18,000
Unit 2 - 18,000 Unit 1 - 4,600
Unit 2 - 4,600 Unit 1 - $56.5 Billion
Unit 2 - $53.9 Billion
Byron, Units 1 & 2,
Rockford, IL=L. Unit 1 - 9,050
Unit 2 - 9,050 Unit 1 - 79,300
Unit 2 - 79,300 Unit 1 - 15,300
Unit 2 - 15,300 Unit 1 - $114 Billion
Unit 2 - $114 Billion
Callaway Unit 1, Callaway, MO.
11,500 32,000 9,600 $110,000 Billion
Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 & 2,
Lusby, MD. Unit 1 - 5,600
Unit 2 - 5,600 Unit 1 - 15,000
Unit 2 - 15,000 Unit 1 - 23,000
Unit 2 - 23,000 Unit 1 - $87.4 Billion
Unit 2 - $92 Billion
+++Catawba, Units 1 & 2,
Rock Hill, S.C. Unit 1 - 5,800
Unit 2 - 5,800 Unit 1 - 88,000
Unit 2 - 88,000 Unit 1 - 42,000
Unit 2 - 42,000 Unit 1 - $101 Billion
Unit 2 -$93.7 Billion
Clinton, Clinton, IL. Scaled 1,600
32,000 13,000 $92.8 Billion
Commanche Peak, Glen Rose, Texas 1,200
14,000 4,800 $117 Billion
Cook, Units 1 & 2
Bridgman, IL. Unit 1 - 1,900
Unit 2 - 2,000 Unit 1 - 80,000
Unit 2 - 88,000 Unit 1 - 13,000
Unit 2 - 13,000 Unit 1 - $91.9 Billion
Unit 2 - $101 Billion
Cooper, Brownsville, Nebraska 1,600
2,800 3,100 $57.2 Billion
Crystal River, Unit 3, Red Level, Fl.
900 3,800 2,800 $53.8 Billion
Davis-Besse, Ottowa, Ohio 1,400 73,000
10,000 $84 Billion
Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2
San Luis Opispo, California Unit 1 -
10,000
Unit 2 - 10,000 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - $155 Billion
Unit 2 - $158 Billion
Dresden Units 1, 2 & 3
Morris, Illinois Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 42,000
Unit 3 - 42,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 39,000
Unit 3 - 39,000 Unit 1 - 5,000
Unit 2 - 13,000
Unit 3 - 13,000 Unit 1 - $23.5 Billion
Unit 2 - $87.4 Billion
Unit 3 - $89.6 Billion
Duane Arnold, Palo, IA Scaled 2,900
12,000 not available $53.8 Billion
Farley, Units 1 & 2
Dothan, Alabama Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 2,900
Unit 2 - 2,900 Unit 1 - $52.2 Billion
Unit 2 - $59.1 Billion
Fermi, Unit 2, Laguna Beach, Mi. 8,000
340,000 13,000 $136 Billion
Fitzpatrick, Scriba, NY scaled 1,000
scaled 16,000 17,000 $103 Billion
Fort Calhoun, Washington, Nebraska
scaled 3,000 32,000 3,000 $43.4 Billion
Fort St. Vrain, Fort St. Vrain, Co.
scaled 3,000 3,000 1,000 $38.8 Billion
Ginna, Ontario, NY scaled 2,000 28,000
scaled 14,000 $63 Billion
Grand Gulf, Units 1 & 2 (2 never
built)
Vicksburg, Mississippi Unit 1 - 4,500
Unit 2 - 4,500 Unit 1 - 10,000
Unit 2 - 10,000 Unit 1 - 3,800
Unit 2 - 3,800 Unit 1 - $83 Billion
Unit 2 - $70.7 Billion
Haddam Neck, Haddam Neck, Ct. scaled
29,000 50,000 23,000 $74.1 Billion
Hatch, Units 1 & 2
Baxley, Georgia Unit 1 - 700
Unit 2 - 700 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 1 - 3,000
Unit 2 - 3,000 Unit 1 - $51 Billion
Unit 2 - $56 Billion
Indian Point Units 2 & 3
Buchanon, NY Unit 2 - 46,000
Unit 3 - 50,000 Unit 2 - 141,000
Unit 3 - 167,000 Unit 2 - 13,000
Unit 3 - 14,000 Unit 2 - $274 Billion
Unit 3 - $314 Billion
Kewaunee, Carlton, Wisconsin scaled
900 17,000 8,000 $46.9 Billion
LaSalle, Units 1 & 2
Ottowa, Illinois Unit 1 - 14,000
Unit 2 - 14,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 15,000
Unit 2 - 15,000 Unit 1 - $118 Billion
Unit 2 - $120 Billion
LaCrosse, LaCrosse, Wisconsin scaled
70 400 200 $160 Billion
Limerick, Units 1 & 2
Montgomery, PA Unit 1 - 74,000
Unit 2 - 74,000 Unit 1 610,000
Unit 2 - 610,000 Unit 1 - 34,000
Unit 2 - 34,000 Unit 1 - $213 Billion
Unit 2 - $197 Billion
Maine Yankee, Wiscasset, ME scaled
8,000 10,000 21,000 $78.5 Billion
Marble Hill, Units 1 & 2 (never built)
Jefferson, Indiana Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 150,000
Unit 2 - 150,000 Unit 1 - 8,000
Unit 2 - 8,000 Unit 1 - $87.2 Billion
Unit 2 - $83.8 Billion
McGuire, Units 1 & 2
Cornelius, NC Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 21,000
Unit 2 - 21,000 Unit 1 - 26,000
Unit 2 - 26,000 Unit 1 - $106 Billion
Unit 2 - $110 Billion
Midland, Units 1 & 2 (never built)
Midland, Michigan Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 7,000 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 20,000 Unit 1 - 8,000
Unit 2 - 10,000 Unit 1 - $56.1 Billion
Unit 2 - $80.4 Billion
Millstone, Units 1, 2 & 3
Waterford, CT Unit 1 - 13,000
Unit 2 - 18,000
Unit 3 - 23,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 18,000
Unit 3 - 30,000 Unit 1 - 29,000
Unit 2 - 33,000
Unit 3 - 38,000 Unit 1 - $91.5 Billion
Unit 2 - $135 Billion
Unit 3 - $174 Billion
Monticello, Monticello, MN scaled 500
10,000 4,000 $44.6 Billion
Nine Mile Point, Units 1 & 2
Scriba, NY Unit 1 - 800
Unit 2 - 1,400 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 26,000 Unit 1 - 14,000
unit 2 - 20,000 Unit 1 - $66.2 Billion
Unit 2 - $134 Billion
North Anna, Units 1 & 2
Mineral, Virginia Unit 1 - 1,800
Unit 2 - 1,800 Unit 1 - 5,000
Unit 2 - 5,000 Unit 1 - 29,000
Unit 2 - 29,000 Unit 1 - $66 Billion
Unit 2 - $60 Billion
Oconee, Units 1, 2, & 3
Seneca, South Carolina Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000
Unit 3 - 4,000 Unit 1 - 47,000
Unit 2 - 47,000
Unit 3 - 47,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000
Unit 3 - 4,000 Unit 1 - $56.8 Billion
Unit 2 - $58.3 Billion
Unit 3 - $58.3 Billion
Oyster Creek, Toms River, NJ 13,000
10,000 23,000 $79.8 Billion
Palisades, South Haven, Michigan 1,000
7,000 scaled 10,000 $52.6 Billion
Palo Verde, Units 1, 2, & 3
Maricopa, AZ Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000
Unit 3 - 4,000 Unit 1 - 36,000
Unit 2 - 36,000
Unit 3 - 36,000 Unit 1 - 15,000 Unit
1 - $89.7 Billion
Peach Bottom, Units 2 & 3
Peach Bottom, Pa Unit 2 - 72,000
Unit 3 - 72,000 Unit 2 - 45,000
Unit 3 - 45,000 Unit 2 - 37,000
Unit 3 - 37,000 Unit 2 - $119 Billion
Unit 3 - $119 Billion
Perry Units 1 & 2 (2 never built)
Painesville, Ohio Unit 1 - 5,500 Unit
1- 180,000 Unit 1 - 14,000
Unit 2 - 14,000 Unit 1 - $102 Billion
Unit 2 - $86.8 Billion
Pilgrim Unit 1, Plymouth, Ma 3,000
30,000 23,000 $81.8 Billion
Point Beach, Units 1 & 2
Two Creeks, Wisconsin Unit 1 - 500
Unit 2 - 500 Unit 1 - 9,000
Unit 2 - 9,000 Unit 1 - 7,000
Unit 2 - 7,000 Unit 1 - $41.4 Billion
Unit 2 - $43.8 Billion
Prairie Island, Units 1 & 2
Red Wing, MN Unit 1 - 2,000
Unit 2 - 2,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 2 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 1 - $48.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $49.5 Billion
Quad Cities, Units 1 & 2
Cordova, Illinois Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 41,000
Unit 2 - 41,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - $65.1 Billion
Unit 2 - $65.1 Billion
Rancho Seco, Clay Station, Ca Scaled
30,000 34,000 6,000 $113 Billion
Robinson, Hartsville, SC Scaled 2,000
8,000 3,000 $42.5 Billion
St. Lucie, Units 1 & 2
Fort Pierce, Florida Unit 1 - 5,000
Unit 2 - 5,000 Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 6,000 Unit 1 - 3,000
Unit 2 - 3,000 Unit 1 - $54.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $59.1 Billion
Salem, Units 1 & 2
Salem, NJ Unit 1 - 100,000
Unit 2 - 100,000 Unit 1 - 70,000
Unit 2 - 75,000 Unit 1 - 40,000
Unit 2 - 40,000 Unit 1 - $135 Billion
Unit 2 - $150 Billion
San Onofre, Units 1, 2 & 3
San Clemente, Ca Unit 1 - 8,000
Unit 2 - 27,000
Unit 3 - 27,000 Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 23,000
Unit 3 - 23,000 Unit 1 - 10,000
Unit 2 - 18,000
Unit 3 - 18,000 Unit 1 - $58.8 Billion
Unit 2 - $186 Billion
Unit 3 - $182 Billion
Seabrook, Units 1 & 2
Seabrook, NH Unit 1 - 7,000
Unit 2 - 7,000 Unit 1 - 27,000
Unit 2 - 27,000 Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 6,000 Unit 1 - $163 Billion
Unit 2 - $150 Billion
Sequoyah, Units 1 & 2
Daisy, Tenn. Unit 1 - 29,000
Unit 2 - 29,000 Unit 1 - 61,000
Unit 2 - 61,000 Unit 1 - 4,700
Unit 2 - 4,700 Unit 1 - $96.8 Billion
Unit 2 - $98.6 Billion
Shearon Harris, Units 1 & 2
(2 not built) Apex, N. C. Unit 1 -
11,000
Unit 2 - 11,000 Unit 1 - 31,000
Unit 2 - 31,000 Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 6,000 Unit 1 - $68.5 Billion
Unit 2 - $47.8 Billion
Shoreham, Wading River, NY 40,000
75,000 35,000 $157 Billion
South Texas, Units 1 & 2
South Texas, TX Unit 1 - 18,000
Unit 2 - 18,000 Unit 1 - 10,000
Unit 2 - 10,000 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 11,000 Unit 1 - $112 Billion
Unit 2 - $104 Billion
Summer Unit 1, Fairfield, SC 5,000
73,000 4,000 $68.2 Billion
Surry Units 1 & 2
Gravel Neck, VA Unit 1 - 31,000
Unit 2 - 31,000 Unit 1 - 36,000
Unit 2 - 36,000 Unit 1 - 23,000
Unit 2 - 23,000 Unit 1 - $56.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $57.8 Billion
Susquehanna, Units 1 & 2
Berwick. Pa Unit 1 - 67,000
Unit 2 - 67,000 Unit 1 - 47,000
Unit 2 - 47,000 Unit 1 - 28,000
Unit 2 - 28,000 Unit 1 - $143 Billion
Unit 2 - $137 Billion
Three Mile Island Units 1 & 2
Middletown, PA Unit 1 - 42,000
Unit 2 - 42,000 Unit 1 - 50,000
Unit 2 - 57,000 Unit 1 - 26,000
Unit 2 - 28,000 Unit 1 - 102 Billion
Unit 2 - 122 Billion
Trojan, Prescott, OR Scaled 1,000
14,000 Scaled 5,000 $89.7 Billion
Turkey Point Units 3 & 4
Florida City, Fl Unit 3 - 29,000
Unit 4 - 29,000 Unit 3 - 45,000
Unit 4 - 45,000 Unit 3 - 4,000
Unit 4 - 4,000 Unit 3 - $43.6 Billion.
Unit 4 - $48.6 Billion
Vermont Yankee 7,000 3,000 17,000
$68.8 Billion
Vogtle, Units 1 & 2
Burke, GA Unit 1 - 200
Unit 2 - 200 Unit 1 - 39,000
Unit 2 - 39,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 1 - $70.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $62.3 Billion
Waterford, Unit 3, St. Charles, LA
96,000 279,000 9,000 $131 Billion
Watts Bar, Units 1 & 2
Rhea, Tenn Unit 1 - 5,000
Unit 2 - 5,000 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 11,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 1 - $86.6 Billion
Unit 2 - $83.3 Billion
WPPSS Unit 1, Richland, WA 200 20,000
4,000 $80.4 Billion
WPPSS, Unit 2, Benton, WA 300 17,000
4,000 $77.3 Billion
WPPSS, Unit 3, Olympia, WA 173 13,800
4,000 $73.7 Billion
Wolf Creek, Burlington, KS 1,000 3,000
3,000 $105 Billion
Yankee Rowe, Rowe, MA 1,000 100 4,000
$21. 4 Billion
Zimmer, Moscow, OH (not built) 9,000
109,000 10,000 $84.5 Billion
Zion, Units 1 & 2
Zion, IL Unit 1 - 14,000
Unit 2 - 14,000 Unit 1 - 155,000
Unit 2 - 155,000 Unit 1 - 17,000
Unit 2 - 17,000 Unit 1 - $146 Billion
Unit 2 - $146 Billion
Mothers' Alert Home | More Information |
Actions | News | Email
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://chrome.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
17 Impact of a Meltdown at Nuclear Plant : From NRC & Nuclear Industry:
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:20:13 -0500
Just do a little simple arithmetic re 1982 $$
vs. 2004 $$ re increase in early fatalities by a
factor of 3 to 4 for Indian Point, TMI or the
NPP[s] of your choice. One year's worth of data?
No cancers included in this "epidemiology"? What
kind of Orwellian "study" is this? What are they
trying to hide and why the cut off at one year
excluding cancers?! Peak rates of death are 15 to
20 years after the accident and/or attack. Does
this increase in early fatalities include the
spreading of the accident or attack to the spent
fuel pool? If anyone knows please let me know.
>From the report:
Some experts claim that the assessment of the
dangers inherent in any and all commercial nuclear
power plants has several faults. Among the
faults -- any accident can spread to the spent
fuel pool where huge amounts of radioactive waste
are stored.
The authors of the Reactor Safety Study concluded
that changing some of the criteria for data
gathering would actually increase the number of
early fatalities by a factor of 3 to 4 depending
upon circumstances [NUREG-0340].
Since the CRAC-2 model considers only one year's
worth of data and does not model precipitation
frequency beyond a distance of 30 miles from the
reactor, the model cannot adequately characterize
the frequency of precipitation events or range of
fallout.
Early fatalities are deaths due to radiation
exposure from causes other than cancer occurring
within one year of the accident.
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html
Impact of a Meltdown at Nuclear Plant
Consequences of Reactor Accident
(CRAC-2) Report
-- NRC & SANDIA STUDIED
MELTDOWNS/RISKS AT US
NUCLEAR PLANTS in 1982!
Following is an alphabetical listing
of every commercial nuclear power plant in the US,
extant, or under construction at the time this
report was published in 1982. The 4 categories
listed are:
Peak Early
Fatalities Peak Early
Injuries Peak Cancer
Deaths Property
Damage
The numbers given are in case of a
class-9, or worse case scenario meltdown, and are
based on 1982 population data and on 1982 dollars.
This report was mandated by the Nuclear regulatory
Commission and carried out by the Sandia Labs of
New Mexico. The Calculation of Reactor Accident
Consequences (CRAC-2) report was published by
Congress November 1, 1982. It was also printed by
the Washington Post the same day. Other major
media, including the New York Times published it
shortly thereafter.
Some experts claim that the assessment
of the dangers inherent in any and all commercial
nuclear power plants has several faults. Among the
faults -- any accident can spread to the spent
fuel pool where huge amounts of radioactive waste
are stored. The authors of the Reactor Safety
Study concluded that changing some of the criteria
for data gathering would actually increase the
number of early fatalities by a factor of 3 to 4
depending upon circumstances [NUREG-0340].
"Peak" does not necessarily mean worst
case results because the CRAC-2 model is
acknowledged by its authors to have uncertainties
in its meteorological modeling capability. Since
the CRAC-2 model considers only one year's worth
of data and does not model precipitation frequency
beyond a distance of 30 miles from the reactor,
the model cannot adequately characterize the
frequency of precipitation events or range of
fallout.
Economic costs, not included are: the
cost of providing health care to the affected
population; all onsite costs; litigation costs;
direct costs of health effects; and indirect
costs.
Early fatalities are deaths due to
radiation exposure from causes other than cancer
occurring within one year of the accident.
However, fatalities will continue over hundreds,
possibly thousands of years. Fatalities in the
populace directly exposed to the accident will
take place over a period long after one year, much
of these deaths taking decades to occur. Ionizing
radiation can cause aberrations in the genetic
pool, hence the hundreds or thousands of years
over which fatalities will occur.
It should be noted that the evacuation
model for CRAC-2 does NOT account for actual site
conditions such as bottlenecks and terrain
barriers which can cause major evacuation routes
to overlap the area likely to be covered by the
plume once a release of radioactivity occurs.
You can get a copy of the report from
the Nuclear Information Resource Service at:
Phone:202-328-0002, Fax:202-462-2183.
Reactor/Location Peak Early Fatalities
Peak Early Injuries Peak Cancer Deaths Property
Damage
(in Billions-1982 $)
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 & 2,
Russelville, Arkansas Unit I - 1,900
Unit 2 - 2,100 Unit I - 3,400
Unit 2- 4,000 Unit I -2,900
Unit 2 -3,000 Unit I - $68.1 Billion
Unit 2 - $84.9 Billion
Beaver Valley Units 1 & 2
Shippingport, PA Unit I - 19,000
Unit 2 - 19,000 Unit I-156,000
Unit 2-156,000 Unit I -28,600
Unit 2 -24,000 Unit I - $122 Billion
Unit 2 - $111 Billion
Bellefonte Units 1 & 2
Scotsboro, Alabama Unit I - 3,600
Unit 2 - 3,600 Unit I - 7,700
Unit 2 - 7,700 Unit I - 4,500
Unit 2 - 4,500 Unit I - $86.1 Billion
Unit 2 - $82.7 Billion
Big Rock Pt. #1, Charlevoix, MI 3,450
6,030 10,900 unavailable
Braidwood, Units 1 & 2
Joliet, IL=L Unit I - 6,750
Unit 2 - 6.750 Unit I -63,300
Unit 2--63,300 Unit I-14,200
Unit 2-14,200 Unit I - $127 Billion
Unit 2- $122 Billion
Browns Ferry Units 1,2,3
Decautur, Alabama Unit 1 - 18,000
Unit 2 - 18,000
Unit 3 - 18,000 Unit I - 42,000
Unit 2 - 42,000
Unit 3 - 42,000 Unit I - 3,900
Unit 2 - 3,900
Unit 3 - 3,900 Unit 1 - $67.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $69.1 Billion
Unit 3 - $73 Billion
Brunswick, Units 1 & 2,
Brunswick, N. C. Unit 1 - 7,500
Unit 2 - 7,500 Unit 1 - 18,000
Unit 2 - 18,000 Unit 1 - 4,600
Unit 2 - 4,600 Unit 1 - $56.5 Billion
Unit 2 - $53.9 Billion
Byron, Units 1 & 2,
Rockford, IL=L. Unit 1 - 9,050
Unit 2 - 9,050 Unit 1 - 79,300
Unit 2 - 79,300 Unit 1 - 15,300
Unit 2 - 15,300 Unit 1 - $114 Billion
Unit 2 - $114 Billion
Callaway Unit 1, Callaway, MO.
11,500 32,000 9,600 $110,000 Billion
Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 & 2,
Lusby, MD. Unit 1 - 5,600
Unit 2 - 5,600 Unit 1 - 15,000
Unit 2 - 15,000 Unit 1 - 23,000
Unit 2 - 23,000 Unit 1 - $87.4 Billion
Unit 2 - $92 Billion
+++Catawba, Units 1 & 2,
Rock Hill, S.C. Unit 1 - 5,800
Unit 2 - 5,800 Unit 1 - 88,000
Unit 2 - 88,000 Unit 1 - 42,000
Unit 2 - 42,000 Unit 1 - $101 Billion
Unit 2 -$93.7 Billion
Clinton, Clinton, IL. Scaled 1,600
32,000 13,000 $92.8 Billion
Commanche Peak, Glen Rose, Texas 1,200
14,000 4,800 $117 Billion
Cook, Units 1 & 2
Bridgman, IL. Unit 1 - 1,900
Unit 2 - 2,000 Unit 1 - 80,000
Unit 2 - 88,000 Unit 1 - 13,000
Unit 2 - 13,000 Unit 1 - $91.9 Billion
Unit 2 - $101 Billion
Cooper, Brownsville, Nebraska 1,600
2,800 3,100 $57.2 Billion
Crystal River, Unit 3, Red Level, Fl.
900 3,800 2,800 $53.8 Billion
Davis-Besse, Ottowa, Ohio 1,400 73,000
10,000 $84 Billion
Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2
San Luis Opispo, California Unit 1 -
10,000
Unit 2 - 10,000 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - $155 Billion
Unit 2 - $158 Billion
Dresden Units 1, 2 & 3
Morris, Illinois Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 42,000
Unit 3 - 42,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 39,000
Unit 3 - 39,000 Unit 1 - 5,000
Unit 2 - 13,000
Unit 3 - 13,000 Unit 1 - $23.5 Billion
Unit 2 - $87.4 Billion
Unit 3 - $89.6 Billion
Duane Arnold, Palo, IA Scaled 2,900
12,000 not available $53.8 Billion
Farley, Units 1 & 2
Dothan, Alabama Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 2,900
Unit 2 - 2,900 Unit 1 - $52.2 Billion
Unit 2 - $59.1 Billion
Fermi, Unit 2, Laguna Beach, Mi. 8,000
340,000 13,000 $136 Billion
Fitzpatrick, Scriba, NY scaled 1,000
scaled 16,000 17,000 $103 Billion
Fort Calhoun, Washington, Nebraska
scaled 3,000 32,000 3,000 $43.4 Billion
Fort St. Vrain, Fort St. Vrain, Co.
scaled 3,000 3,000 1,000 $38.8 Billion
Ginna, Ontario, NY scaled 2,000 28,000
scaled 14,000 $63 Billion
Grand Gulf, Units 1 & 2 (2 never
built)
Vicksburg, Mississippi Unit 1 - 4,500
Unit 2 - 4,500 Unit 1 - 10,000
Unit 2 - 10,000 Unit 1 - 3,800
Unit 2 - 3,800 Unit 1 - $83 Billion
Unit 2 - $70.7 Billion
Haddam Neck, Haddam Neck, Ct. scaled
29,000 50,000 23,000 $74.1 Billion
Hatch, Units 1 & 2
Baxley, Georgia Unit 1 - 700
Unit 2 - 700 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 1 - 3,000
Unit 2 - 3,000 Unit 1 - $51 Billion
Unit 2 - $56 Billion
Indian Point Units 2 & 3
Buchanon, NY Unit 2 - 46,000
Unit 3 - 50,000 Unit 2 - 141,000
Unit 3 - 167,000 Unit 2 - 13,000
Unit 3 - 14,000 Unit 2 - $274 Billion
Unit 3 - $314 Billion
Kewaunee, Carlton, Wisconsin scaled
900 17,000 8,000 $46.9 Billion
LaSalle, Units 1 & 2
Ottowa, Illinois Unit 1 - 14,000
Unit 2 - 14,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 15,000
Unit 2 - 15,000 Unit 1 - $118 Billion
Unit 2 - $120 Billion
LaCrosse, LaCrosse, Wisconsin scaled
70 400 200 $160 Billion
Limerick, Units 1 & 2
Montgomery, PA Unit 1 - 74,000
Unit 2 - 74,000 Unit 1 610,000
Unit 2 - 610,000 Unit 1 - 34,000
Unit 2 - 34,000 Unit 1 - $213 Billion
Unit 2 - $197 Billion
Maine Yankee, Wiscasset, ME scaled
8,000 10,000 21,000 $78.5 Billion
Marble Hill, Units 1 & 2 (never built)
Jefferson, Indiana Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 150,000
Unit 2 - 150,000 Unit 1 - 8,000
Unit 2 - 8,000 Unit 1 - $87.2 Billion
Unit 2 - $83.8 Billion
McGuire, Units 1 & 2
Cornelius, NC Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 21,000
Unit 2 - 21,000 Unit 1 - 26,000
Unit 2 - 26,000 Unit 1 - $106 Billion
Unit 2 - $110 Billion
Midland, Units 1 & 2 (never built)
Midland, Michigan Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 7,000 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 20,000 Unit 1 - 8,000
Unit 2 - 10,000 Unit 1 - $56.1 Billion
Unit 2 - $80.4 Billion
Millstone, Units 1, 2 & 3
Waterford, CT Unit 1 - 13,000
Unit 2 - 18,000
Unit 3 - 23,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 18,000
Unit 3 - 30,000 Unit 1 - 29,000
Unit 2 - 33,000
Unit 3 - 38,000 Unit 1 - $91.5 Billion
Unit 2 - $135 Billion
Unit 3 - $174 Billion
Monticello, Monticello, MN scaled 500
10,000 4,000 $44.6 Billion
Nine Mile Point, Units 1 & 2
Scriba, NY Unit 1 - 800
Unit 2 - 1,400 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 26,000 Unit 1 - 14,000
unit 2 - 20,000 Unit 1 - $66.2 Billion
Unit 2 - $134 Billion
North Anna, Units 1 & 2
Mineral, Virginia Unit 1 - 1,800
Unit 2 - 1,800 Unit 1 - 5,000
Unit 2 - 5,000 Unit 1 - 29,000
Unit 2 - 29,000 Unit 1 - $66 Billion
Unit 2 - $60 Billion
Oconee, Units 1, 2, & 3
Seneca, South Carolina Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000
Unit 3 - 4,000 Unit 1 - 47,000
Unit 2 - 47,000
Unit 3 - 47,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000
Unit 3 - 4,000 Unit 1 - $56.8 Billion
Unit 2 - $58.3 Billion
Unit 3 - $58.3 Billion
Oyster Creek, Toms River, NJ 13,000
10,000 23,000 $79.8 Billion
Palisades, South Haven, Michigan 1,000
7,000 scaled 10,000 $52.6 Billion
Palo Verde, Units 1, 2, & 3
Maricopa, AZ Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000
Unit 3 - 4,000 Unit 1 - 36,000
Unit 2 - 36,000
Unit 3 - 36,000 Unit 1 - 15,000 Unit
1 - $89.7 Billion
Peach Bottom, Units 2 & 3
Peach Bottom, Pa Unit 2 - 72,000
Unit 3 - 72,000 Unit 2 - 45,000
Unit 3 - 45,000 Unit 2 - 37,000
Unit 3 - 37,000 Unit 2 - $119 Billion
Unit 3 - $119 Billion
Perry Units 1 & 2 (2 never built)
Painesville, Ohio Unit 1 - 5,500 Unit
1- 180,000 Unit 1 - 14,000
Unit 2 - 14,000 Unit 1 - $102 Billion
Unit 2 - $86.8 Billion
Pilgrim Unit 1, Plymouth, Ma 3,000
30,000 23,000 $81.8 Billion
Point Beach, Units 1 & 2
Two Creeks, Wisconsin Unit 1 - 500
Unit 2 - 500 Unit 1 - 9,000
Unit 2 - 9,000 Unit 1 - 7,000
Unit 2 - 7,000 Unit 1 - $41.4 Billion
Unit 2 - $43.8 Billion
Prairie Island, Units 1 & 2
Red Wing, MN Unit 1 - 2,000
Unit 2 - 2,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 2 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 1 - $48.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $49.5 Billion
Quad Cities, Units 1 & 2
Cordova, Illinois Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - 41,000
Unit 2 - 41,000 Unit 1 - 12,000
Unit 2 - 12,000 Unit 1 - $65.1 Billion
Unit 2 - $65.1 Billion
Rancho Seco, Clay Station, Ca Scaled
30,000 34,000 6,000 $113 Billion
Robinson, Hartsville, SC Scaled 2,000
8,000 3,000 $42.5 Billion
St. Lucie, Units 1 & 2
Fort Pierce, Florida Unit 1 - 5,000
Unit 2 - 5,000 Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 6,000 Unit 1 - 3,000
Unit 2 - 3,000 Unit 1 - $54.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $59.1 Billion
Salem, Units 1 & 2
Salem, NJ Unit 1 - 100,000
Unit 2 - 100,000 Unit 1 - 70,000
Unit 2 - 75,000 Unit 1 - 40,000
Unit 2 - 40,000 Unit 1 - $135 Billion
Unit 2 - $150 Billion
San Onofre, Units 1, 2 & 3
San Clemente, Ca Unit 1 - 8,000
Unit 2 - 27,000
Unit 3 - 27,000 Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 23,000
Unit 3 - 23,000 Unit 1 - 10,000
Unit 2 - 18,000
Unit 3 - 18,000 Unit 1 - $58.8 Billion
Unit 2 - $186 Billion
Unit 3 - $182 Billion
Seabrook, Units 1 & 2
Seabrook, NH Unit 1 - 7,000
Unit 2 - 7,000 Unit 1 - 27,000
Unit 2 - 27,000 Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 6,000 Unit 1 - $163 Billion
Unit 2 - $150 Billion
Sequoyah, Units 1 & 2
Daisy, Tenn. Unit 1 - 29,000
Unit 2 - 29,000 Unit 1 - 61,000
Unit 2 - 61,000 Unit 1 - 4,700
Unit 2 - 4,700 Unit 1 - $96.8 Billion
Unit 2 - $98.6 Billion
Shearon Harris, Units 1 & 2
(2 not built) Apex, N. C. Unit 1 -
11,000
Unit 2 - 11,000 Unit 1 - 31,000
Unit 2 - 31,000 Unit 1 - 6,000
Unit 2 - 6,000 Unit 1 - $68.5 Billion
Unit 2 - $47.8 Billion
Shoreham, Wading River, NY 40,000
75,000 35,000 $157 Billion
South Texas, Units 1 & 2
South Texas, TX Unit 1 - 18,000
Unit 2 - 18,000 Unit 1 - 10,000
Unit 2 - 10,000 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 11,000 Unit 1 - $112 Billion
Unit 2 - $104 Billion
Summer Unit 1, Fairfield, SC 5,000
73,000 4,000 $68.2 Billion
Surry Units 1 & 2
Gravel Neck, VA Unit 1 - 31,000
Unit 2 - 31,000 Unit 1 - 36,000
Unit 2 - 36,000 Unit 1 - 23,000
Unit 2 - 23,000 Unit 1 - $56.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $57.8 Billion
Susquehanna, Units 1 & 2
Berwick. Pa Unit 1 - 67,000
Unit 2 - 67,000 Unit 1 - 47,000
Unit 2 - 47,000 Unit 1 - 28,000
Unit 2 - 28,000 Unit 1 - $143 Billion
Unit 2 - $137 Billion
Three Mile Island Units 1 & 2
Middletown, PA Unit 1 - 42,000
Unit 2 - 42,000 Unit 1 - 50,000
Unit 2 - 57,000 Unit 1 - 26,000
Unit 2 - 28,000 Unit 1 - 102 Billion
Unit 2 - 122 Billion
Trojan, Prescott, OR Scaled 1,000
14,000 Scaled 5,000 $89.7 Billion
Turkey Point Units 3 & 4
Florida City, Fl Unit 3 - 29,000
Unit 4 - 29,000 Unit 3 - 45,000
Unit 4 - 45,000 Unit 3 - 4,000
Unit 4 - 4,000 Unit 3 - $43.6 Billion.
Unit 4 - $48.6 Billion
Vermont Yankee 7,000 3,000 17,000
$68.8 Billion
Vogtle, Units 1 & 2
Burke, GA Unit 1 - 200
Unit 2 - 200 Unit 1 - 39,000
Unit 2 - 39,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 1 - $70.3 Billion
Unit 2 - $62.3 Billion
Waterford, Unit 3, St. Charles, LA
96,000 279,000 9,000 $131 Billion
Watts Bar, Units 1 & 2
Rhea, Tenn Unit 1 - 5,000
Unit 2 - 5,000 Unit 1 - 11,000
Unit 2 - 11,000 Unit 1 - 4,000
Unit 2 - 4,000 Unit 1 - $86.6 Billion
Unit 2 - $83.3 Billion
WPPSS Unit 1, Richland, WA 200 20,000
4,000 $80.4 Billion
WPPSS, Unit 2, Benton, WA 300 17,000
4,000 $77.3 Billion
WPPSS, Unit 3, Olympia, WA 173 13,800
4,000 $73.7 Billion
Wolf Creek, Burlington, KS 1,000 3,000
3,000 $105 Billion
Yankee Rowe, Rowe, MA 1,000 100 4,000
$21. 4 Billion
Zimmer, Moscow, OH (not built) 9,000
109,000 10,000 $84.5 Billion
Zion, Units 1 & 2
Zion, IL Unit 1 - 14,000
Unit 2 - 14,000 Unit 1 - 155,000
Unit 2 - 155,000 Unit 1 - 17,000
Unit 2 - 17,000 Unit 1 - $146 Billion
Unit 2 - $146 Billion
Mothers' Alert Home | More Information |
Actions | News | Email
*****************************************************************
18 [NukeNet] PSEG promises reforms - Courier Post
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:10:11 -0800
Sure - and I"m the Easter Bunny. ;-)
Norm
Please come on out on 3/28 to hear the whole story of how messed up PSEG is!
http://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m031904g.htm
Friday, March 19, 2004
PSEG admits problems in NRC meeting
By LAWRENCE HAJNA Courier-Post Staff LOGAN
The operator of the Salem nuclear-power complex on Thursday gave itself
poor marks in encouraging employees to raise safety and equipment concerns.
PSEG Nuclear officials acknowledged its shortcomings during a meeting with
the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which last fall launched a
special review of operations at the three-reactor complex based on
complaints from numerous past and current employees.
"We need to fix these problems. If we don't, we won't have a successful
operation," said Roy Anderson, named chief nuclear officer as part of a
management shake-up last year. "In short, I was hired to fix the plant and
to engage the work force."
In January, the NRC sent a letter to PSEG expressing concerns, based on its
initial review findings, about the station's "work environment,
particularly as it relates to the handling of emergent equipment issues and
associated operational decision making."
Thursday's meeting at the Holiday Inn Select allowed the company to begin
outlining its response plan.
Company officials said it will take years to completely fix its work
environment problems, but said they have launched numerous measures toward
that end, including independent reviewers who are interviewing employees to
determine the cause of problems.
PSEG Power, parent company to PSEG Nuclear, also plans to invest $648
million to upgrade the "material condition" of the Hope Creek and twin
Salem reactors over the next five years, said Frank Cassidy, president and
chief operating officer for PSEG Power.
He said employee concerns about equipment are often at the root of work
culture problems at the plant.
"The simple fact is that Salem and Hope Creek will get the resources
necessary to carry out their mission safely and reliably," Cassidy said.
He added that two independent reviews commissioned by the utility in
December determined PSEG is "below the industry norm for creating a
safety-conscious work environment."
Located on Artificial Island at the neck of Delaware Bay, the Hope Creek
and Salem 1 and Salem 2 reactors employ about 1,800 people. It is the
nation's second-largest nuclear complex and generates more than half the
electricity PSEG produces.
Chip Gerrity, president of IBEW Local 94 based in Hightstown, represents
about 800 technical workers at the plant. He said employees became
frustrated because management frequently did not respond to their concerns
about equipment and operations. But he said things have changed under the
new management.
"The management team that's in the plant now is a good management team," he
said. "Anything that had not happened that was supposed to happen will be
fixed with these guys."
PSEG formed an independent assessment team of former nuclear industry
executives and regulators that began interviewing employees Feb. 13. It
plans to submit its findings and recommendation by mid-April, said James
O'Hanlon, the team's leader.
The NRC will hold another update meeting in May.
Hubert J. Miller, regional NRC administrator, said he expects the work
environment turnaround to take time, noting that current problems are the
"legacy" of past management. He said there is no need to consider
sanctions, such as shutting the plants down.
But, during a public comment period, Norm Cohen, an anti-nuclear activist
from Linwood, Atlantic County, asked the NRC to do just that.
"If PSEG is admitting it's in poor shape, it must be in worse shape," he said.
John Muscemeci, a former operations engineer at Salem, argued PSEG has
repeatedly dodged in and out of trouble with the NRC over the years, and
that past corrective measures never lasted.
He maintains this is because PSEG Power inadequately funds its nuclear
division.
"Obviously they're going to throw money at the island when they're in
trouble," the Quinton, Salem County, resident said.
"What are they going to do three years from now?"
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/JHYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Know_Nukes-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice
(http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org); and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign
(http://www.unplugsalem.org); 321 Barr Ave., Linwood, NJ 08221;
609-601-8583/37; ncohen12@comcast.net. The Coalition for Peace and Justice
is a chapter of Peace Action (http://www.peace-action.org). "You can say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" (Lennon). "Don't be late for your
life" (Mary Chapin Carpenter).
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://chrome.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
19 Rutland Herald: Close scrutiny
- Mar. 17, 2004
It is now up to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hear
what Vermonters are saying about the wisdom of allowing Vermont
Yankee to increase power production by 20 percent.
The state Public Service Board gave conditional approval to the
request by Entergy Nuclear to boost its power output, and one of
those conditions was that the NRC conduct an independent
engineering assessment to ensure that the plant is capable of
handling the increased production. Critics of the Yankee proposal
have argued that Yankee is an old plant that is not up to the
latest standards and that similar projects to increase power at
other plants have encountered problems.
The state Senate on Tuesday passed a resolution unanimously
urging the NRC to institute the independent assessment of Vermont
Yankee that the state PSB had called for. So far the NRC has not
said what it plans to do.
Entergy officials have argued that the customary NRC review in a
project of this sort amounts to an independent assessment, but
the PSB and the Senate have something else in mind. In 1996 the
Maine Yankee nuclear plant was subject to an assessment carried
out by a team of engineers working independently of Maine Yankee
or the NRC. That review uncovered a variety of problems at Maine
Yankee that led its owners to shut the plant down.
Everyone was putting on a brave face after the PSB issued its
ruling earlier this week. Neither Entergy nor Public Service
Commissioner David O'Brien had thought an independent safety
assessment of Vermont Yankee was necessary. It was their view
that the customary NRC review would be sufficient and the
independent review would be redundant. But after the PSB made the
independent review a condition of approval, both expressed
satisfaction with the board's ruling.
Now that the PSB has demanded an independent review Entergy may
find it hard to resist. If the power boost is no threat to the
safety or reliability of the plant, what does the plant have to
hide? Of course, if an independent review uncovered serious
shortcomings at the plant, the future of the plant could be in
jeopardy. But if there are serious shortcomings, that is
something the people of Vermont need to know. If Entergy's
assurances are to be believed, then an independent assessment
ought to create no problems.
The NRC has come under additional pressure from Vermont's two
senators, Patrick Leahy and James Jeffords, to make sure that
Entergy's plans for a power boost receive close scrutiny. It is
hard to see how the NRC could back away from its responsibility
to give the Entergy project the close look it deserves.
Nuclear energy critics may view opposition to Entergy's proposed
boost in output as a way to torpedo Vermont Yankee as a useful
source of energy. But the question before the state and the NRC
is not an up-or-down vote on Vermont Yankee or nuclear power.
Vermont depends on Vermont Yankee as a reliable, relatively
affordable source of power that is also providing a good profit
for Entergy. The question is the safety and reliability of a
major project to boost power at a 31-year-old nuclear plant. The
NRC ought to make sure that the concerns of the Vermont Public
Service Board and the people of Vermont are answered.
Copyright © 2004 [http://www.rutlandherald.com/]
and Barre-Montpelier [http://www.timesargus.com/]
*****************************************************************
20 Xinhuanet: China committed to peaceful use of nuclear energy - Jiang
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2004-03-19 21:44:51
BEIJING, March 19 (Xinhuanet) -- China has always been
committed to the peaceful utilization of nuclear energy over the
decades, said Jiang Zemin, chairman of China's Central Military
Commission, while visiting the eighth China international nuclear
industry exhibition here Friday.
China has made great progress in developing its nuclear
industry, which contributes a lot to the national defense and
economy, Jiang said.
The exhibition, attracting over 20,000 visitors, displays
nuclear industrial achievements in Canada, France, Japan, the
Republic of Korea and Russia as well as China.
After over 50 years of effort, China has established an
integrated nuclear industry system.
The Qinshan nuclear power plant has safely operated for a
thousand days, and China can produce all the fuels used in
nuclearpower plants, official sources showed. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
21 Toronto Star: EDITORIAL: Reasonable ideas to keep lights on
TheStar.com -
Fri. Mar. 19, 2004. | Updated at 09:54 AM
Ontarians owe John Manley, Jake Epp and Peter Godsoe a debt of
gratitude. In combination, the two respected former federal
politicians and the widely regarded Canadian banker yesterday
came right to the point in their report to the Ontario government
on the province's best hope for averting an electricity crisis
that draws closer with each passing day.
They started by telling Queen's Park it must stop playing
politics with our vital power sector; stop using it as an
economic and social policy tool; refrain from making it a cushy
sanctuary for incompetent political friends; and stop using it as
a testing ground for the latest ideological fads.
Bringing real common sense to an industry that suffered greatly
from excessive political interference, Manley, Epp and Godsoe
based their report on a single premise - that the government's
only legitimate interest in the sector is to ensure the people of
Ontario a stable, reliable, clean, competitively priced supply of
power sufficient to meet their household, commercial and
industrial needs.
From that goal, the three men took the next logical step,
arguing, not for privatization, but for a new commitment by
government to ensure "the publicly owned assets that form the
backbone of Ontario's electricity supply" - the generating plants
that fall under the umbrella of Ontario Power Generation - "are
run and maintained as well as can be."
While acknowledging, in light of recent experience, that may be
easier said than done, the trio maintains that if OPG were
required to operate as a business - with competent management,
dedicated and knowledgeable directors, and transparent
decision-making - it could again become the driving force taking
the province into a future in which power supplies are sufficient
to meet all of our needs.
That prescription, in turn, is based, not on a preconceived idea
that the public sector is somehow superior to the private sector,
but on the realization that there is no real alternative to
nuclear power as the mainstay of Ontario's power system, both in
the short term and the longer term.
Given OPG's huge investment in nuclear power, Manley, Epp and
Godsoe would have the crown corporation recover some of the value
of that investment by refurbishing the three reactors at
Pickering that currently aren't working. Such a move would have
the added advantage of giving a quick boost to our power
supplies. Moreover, they believe OPG has learned enough from the
costly mistakes it made on the one unit it has already overhauled
to keep costs at the other three under tighter control.
With OPG focusing on nuclear power, they suggest other
smaller-scale technologies, such as gas-fired generators,
co-generation and wind power, be left to private-sector
development.
As for the McGuinty government's decision to shut down all of
OPG's coal-fired plants by 2007, they appear to believe that goal
is unrealistic. They hint that there may not be enough time to
develop alternative sources of power to replace the 7,500
megawatts that will be lost to the phase-out of coal. They
recommend the Liberal government consider new emission-reducing
technologies and conversion to gas as short-term alternatives to
outright closure of the coal-fired plants.
All the recommendations in the report are sensible - and that
should give Ontarians some reassurance after eight years of
nonsense regarding OPG and our power supply from Mike Harris and
Ernie Eves.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
22 toronto star: Manley urges more nuclear power
TheStar.com -
Fri. Mar. 19, 2004. | Updated at 08:26 PM
Panel reviewed Ontario's electricity sources, prospects Critics
outraged report ignores renewable energy alternatives
JOHN SPEARS AND RICHARD BRENNAN QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU
Ontario's energy future lies in nuclear technology and
provincially owned Ontario Power Generation — even though the
horrendous track record of both has caused the current crisis,
John Manley says.
A three-person panel Manley chaired looked into alternative power
sources — natural gas, coal, hydro, nuclear and imported power.
But in an interview yesterday, Manley said: "We were driven to
the conclusion that there has to be continuing commitment to
nuclear in this province."
There are few sites suitable for hydroelectric facilities
remaining in the province, natural gas is becoming more scarce
and expensive, and coal is dirty, he said.
Manley acknowledged that calling for more nukes won't be popular
with some folks "because ... they see the history of nuclear in
Ontario as not having been a good one ... but there is no reason
why Canadians can't run nuclear power as well as others can." But
he said fixing OPG will be long and painful.
"We're not going to be able to look at OPG a year from now and
say the Manley report has worked miracles. It's going to be a
five-year process before anyone can say, `That used to be a dog
and now it's performing well.'
"We just think, better someone should take it on than throw up
your hands and say `we can't do this in the public sector; we're
going to sell off the assets.' Because that's your only choice.
If it's not OPG in one configuration or another, then you sell
off the assets."
OPG is a provincially owned utility that provides up to 70 per
cent of Ontario's power, but its attempt to rebuild the Pickering
nuclear facility has been marked by long delays and huge cost
overruns.
Manley said OPG "is not the vehicle for delivering conservation
measures," adding it is higher prices that will encourage
consumers to conserve electricity.
Effective April 1, the price of electricity is rising from the
cap of 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour put on by the former
Conservative government to 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour for the
first 750 kilowatt hours used and 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour for
usage after that.
Manley said whatever the government does, the emphasis should be
on Ontario becoming largely energy self-sufficient, but he warned
that Queen's Park has to quit meddling if OPG is ever to do a
better job at managing its assets.
"The fact is that power generation utilities in this province
have been subject to political interference since the founding of
Ontario Hydro a century ago. This must cease," Manley said.
Besides Manley, a former federal Liberal finance minister, the
panel included former Bank of Nova Scotia chair Peter Godsoe, and
Jake Epp, a former federal Conservative cabinet minister and
interim OPG chair expected to be given the top job shortly. The
review of OPG was conducted over three months.
Energy Minister Dwight Duncan, who refused comment yesterday on
the report, has promised a government plan for the electricity
sector by fall.
Critics were outraged that the panel's 101-page report
effectively ignored wind and other renewable sources of power and
instead pinned its hope on a nuclear future.
"What you got is a bunch of suited guys here direct from Bay
Street clearly captured by the nuclear power fairies, who want to
spin us into yet another half century of nuclear power and
black-hole spending," said NDP MPP Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre).
Manley said the government has to go ahead with the retrofit of a
second nuclear reactor at Pickering A despite the horrendous cost
overruns and delays in restarting the first reactor, which cost
almost $1 billion — or almost as much as the original projection
to retrofit all four. Restarting the remaining two reactors
should depend on the success of restarting the second unit, he
said.
The Ontario Liberal government's promise to close its five
coal-fired plants by 2007 will make the looming energy shortage
worse. Duncan said at a news conference Tuesday it is important
to the environment and the health of Ontarians these plants are
closed.
Manley said fixing up Pickering A "is the quickest, least
expensive means for Ontario to meet some of its important energy
supply needs" which caused many observers to groan and roll their
eyes. At peak times, Ontario uses up to 25,000 megawatts of
electricity and is often forced to import power.
Manley's report makes several recommendations:
OPG's core assets should remain in public hands.
An independent agency should be set up, at arm's length from the
government, to predict the province's electricity needs and make
sure enough generators are built to meet the demand.
OPG should be wary of relying too much on natural gas because
the price is too volatile.
The regulatory role of the Ontario Energy Board should be
strengthened to "bring discipline and transparency" to OPG.
OPG should consider private-public arrangement through joint
ventures and long-term leases to get the most of its assets.
OPG should get out of the business of alternative electricity
generation or anything else that is not central to its core
business.
When shopping around for nuclear reactors the province should
look for the best price and reliability "and if that's not
Canadian, so be it."
To date, Ontario's nuclear reactors have used technology designed
by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which is now anxious to sell the
province reactors using its newest technology.
The panel recommended the money-losing OPG be divided into two
clear divisions — nuclear and hydro/fossil fuel — and that
managers should be paid based on performance.
Critics harshly condemned the report.
Dave Martin of the Sierra Club of Canada called the report
"disgusting ... a travesty."
"We heard yesterday from OPG's auditors that nuclear power has
been a disaster," he said. "Today we have Mr. Manley and Mr. Epp
suggesting that we have to proceed with a nuclear-based
electricity future in the province.
"Nuclear has been a disaster, but we're going to do it again,"
he said. "When are we going to learn?"
Conservative MPP John Baird, the former energy minister, said
Manley's report proves Premier Dalton McGuinty's plan to
eliminate coal-fired generating plants by 2007 is unrealistic.
"Dalton McGuinty's getting a message from John Manley: you can't
keep your promise to close electricity plants," Baird
(Nepean-Carleton) said.
NDP Leader Howard Hampton said in a telephone interview from
Santiago, Cuba, that one of the fundamental flaws in the report
is that there is "still no real commitment to energy efficiency
and energy conservation and I think that has to be number one on
the list of priorities."
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited.
*****************************************************************
23 Courier Post: Utility promises nuclear reforms
[http://www.courierpostonline.com
Friday, March 19, 2004
PSEG admits problems in NRC meeting
By LAWRENCE HAJNA Courier-Post Staff LOGAN
The operator of the Salem nuclear-power complex on Thursday gave
itself poor marks in encouraging employees to raise safety and
equipment concerns.
PSEG Nuclear officials acknowledged its shortcomings during a
meeting with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which
last fall launched a special review of operations at the
three-reactor complex based on complaints from numerous past and
current employees.
"We need to fix these problems. If we don't, we won't have a
successful operation," said Roy Anderson, named chief nuclear
officer as part of a management shake-up last year. "In short, I
was hired to fix the plant and to engage the work force."
In January, the NRC sent a letter to PSEG expressing concerns,
based on its initial review findings, about the station's "work
environment, particularly as it relates to the handling of
emergent equipment issues and associated operational decision
making."
Thursday's meeting at the Holiday Inn Select allowed the company
to begin outlining its response plan.
Company officials said it will take years to completely fix its
work environment problems, but said they have launched numerous
measures toward that end, including independent reviewers who are
interviewing employees to determine the cause of problems.
PSEG Power, parent company to PSEG Nuclear, also plans to invest
$648 million to upgrade the "material condition" of the Hope
Creek and twin Salem reactors over the next five years, said
Frank Cassidy, president and chief operating officer for PSEG
Power.
He said employee concerns about equipment are often at the root
of work culture problems at the plant.
"The simple fact is that Salem and Hope Creek will get the
resources necessary to carry out their mission safely and
reliably," Cassidy said.
He added that two independent reviews commissioned by the
utility in December determined PSEG is "below the industry norm
for creating a safety-conscious work environment."
Located on Artificial Island at the neck of Delaware Bay, the
Hope Creek and Salem 1 and Salem 2 reactors employ about 1,800
people. It is the nation's second-largest nuclear complex and
generates more than half the electricity PSEG produces.
Chip Gerrity, president of IBEW Local 94 based in Hightstown,
represents about 800 technical workers at the plant. He said
employees became frustrated because management frequently did not
respond to their concerns about equipment and operations. But he
said things have changed under the new management.
"The management team that's in the plant now is a good
management team," he said. "Anything that had not happened that
was supposed to happen will be fixed with these guys."
PSEG formed an independent assessment team of former nuclear
industry executives and regulators that began interviewing
employees Feb. 13. It plans to submit its findings and
recommendation by mid-April, said James O'Hanlon, the team's
leader.
The NRC will hold another update meeting in May.
Hubert J. Miller, regional NRC administrator, said he expects
the work environment turnaround to take time, noting that current
problems are the "legacy" of past management. He said there is no
need to consider sanctions, such as shutting the plants down.
But, during a public comment period, Norm Cohen, an anti-nuclear
activist from Linwood, Atlantic County, asked the NRC to do just
that.
"If PSEG is admitting it's in poor shape, it must be in worse
shape," he said.
John Muscemeci, a former operations engineer at Salem, argued
PSEG has repeatedly dodged in and out of trouble with the NRC
over the years, and that past corrective measures never lasted.
He maintains this is because PSEG Power inadequately funds its
nuclear division.
"Obviously they're going to throw money at the island when
they're in trouble," the Quinton, Salem County, resident said.
"What are they going to do three years from now?"
Reach Lawrence Hajna at (856) 486-2466 or
[lhajna@courierpostonline.com]
*****************************************************************
24 Toronto Star: Ontario's hydro bill: $40B
TheStar.com -
Mar. 18, 2004. 06:38 AM
Energy minister pegs high cost of upgrading aging system Critics
fear way being paved for sell-off to private sector
RICHARD BRENNAN AND JOHN SPEARS STAFF REPORTERS
Ontario is looking at a staggering price tag of up to $40 billion
to upgrade the province's aging electricity system, Energy
Minister Dwight Duncan said yesterday.
"It could well be one of the largest peacetime investments in the
history of this country," he said.
At a news conference, Duncan strongly hinted that the
near-bankrupt Ontario Power Generation could be broken up, which
critics say paves the way for a sell-off to the private sector.
A financial review has concluded that money-losing OPG's survival
is in question.
The provincially owned company produces 70 per cent of the
province's power, and Duncan said something has to be done soon
to get more power on line before 2006-07, which he calls "crunch"
time when demand for electricity will outstrip supply.
Because the Liberal government has promised to close the five
coal-fired plants by 2007 and the aging nuclear plants are either
down for repairs or acting up on a regular basis, Ontario is
faced with a serious power shortage.
Duncan said he could not say whether prices will have to go
higher than the 4.7 cents a kilowatt hour for the first 750
kilowatt hours and 5.5 cents for anything after that, effective
April 1. The price is being increased slightly from the cap of
4.3 cents per kilowatt hour put on by the former Conservative
government.
"What I can tell you is this ... if we don't respond prices will
go up," the minister told reporters. "Doing nothing is not an
option."
Duncan said he will spell out where the $30 billion to $40
billion is going to come from when he lays out the government's
plans to improve generation some time in the fall.
New Democrat MPP Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre) said is "pretty
clear" that the government is "laying the groundwork to dismantle
power generation, to privatize it, to sell it off piecemeal."
"The sad observation is that the privatization and deregulation
of electricity in this province ... was supposed to provide more
supply, lower cost, reduced debt, but in fact it has increased
debt, reduced supply and increased cost," Kormos said.
Tory MPP Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North) said it would be
irresponsible for the government to close the coal-fired plants
in less than three years without knowing what will replace them.
"He is trying to keep one of his promises that they made during
the election to close the five coal-fired generating plants, but
my guess right now is that it won't happen," Dunlop said.
Duncan noted that the province has to remain competitive with
such neighbouring states as New York and Michigan so that
power-hungry Ontario industries can compete.
He has said he hasn't ruled out the construction of new nuclear
plants, which would take eight to 10 years to produce power, but
he promises the government's plan will call for a mixture of
generation, so as not to be too dependent on one source.
The government is to release today a report on OPG's future from
a panel headed by former federal finance minister John Manley.
Duncan has refused to say whether the utility will stay in public
hands.
The Manley report is expected to recommend that the nuclear
division of OPG be run as a separate unit from the firm's
electricity operations. As well, the panel is likely to say that
OPG's head office should move to Niagara Falls from Toronto.
Manley will recommend what to do with the refurbishment of the
Pickering A nuclear plant, which is three years late and $2
billion to $3 billion over budget.
And, Duncan said, "Darlington, which is our newest nuke, is now
at the stage in its life where we can expect problems to start
with it, according to what the experts have told me."
The Liberal government is under pressure from Atomic Energy of
Canada Ltd. to build as many as eight new reactors, but the
Liberals are under just as much political pressure from
environmentalists to walk away from nuclear technology.
"There is no magic bullet," said Duncan, emphasizing that to meet
energy demands, Ontario will have to rely on a combination of
conservation and generation from many sources, including
renewable resources.
The province is about to issue a request for proposals to build
2,500 megawatts of generating capacity to replace one-third of
the power now produced by the coal-fired plants. There is a
580-megawatt gas-fired plant near Windsor, or about the same as
one nuclear reactor, waiting in the wings.
"We will (also) be announcing a conservation plan, we have to
make a decision on Pickering A units one, two and three, we have
to make decision on Bruce A, units one and two, so there are ways
of moving (along on new generation)," Duncan said.
"At this moment it is not (enough) but we will lay out a plan
where I believe we will get to where we have to be in order to
achieve our goals," he said.
Duncan said it is important to the environment and to the health
of Ontarians that the coal-fired plants are closed, and to that
end the province is asking the federal government for $300
million to help defray the cost of building power line
connections to Quebec and Manitoba.
"The (coal-fired) plants, many of them are scheduled to come off
line in any event between 2010 and 2020, We're simply speeding it
up," he said.
Jack Gibbons, of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, said the power
lost when these plants close can be recovered "by very
aggressively promoting energy conservation, by bringing on new
wind power projects, by bringing on new water power projects and
by investing in very high efficiency gas-fired power plants."
The release of Manley's report today comes on the heels of the
release of an independent review of OPG's performance by
accountants KPMG.
The review traced a big portion of the troubled company's
financial woes back to the approval in a single afternoon in 1997
of a $1.6 billion plan to launch 66 projects to supposedly fix
Ontario's troubled nuclear plants. The plan was approved by
then-chairman William Farlinger and the Ontario Hydro board.
KPMG said lost profits as a result of the flawed plan have put
OPG in a severe financial bind and that "its viability under the
current business model is in question."
The accounting firm said that plan, launched by Hydro executive
vice-president Carl Andognini, continues to weigh down the
financial performance of the OPG, Ontario Hydro's successor.
Andognini, a U.S. nuclear expert, brought in a "dream team" of
other U.S. nuclear consultants who set about diagnosing the
problems at the reactors owned by Ontario Hydro — inherited by
OPG when Ontario Hydro was broken up in 1998.
The plan failed to deliver $1.5 billion in expected pre-tax
earnings over five years, the review concluded. And another $1.5
billion in expected profit was lost as OPG poured money into
trying to restart the Pickering A nuclear generating station.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: NRC to Meet with Nebraska Public Power District to Discuss Performance of Cooper
Nuclear Station
News Release - Region IV - 2004-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-04-012 March
19, 2004 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail:
opa4@nrc.gov [opa4@nrc.gov]
representatives of the Nebraska Public Power District on Tuesday,
April 6, to discuss the results of the agencys annual assessment
of safety performance at the Cooper Nuclear Station. The facility
is located near Brownville, NB.
The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the Brownville Concert
Hall, Atlantic Avenue and Second Street, in Brownville. The
public is invited to observe the meeting and NRC officials will
be available before the conclusion of the meeting to answer
questions from the public on the safety performance of the plant.
The performance period to be discussed is January 1 to December
31, 2003. In addition, the NRC staff will provide an overview of
how the agencys Reactor Oversight Process works.
A letter from the NRC to Nebraska Public Power District officials
addresses the performance of the plant during this period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cns_2003q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] .
Overall, the plant operated safely during the past year. On
January 30, 2003, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter to
Nebraska Public Power District to confirm commitments made by the
licensee to address long-standing performance deficiencies.
Cooper has corrected weaknesses in its emergency preparedness
program and is working on improving the performance of plant
workers, the identification and correction of plant problems, and
the condition and reliability of plant equipment. The NRC will
continue to monitor the licensees actions in these areas.
During the fourth quarter of 2003, Cooper exceeded an NRC
threshold for the number of unplanned plant shutdowns. The NRC
plans to conduct a supplemental inspection to review actions
taken by the licensee to address this issue. In addition, it is
monitoring steps taken by the licensee to address an unusually
high re-qualification exam failure rate by licensed plant
operators.
Current performance indicators for Cooper Nuclear Station are
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CNS/cns_chart.html.
Last revised Friday, March 19, 2004
*****************************************************************
26 Burlington Free Press: Nuclear safety review needed
burlingtonfreepress.com
EDITORIAL Friday, March 19, 2004
From the Will Wonders Never Cease Department comes word that the
Public Service Board pleased all sides this week in a dispute
over whether Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant should increase
its generating capacity.
The three-member board agreed Monday to a 20 percent rise
in power production at the nuclear facility, noting that the plan
"should have minimal additional adverse impacts, while at the
same time providing additional energy to the region and economic
benefits to the state of Vermont."
The decision means Vermont Yankee's owner, Entergy
Nuclear, can go ahead this spring with the estimated $60 million
rehab of the plant along the Connecticut River.
In its decision, however, the board also requested that
the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission conduct an "independent
engineering assessment" of 32-year-old Vermont Yankee in addition
to its normal oversight process. The outside review was initially
proposed by the New England Coalition, an environmental group,
and endorsed Tuesday by the state Senate.
Although Entergy executives and some state officials
argued that regular review procedures should be adequate, they
expressed satisfaction with the board's decision.
The request to the nuclear commission reflects some
tricky bureaucratic stepping. The Public Service Board is
primarily responsible for construction aspects of the Vermont
Yankee uprate proposal. Safety is mainly the province of the
federal government. The state board wants to have an independent
review in hand before granting final approval to the uprate plan.
The proposed safety evaluation of Vermont Yankee would be
similar to one conducted on the Maine Yankee plant in 1996. That
inspection revealed several problem areas, leading to the plant's
shutdown because of the high cost of fixing the trouble spots.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has yet to respond to
Vermont's request, but a thorough safety inspection of Vermont
Yankee can do nothing but good. Any potential dangers stemming
from boosting power output can be explored. The overall condition
of the plant and its reliability can be examined. Independent
scrutiny can address any fears people might have about overall
plant safety.
For more than three decades, Vermont Yankee has proved to
be a predictable and reasonably affordable source of electricity.
The long-term future of the plant is not at issue, but the uprate
plan is a chance to re-examine safety issues and address other
concerns.
In its request for an independent review of Vermont
Yankee, the Public Service Board is looking out for Vermonters'
best interests. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should realize
that the public deserves credible answers to questions about
Vermont Yankee and order the safety assessment.
*****************************************************************
27 [DU-WATCH] KUCINICH WANTS BAN ON RADIOACTIVE MUNITIONS
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:04:10 -0600 (CST)
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Barlow [mailto:salmonvalley@att.net]
Sent: March 13, 2004 12:49 PM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: SVO- DU---KUCINICH TO CALL FOR BAN ON MUNITIONS MADE FROM
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
"This memo told us to be sure that we should only report our findings so DU
munitions could always be used. IN OTHER WORDS LIE!" ~ Dr. Doug Rokke, a
retired U.S. Army Reserve
health physicist
distributed by The Salmon Valley Observer, 03/15/04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
For Immediate Release: March 11, 2004
Contact: Matt Harris: (o) 216.889.2004, (c) 216.403.3980, press@kucinich.us
Kucinich To Call for Ban on Munitions Made From Radioactive Materials
WHAT: Press conference
WHO: Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Dr. Doug Rokke, PhD
WHERE: University of Illinois, Champaign Campus, Illini Forum
WHEN: Monday, March 15th, 7:00 PM
Champaign, Ill. - Democratic Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis
Kucinich will hold a press conference about U.S. munitions made from
radioactive materials (depleted uranium, or DU) manufactured in sites
across the U.S. and used in U.S.-led wars beginning with the Gulf War in
1991. Joining Kucinich will be Dr. Doug Rokke, a retired U.S. Army Reserve
health physicist, is one of the word's leading experts on the use of DU
munitions.
Kucinich is expected to discuss the devastating health consequences
suffered by American servicemen and women and their families and by
innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia and elsewhere because of U.S. use of DU munitions.
Kucinich is also expected to demand that the U.S. cease manufacturing and
using DU munitions; that it provide all necessary medical care to all
persons who have been exposed to US munitions, military and civilian
alike; and that the U.S. take full responsibility for performing complete
environmental remediation wherever our military has used DU munitions.
"Depleted uranium weapons are an unacceptable threat to life, a violation
of international law, and an assault on human dignity," says Kucinich. "We
have an obligation to do what is right for our servicemen and women, for
our children and our grandchildren and our grandchildren's children, and
for all citizens of the world. We must ban the use of depleted uranium in
our military and worldwide; we must provide medical care to all DU
casualties; and we must clean up all the places where we've used this
poison that has the power to kill for countless generations into the
future."
Dr. Doug Rokke earned his Ph.D. in Physics and Technology Education at the
University of Illinois, and served as a member of the U.S. Army Medical
Command's Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) special operations and
teaching team during the Gulf War. Dr. Rokke, a confirmed DU poisoning
casualty, has taught hazardous materials; field emergency medicine;
nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare; education and training,
counter-terrorism, and military operations courses for more than 20 years.
Recently Dr. Rokke has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in
environmental science and engineering, nuclear physics, and emergency
management.
For information about the National campaign: http://www.kucinich.us
For Congressman Kucinich's Schedule: http://www.kucinich.us/schedule.htm
To schedule an interview with Kucinich or spokesperson:
jonathans@kucinich.us
For information about the Illinois Kucinich campaign: Diego Alvarado,
309-275-5070, MrDiegoAlvarado@aol.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED ON DEPLETED URANIUM
Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D.
March 12, 2004
ABSTRACT: Depleted uranium munitions are used during combat because they are
extremely effective. However, in winning these battles through use of
uranium
munitions we have contaminated air, water, and soil. Consequently, children,
women, and men have inhaled, ingested, or got wounds contaminated with
uranium.
Uranium is a heavy metal and radioactive poison. The toxicity is not
debatable as the Director of the U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute
stated in a
congressionally mandated report that "No available technology can
significantly change the inherent chemical and radiological toxicity of DU.
These are
intrinsic properties of uranium " (Health and Environmental Consequences of
Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army: Technical Report, AEPI, June 1995).
The
primary U.S. Army training manual: STP 21-1-SMCT: Soldiers Manual of Common
Tasks
states "NOTE: (Depleted uranium) Contamination will make food and water
unsafe
for consumption." [Task number: 031-503-1017 "RESPOND TO DEPLETED
URANIUM/LOW
LEVEL RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (DULLRAM) HAZARDS"]. Although, existing U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD) directives require that prompt and effective
medical
care be provided to all exposed individuals (Medical Management of Unusual
Depleted Uranium Casualties, DOD, 10/14/93) and the thorough clean up of
dispersed
radioactive contamination (AR 700-48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated
With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities"); United States, British,
and
Australian officials refuse to comply with these directives.
RECENT EVENTS.
The United States, England, and Australia have recently used extensive
amounts of weapons made from uranium, commonly called depleted uranium in
Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the Balkans. Medical evidence and especially the birth
defects in
children born to parents in areas with DU contamination is an issue of
significant concern. Depleted uranium (uranium 238) along with other
contaminates
of war have been implicated and medical evidence supports the fact that
uranium
contamination exposure results in adverse health effects.
Today; after the willful use of uranium munitions during Gulf War 1, during
Balkans combat, in Afghanistan, and now during Gulf War 2; warriors and
non-combatants are exhibiting serious adverse health effects from exposure
to
depleted uranium munitions contamination, conventional weapons residue, and
released
toxic industrial chemicals.
However, even though medical evidence exists to prove adverse health effects
United States, British, Australian, Canadian, and NATO officials continue to
state specifically that there are no known adverse health effects in
individuals who were exposed to uranium and other contamination. That is a
willful lie
as verified by actual medical records of thousands of individuals affected
by
war created contamination. However, despite their formal stance the British
Ministry of Defence recently have acknowledged that British serviceman who
serve
in Iraq may be exposed to depleted uranium contamination and can obtain
medical testing upon re-deployment
(http://www.traprockpeace.org/du_mod_warning_cards.html).
WHAT IS DU?
Depleted uranium (DU) which is 99.8% by mass U-238 is made from uranium
hexaflouride, the byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. Recent
documents
released by the U.S. Department of Energy and the 1995 U..S. Army
Environmental
Policy Institute reports state that a small proportion of other toxic heavy
metals and radioactive isotopes such as plutonium, neptunium, americium, and
U-236 also are present. Although the 60 % of the ionizing radiation given
off by
gamma emissions from U-235 and U-234 was eliminated during the enrichment
process, alpha particles at 4.2 Mev and 4.15 Mev that cause significant
internal
ionization with consequent cellular damage were proportionally increased and
gamma and beta emissions from contaminants and daughter products still are
present. The continuing incomplete statement that DU is 60% less
radioactive than
natural uranium simply ignores the serious internal damage caused by alpha
particles that impact any cell! Alpha particle emission measurements show
that
the dose or exposure rate is in excess of 10000 counts per minute. DU is a
serious internal hazard. Consequent inhalation, ingestion, and wound
contamination pose significant and unacceptable health risks due to direct
cell damage
from alpha and beta particle and gamma ray emissions. Spent penetrators, DU
fragments, and contaminated shrapnel emit beta particles and gamma rays at
300
mrem / hour and thus can not be touched or picked up without protection.
HOW IS DU USED BY THE MILITARY?
DU is used to manufacture kinetic energy penetrators- giant pencils or rods.
Each kinetic penetrator consists of almost entirely uranium 238. The
United
States munitions industry produces the following DU munitions with the
corresponding mass of uranium 238:
7.62 mm with unspecified mass
50 cal. With unspecified mass
20 mm with a mass of approximately 180 grams.
25 mm with a mass of approximately 200 grams.
30 mm with a mass of approximately 280 grams.
105 mm with a mass of approximately 3500 grams.
120 mm with a mass of approximately 4500 grams.
Sub-munitions / land mines such as the PDM and ADAM whose structural body
contain a small proportion of DU.
Cruise missiles with unknown quantity of DU
Bunker buster bombs with unknown quantity of DU
Many other countries now produce or have acquired DU munitions. DU is also
used as armor, counter weights, radiation shielding, and as proposed by the
U.S. Department of Energy as a component of road and structural materials.
All
of these uses are designed to reduce the huge U.S. Department of Energy
stockpiles left over from the uranium enrichment process.
It is important to realize that DU penetrators are solid uranium 238. THEY
ARE NOT TIPPED OR COATED! During an impact at least 40 % of the penetrator
forms uranium oxides or fragments which are left on the terrain, within or
on
impacted equipment, or within impacted structures.
The remainder of the penetrator retains its initial shape. Thus we are left
with a solid piece of uranium lying someplace which can be picked up by
children. DU also ignites in the air during flight and upon impact. The
resulting
shower of burning DU and DU fragments causes secondary explosions, fires,
injury, and death.
All individuals must ask if they would want tons solid uranium penetrators
lying in their backyard? Does anyone want any radioactive contamination of
any
type lying in their backyard? The answer is simple- NO ONE!
OPERATION DESERT STORM DEPLETED URANIUM FRIENDLY FIRE AND COMBAT INCIDENTS
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
I was assigned to the 3rd U.S. Army Depleted Uranium assessment team as the
health physicist and medic by order of Headquarters Department of the Army
in
Washington, D.C. What we found can be explained in three words: "OH MY
GOD".
According to official documents each uranium penetrator rod could loose up
to
70% of it's mass on impact creating fixed and loose contamination with the
remaining rod passing through the equipment or structure to lie on the
terrain.
On-site impact investigations showed that the mass loss is about 40% which
forms fixed and loose contamination leaving about 60% of the initial mass of
the
penetrator in the solid pencil form.
We found that standard radiacs will not detect his contamination. Equipment
contamination included uranium fragments, uranium oxides, other hazardous
materials, unstable unexploded ordnance, and byproducts of exploded
ordnance.
U.S. Army Materiel Command documents sent to us stated the uranium oxide was
57%
insoluble and 43 % soluble and at least 50% could be inhaled. In most cases
except for penetrator fragments, contamination was inside destroyed
equipment or
structures, on the destroyed equipment, or within 25 meters of the
equipment.
During the 1994 and 1995 Nevada tests we found DU contamination out to 400
meters from a single incident.
After we returned to the United States we wrote the Theater Clean up plan
which reportedly was passed through U.S. Department of Defense to the U.S.
Department of State and consequently to the Emirate of Kuwaiti. Today, it is
obvious
that none of this information regarding clean up of extensive DU
contamination ever was given to the Iraqi's. Consequently, although there
still are
substantial radiation contamination hazards existing within Iraq these
hazards have
been ignored by the United States and Great Britain for political and
economic
reasons at the same time additional use of uranium weapons has occurred
resulting in additional confirmed contamination.
Iraqi, Kosovar, Serbian, and other representatives have asked numerous times
for DU contamination management and medical care procedures but this
information has not been provided. Although residents of Vieques, who are
U.S.
citizens, also have asked for medical care and completion of environmental
remediation DOD officials still refuse to complete these essential actions.
THE U.S. ARMY DEPLETED URANIUM PROJECT AND ITS OBJECTIVES?
The probable health and environmental hazards of uranium contamination were
known before the Gulf War. A United States Defense Nuclear Agency
memorandum
written by LTC Lyle that was sent to our team in Saudi Arabia stated that
quote:
"As Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), ground combat units, and civil
populations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq come increasingly into contact
with DU
ordnance, we must prepare to deal with potential problems. Toxic war
souvenirs, political furor, and post conflict clean up (host nation
agreement) are
only some of the issues that must be addressed. Alpha particles (uranium
oxide
dust) from expended rounds is a health concern but, Beta particles from
fragments and intact rounds is a serious health threat, with possible
exposure rates
of 200 millirads per hour on contact." end quote.
This memorandum, the reports that we prepared immediately after the Gulf War
as a part of the depleted uranium assessment project to recover DU destroyed
and contaminated U.S. equipment, the previous research, and other expressed
concerns led to the publication of a United States Department of Defense
directive signed by General Eric Shinseki on August 19, 1993 to quote:
"1. Provide adequate training for personnel who may come in contact with
depleted uranium equipment.
2. Complete medical testing of personnel exposed to DU contamination during
the Persian Gulf War.
3. Develop a plan for DU contaminated equipment recovery during future
operations."
It is thus indisputable that United States Department of Defense officials
were and are still aware of the unique and unacceptable health and
environmental
hazards associated with using depleted uranium munitions.
Consequently, I was recalled to active duty in 1994 as U.S. Army Depleted
Uranium Project Director and tasked with developing training and
environmental
management procedures. The project included a literature review; extensive
curriculum development project involving representatives from all branches
of the
U.S. Department of Defense and representatives from England, Canada,
Germany,
and Australia. We also completed basic research at the Nevada Test Site
located 120 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, to validate management
procedures.
The products of the DU project included: Three training curricula:
(1) Tier I: General Audience,
(2) Tier II: Battle Damage and Recovery Operations,
(3) Tier III: Chemical Officer / NCO;
(4) Three video tapes: (1) "Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness", (2)
"Contaminated and Damaged Equipment Management", and (3) "Operation of the
AN/PDR 77
Radiac Set";
(5) The draft Army Regulation: "Management of Equipment Contaminated with
Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities" (currently AR 700-48,
Department of
the Army, Washington, D.C., 9/16/2002);
(6) an United States Army Pamphlet specifying "Handling Procedures for
Equipment Contaminated with Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities" and
(7) a redesigned radiac capable of finding and quantifying DU contamination.
Although, these products were completed, approved, and ready for
distribution
by January 1996, U.S. Army, U.S. Department of Defense, British, German,
Canadian, and Australian officials have disregarded repeated directives and
have
not implemented or only have implemented portions of the training or
management
procedures.
The training curriculum and management procedures have not been given to all
individuals and representatives of governments whose populations and
environment have been exposed to DU contamination as verified by U.S.
General
Accounting Office investigators in a report published during March 2000 and
through
personal conversations.
WHAT ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED, RECOGNIZED, TREATED, AND
DOCUMENTED?
Deliberate denial and delay of medical screening and consequent medical care
of U.S. friendly fire casualties who inhaled, ingested, and had wound
contamination and all others with verified or suspected internalized uranium
exposure
limits recognition and verification of health effects still continues as of
December 10, 2003.
Although we recommended immediate medical care during March 1991 and many
times since then United States Department of Defense, the British Ministry
of
Defense, Canadian, Australian, United State Department, and U.S. Department
of
Veterans Affairs officials are still refusing to provide thorough medical
screening and necessary medical care for all DU casualties as required by
their own
written and published directives.
Dr. Bernard Rostker wrote to me in a letter dated March 1, 1999 that
physicians and health physicists at the completion of the ground war decided
that
medical screening and care for uranium exposures was not required. Actual
documents refute this! Today, individuals are sick (including me) and others
are dead
who were denied medical care even though I requested it in a letter dated
May
21, 1997 which was sent to the Office of Surgeon U.S. Army Materiel Command
and forwarded to Dr. Rostker.
Verified adverse health effects from personal experience, physicians, and
from personal reports from individuals with known DU exposures include: (a)
Reactive airway disease, (b) neurological abnormalities, (c) kidney stones
and
chronic kidney pain, (d) rashes, (e) vision degradation and night vision
losses,
(f) gum tissue problems, (g) lymphoma, (h) various forms of skin and organ
cancer, (I) neuro-psychological disorders, (j) uranium in semen, (k) sexual
dysfunction, and (l) birth defects in offspring.
Today, health effects have been documented in uranium processing facility
employees of and residents living near Puducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio;
Los
Alamos, New Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Hanford, Washington.
Employees
of and residents living near uranium manufacturing or processing facilities
in
New York, Tennessee, Iowa, Massachusetts, and the four corners area of
southwest Colorado also have repeatedly reported health effects similar to
those
reported by Gulf War DU casualties.
Iraqi and other humanitarian agency physicians are reporting the same health
effects in exposed populations. Scottish scientists have verified that
residents of the Balkans were excreting uranium in their urine. Dr. Assaf
Durakovic
(a retired U.S. Army Colonel) of the Uranium Medical Research Center has
also verified extremely high uranium excretion rates in Afghanistan
refugees.
This demonstrates that depleted uranium (U-238) is mobile and contaminating,
air,
water, and soil just as specified in the October 1943 letter to General
Leslie Groves.
Today, verifying correlation between uranium exposures and adverse health
effects, except in only in a few cases, is difficult because of deliberate
delays
in required screening, a radio-bioassay and medical care. Screening involves
the collection and analysis of urine, fecal, and throat samples within 24
hours of exposure as required in a October 1993 Department of Defense
published
directive. Today, months or years after exposure, only a small fraction of
the
sequestered uranium will be detected. This detectable fraction represents
only
the mobile or soluble portion and a very smal fraction of what is or was in
the body. Terry Riordan's (a DU casualty) autopsy in Canada has revealed
that
sequestering is occurring and that the mobile fraction may not be
representative
of what is actually present.
Even when verified medical evidence attributing adverse health effects to DU
exposures is available official recognition and documentation is limited.
For
example during 1994 and 1995 United States Department of Defense medical
personnel at an U.S. Army installation hospital removed, separated, and hid
documented diagnoses (including my own) from affected individuals and other
physicians. Some medical records were retrieved during the fall of 1997,
but, probably
too late for many individuals. Today, this practice continues and
consequently exposed individuals are not receiving adequate and effective
medical care.
This includes individuals whose required medical care has been requested and
ordered many times.
The denial of medical care will continue as long as the United States,
British, Canadian, NATO, and United Nations officials are permitted to
ignore the
emerging evidence and deny medical care to all individuals who have been or
may
have been exposed to depleted uranium (uranium 238), other isotopes, and
other
contaminants created as result of depleted uranium munitions use. The
criteria describing exposures requiring medical screening within 24 hours of
exposure and consequent medical care were specified in a message from
Headquarters
Department of the Army dated October 14, 1993. These exposures included:
"a. Being in the midst of smoke from DU fires resulting from the burning of
vehicles uploaded with DU munitions or depots in which DU munitions are
being
stored.
b. Working within environments containing DU dust or residues from DU fires.
c. Being within a structure or vehicle while it is struck by DU munitions."
These guidelines must be applicable to all exposed individuals with care
independent of military or civilian status. They must be implemented now!
Medical care must be planned and completed to identify and then alleviate
actual physiological problems rather than placing an emphasis on
psychological
manifestations and continued testing. Children and others are sick and
deserve
care for the complex exposures that have resulted in health problems.
Medical
care for known uranium exposures should emphasize (concern in parentheses):
a. neurology (heavy metal effects)
b. ophthalmology (radiation and heavy metal effects)
c. urology (heavy metal effects and crystal formation)
d. dermatology (heavy metal effects)
e. cardiology (radiation and heavy metal effects)
f. pulmonary (radiation, particulate, and heavy metal effects)
g. immunology (radiation and heavy metal effects)
h. oncology (radiation and heavy metal effects)
i. gynecology (radiation, neurological, and heavy metal effects)
j. gastro-intestinal (systemic effects)
k. dental (heavy metal effects)
l. psychology (heavy metal effects)
m. chromosomal damage (systemic effects)
Many individuals with known exposures still have not received requested
care.
As stated during March 10, 2003 by Dr. Michael KilPatrick, U.S. Department
of
Defense, only 90 individuals (including myself) are receiving minimal
medical
care from physicians assigned to the Baltimore Maryland Department of
Veterans Affairs Depleted Uranium program. That includes only a fraction of
over 400
individuals with verified extremely high exposures as the Dr. Rostker's
staff
told members of the Presidential Special Oversight Board on September 28,
1998.
It is impossible to get proper care and treatment. IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE
MEDICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE WITH VERIFIED EXPOSURES AND HEALTH PROBLEMS
THEN YOU
CAN SAY DU DID NOT CAUSE ANY ADVERSE HEALTH PROBLEMS BECAUSE YOU NEVER SAW
ANY
HEALTH EFFECTS. SO MUCH FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE WHEN A COVER-UP IS DIRECTED BY
POLITICIANS TO LIMIT LIABILITY.
The cover-up actions to avoid liability started with the infamous Los Alamos
memorandum sent to our team in Saudi Arabia during March 1991. This memo
told
us to be sure that we should only report our findings so DU munitions could
always be used. IN OTHER WORDS LIE!
A letter sent to General Leslie Groves during 1943 is even more disturbing.
In that memorandum dated October 30, 1943, senior scientists assigned to the
Manhattan Project suggested that radioactive materials; including uranium as
confirmed during personal discussions with former Manhatten Project
scientists;
could be used to contaminate air, water, and terrain contaminant. According
to the letter sent by the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee on the
"Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon" to General Groves
(October
30, 1943) inhalation of radioactive materials- dirty bomb, would result in
"bronchial irritation coming on in a few hours to a few days". This is
exactly
what happened to those of us who inhaled DU dust during Operation Desert
Storm
and in U.S. soldiers in the Balkans.
The subcommittee went on further to state that "Beta emitting products could
get into the gastrointestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air.
>From the air, they would get on the mucus of the nose, throat, bronchi, etc.
and
be swallowed. The effects would be local irritation just as in the bronchi
and exposures of the same amount would be required. The stomach, caecum and
rectum, where contents remain for longer periods than elsewhere would be
most
likely affected. It is conceivable that ulcers and perforations of the gut
followed by death could be produced, even without an general effects from
radiation".
Today, although medical problems continue to develop; medical care is denied
or delayed for all uranium exposed casualties while United States Department
of Defense and British Ministry of Defense officials continue to deny any
correlation between uranium exposure and adverse health and environmental
effects.
They contend that they can spread tons of solid radioactive waste (uranium
238) in anyone's backyard without cleaning it up and providing medical care.
Their arrogance is astonishing!
Since 1991 numerous DOD and VA directives have required compliance with
these
recommendations. However even though DOD, VA, and UN officials know what
should be done, visual evidence, photographic and video tape evidence, on
site
radiological measurements, personal experience, and published reports verify
that:
1. Medical care has not been provided to all DU casualties.
2. Environmental remediation has not been completed.
3. Individuals are not wearing respiratory or skin protection.
4. Contaminated and damaged equipment and materials have been recycled to
manufacture new products.
5. Training and education has only been partially implemented.
6. Contamination management procedures have not been distributed and
implemented.
Consequently,
1. All DU contamination must be physically removed and properly disposed of
to prevent future exposures.
2. Specialized radiation detection devices that detect and measure alpha
particles, beta articles, x-rays, and gamma rays emissions at appropriate
levels
from 20 dpm up to 100,000 dpm and from .1 mrem/ hour to 75 mrem/ hour must
be
acquired and distributed to all individuals or organizations responsible for
medical care and environmental remediation activities involving depleted
uranium
/ uranium 238 and other low level radioactive isotopes that may be present.
Standard equipment will not detect contamination.
3. Medical care must be provided to all individuals who did or may have
inhaled, ingested, or had wound contamination to detect mobile and
sequestered
internalized uranium contamination.
4. All individuals who enter, climb on, or work within 25 meters of any
contaminated equipment or terrain must wear respiratory and skin protection.
5. Contaminated and damaged equipment or materials should not be recycled to
manufacture new materials or equipment.
6. The use of uranium munitions must cease immediately.
7. All individuals who may come in contact with uranium munitions or uranium
munitions contamination must complete specific education and training on
management of contamination and response to incidents involving uranium
munitions.
*****************************************************************
28 [du-list] DU leads to sufferng in Iraq
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:10:17 -0800
Kazuko Ito: Depleted uranium leads to suffering in
Iraq
Asahi Weekly (Japan), March 19, 2004
http://www.asahi.com/english/opinion/TKY200403190179.html
Self-Defense Forces troops have been dispatched to
Iraq, where violence shows no signs of abating. It is
debatable whether sending the SDF to such a dangerous
area constitutes an international contribution that
does not violate the Constitution.
And we have to face up to the issue of depleted
uranium. Between 800 tons and 2,000 tons of depleted
uranium ordnance were fired in the Iraq war. Residual
radioactivity from spent shells now contaminates the
entire nation.
As a prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal
for Afghanistan formed under the initiative of a
citizens' group, I surveyed scientists' reports on how
depleted uranium affects the living. In October, I
took part in an international conference on the
subject in Germany, where I was shocked to learn that
depleted uranium ordnance is causing irreparable
damage to the people.
Depleted uranium, a byproduct of the production of
enriched uranium, is a highly toxic, radioactive
substance with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. When
shells made from depleted uranium are fired, they
discharge large quantities of radioactivity. If a
human being absorbs that radiation in the air or
drinking water, contamination continues within the
body, damaging cells and triggering diseases such as
cancer or causing congenital abnormalities among the
children of people exposed to the radiation.
A declassified 1943 memorandum, addressed to a general
and written by a U.S. scientist who took part in the
Manhattan project, explains in detail the deadly
effectiveness of the ``radioactive weapons'' that
eventually became the model for depleted uranium
ordnance. Records kept by the U.S. Department of
Defense that I have read show that the U.S. military
has been conducting studies on depleted uranium,
including animal tests, since 1974.
At the international conference in Germany, I spoke
with Doug Rokke, who led a project that examined the
effects of depleted uranium in soldiers at the
Pentagon in 1994. According to Rokke, the project's
findings made clear to him how serious the effect of
depleted uranium is on humans. He urged that such
weapons be banned, but his warning was ignored by the
military and the project eventually disbanded.
More than 200,000 U.S. soldiers returned from the
Persian Gulf War suffering physical disorders, and
about 10,000 of them have died, Rokke said. While
certain vaccinations are thought to have had an
deleterious impact on their health, depleted uranium
also contributed to their health problems, he said.
Rokke asked whether Japan does not care if its
soldiers now face the same danger.
Was this danger taken into account when the government
decided to go ahead with the SDF dispatch?
Even more ominous is the effect depleted uranium will
have on the health of Iraqis. The southern city of
Basra was bombarded with depleted uranium shells
during the Persian Gulf War. In recent years, cancer
and congenital abnormalities have risen sharply among
local children. An Iraqi doctor handed me a large
number of photographs of patients suffering from
depleted uranium-related disorders. They left me
speechless.
If we sit back and do nothing to stop the spread of
radioactive pollution during this Iraq conflict, many
more people will die. We must put an end to the
occupation, and advance Iraqi reconstruction under the
initiative of the United Nations as soon as possible,
so that international society together can prevent the
ravages of depleted uranium from spreading. Research
on the contamination must be done, remaining pieces of
depleted uranium ordnance must be collected and
contaminated soil removed.
An Iraqi doctor told me: ``We don't want you to send
us an army. We want you to help us. We need more
anti-cancer, antibiotic and intravenous medications.''
Deploying SDF troops is expected to cost tens of
billions of yen. If all that money were instead put
toward medical aid in Iraq, it would help a great many
more people. Japan, a country that endured World War
II's atomic bombings, has the medical skill and
technology to treat patients suffering from
radioactive contamination. We should put medical aid
ahead of any other kind of assistance.
Many people are dying slow, quiet deaths because of
their exposure to depleted uranium pollution. What can
Japan and the world do? To start, the government
should withdraw the SDF from Iraq and concentrate on
peaceful humanitarian relief, especially medical aid.
That, I believe, is the only honorable choice for
Japan's international contribution.
The author is a lawyer. She contributed this comment
to The Asahi Shimbun.(IHT/Asahi: March 19,2004)
(03/19)
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
29 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Inslee, Dicks briefed on nuclear missile accident
[seattlepi.com]
Friday, March 19, 2004
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF
In response to their demand for answers, U.S. Reps. Jay Inslee
and Norm Dicks received a classified briefing yesterday from the
Navy's top strategic weapons commander about a Nov. 7 Trident
nuclear missile accident at Naval Submarine Base Bangor.
While restricted from disclosing details, Inslee, whose district
includes Bangor, said that in the briefing from Rear Adm. Charles
Young, he learned that lives did not appear to have been in
jeopardy nor were toxic materials released when the nose cone of
a missile lifted from the USS Georgia was punctured.
Inslee, however, called the accident "troubling, given the
potential for any release of toxic material from these missiles."
It was serious enough that the commanders of Bangor's strategic
weapons facility were fired in December, and the Navy launched a
detailed review of its safety procedures, he said.
Inslee was not pleased that Congress and the public, especially
civilian emergency responders, were kept in the dark. The
accident came to light two weeks ago through the media.
"There is simply no excuse to have a delay of this length in
notifying Congress and the public in a secure way, as occurred in
this case," he said.
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA
98119 (206) 448-8000
Send comments to [newmedia@seattlepi.com]
*****************************************************************
30 Seattle Times: Inslee, Dicks want Navy to be open about nukes
Friday, March 19, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
By Mike Carter Seattle Times staff reporter
Two Western Washington congressmen say they will press the
Department of Defense to revise its policy of never discussing
its nuclear arsenal in light of a mishap that damaged an
atomic-tipped Trident missile at the Naval Submarine Base Bangor
late last year.
Following a closed-door briefing by the admiral in charge of the
sub-based atomic-weapons systems, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge
Island, said the Navy "needs to find a better way" to notify
Congress and the public about accidents such as the Nov. 7
incident at the Strategic Weapons Facility, Pacific (SWFPAC).
Inslee and some law-enforcement and emergency-services officials
in Kitsap County said they were dismayed to learn about the
accident in media reports almost four months after it happened.
"There is simply no excuse to have a delay of this length in
notifying Congress and the public in a secure way, as occurred in
this case," said Inslee.
Inslee said he was prohibited from talking about the specifics of
the incident because of the Navy's policy of never acknowledging
the whereabouts, or even the existence, of its nuclear weapons.
It is that policy that Inslee and Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton,
who was also at the briefing, say they will seek to amend.
Several sources told The Seattle Times the nose cone of a Trident
I C-4 missile was gouged by a ladder as the missile was being
hoisted into a protective sleeve from its launch tube on the USS
Georgia.
There was at least one thermonuclear warhead atop the missile —
it can carry up to eight.
The warhead was not damaged.
Inslee, who lives in Kitsap County, said yesterday the Navy
convinced him there was no public-health threat.
At the same time, the congressman — whose district includes the
Bangor sub base — said the incident was serious and that the Navy
acted appropriately in relieving the entire command of SWFPAC and
undertaking a "vigorous" review and inspection of the facility.
"It appears to me that the Navy has recognized the severity of
this breach of responsibility by reviewing these procedures in
intimate detail," Inslee said.
"I can't disclose the nature of what occurred," said Inslee
following what he called a "detailed briefing" by Rear Adm.
Charles Young, the commanding officer of the Navy's Strategic
Systems Programs.
"But I can say we would be disturbed if there were failures to
follow procedure involving these types of weapons," he said.
"What I can tell you is that I'm disturbed."
George Behan, a spokesman for Dicks, said the congressman was
satisfied there was no health threat.
Both Inslee and Dicks have said they were aware the commanding
officer was relieved of duty at SWFPAC in December.
Scott Baker, Inslee's deputy press secretary, said the
congressman's staff was told it was a "personnel matter" when
they inquired.
Behan has said Dicks never asked.
Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
31 Bellona: Italian delegation visited Zvezdochka shipyard
Late January Italian representatives had the first talks about
funding of nuclear submarines’ dismantling and the shipyard’s
infrastructure development.
2004-03-19 14:15
Italy promised to allocate 360m euros for Russian nuclear
submarines' dismantling and environmental nuclear safety programs
during 10 years. The first talks on implementation of this
program took place at the Zvezdochka shipyard in Severodvinsk in
the end of January, Nord Media Company reported. The Italian
delegation spent two days examining the shipyard’s capacity and
talking to the specialists.
The Italians said at the meeting that their main wish is to
contribute practically to the rapid and safe submarines
dismantling in the frames of G8 partnership against the Spread of
Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. Therefore, the meeting
in Severodvinsk was mostly dedicated to financing of the
dismantling works and further improvement of the Zvezdochka
infrastructure. However, the source of Nord Media Company in
Severodvinsk said the first practical steps of Italy in this
direction were expected not before summer.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] ,
President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no]
Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no]
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
32 THE SUN: Lawmakers briefed on 'serious' nuke incident
TheSunLink.com
Friday, Mar 19
BANGOR
• Better public disclosure is needed, the congressmen say, even
though risks to public safety in this case appeared to be small.
Christopher Dunagan
Sun Staff
March 19, 2004
Coming out of a classified briefing with Navy officials, U.S.
Reps. Norm Dicks and Jay Inslee agreed Thursday that the Navy
needs to develop new ways of releasing information about
incidents that could involve public safety -- even when nuclear
weapons are implicated.
Dicks, D-Belfair, and Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, told The Sun
they were satisfied that the Navy had reacted appropriately after
what they called a "serious" incident involving a missile
operation at Bangor.
Rear Adm. Charles Young, head of the Navy's Strategic Weapons
Facility, Pacific, provided the congressmen with details about
the Nov. 7 incident at the Naval Submarine Base at Bangor.
According to unofficial reports, the nose cone of a nuclear
missile was punctured as the missile was being hoisted out of its
tube aboard the Trident submarine USS Georgia.
A ladder left in the missile tube reportedly sliced a 9-inch hole
and nearly struck one of the missile's nuclear warheads before
the lifting was stopped, according to a report by military
justice activist Walter Fitzpatrick and confirmed by other
sources who have requested anonymity.
Because of the classified nature of the congressional briefing,
however, Dicks and Inslee could not confirm details of the
incident.
"We're obviously under restriction about what we can say," Dicks
said. "Most of the information is classified. But it is my
opinion that there were mistakes made in this incident."
Dicks said the situation never reached "life-threatening"
proportions. The Navy reacted with a thorough review, followed by
reassignment of Navy personnel at several levels.
"This was a serious matter, and the (Navy officials) are taking
this very, very seriously," he said.
"Without describing the details of this incident," Inslee added,
"I was stunned at some repeated failures to follow procedure."
Although the release of "toxic material" was unlikely in this
incident, Inslee said he is still troubled by the "potential
severity" if it were to happen.
In recent days, some people have suggested that if the ladder --
which should have been removed -- had actually pierced the
nuclear warhead, it could have resulted in the release of
radioactive plutonium. Some say the radiation could have been
scattered widely by a possible detonation of conventional
explosives in the warhead or missile propellant.
"A lot of people were speculating and saying things that were not
true," Dicks said. "Based on general knowledge, it is extremely
difficult to detonate one of these."
Dicks and Inslee both said they would like the Navy to develop
new ways of disclosing sensitive information.
"We still wish the Navy and Department of Defense could be more
forthcoming when incidents like this occur," Dicks said.
When people feel something is being covered up, they tend to
overstate the danger and "the press overreacts because they think
they have discovered something," he said. "I think people would
understand that certain incidents happen."
If a public hazard truly existed, Dicks said, existing procedures
require notification of local authorities. But near-accidents,
even serious ones, are another story.
"There are policies about disclosure," Inslee said, "and we are
urging the Navy and Department of Defense to review those
policies."
He said he thinks the Navy can find a way to disclose information
without revealing military secrets.
Dicks said serious incidents should be reported immediately to
selected members of Congress with the appropriate security
clearance.
If necessary, he said, Congress could adopt a new disclosure law,
patterned on one that requires briefings about defense
intelligence issues.
Reach Christopher Dunagan at (360) 792-9207 or at
[cdunagan@thesunlink.com]
2004© The SUN, 545 5th St., PO Box 259, Bremerton, WA 98337,
Toll-free 1-888-377-3711, [webmaster@thesunlink.com]
*****************************************************************
33 mcall.com: Settlement judge named in Milford irradiator dispute
101 North 6th St. Allentown, PA 18101 (610) 820-6500
From The Morning Call -- March 19, 2004
Matters that could be mediated include forming advisory panel.
By Steve Wartenberg Of The Morning Call
A settlement judge has been appointed in the ongoing dispute over
CFC Logistics' cobalt-60 irradiator on AM Drive in Milford
Township, which began operation in October.
Concerned Citizens of Milford have a petition before Judge
Michael Farrar of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an
independent branch of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The local group wants a full hearing to overturn the license to
operate the irradiator granted by the NRC in August.
While he receives briefs from both sides and decides whether or
not to grant the full hearing, Farrar has recommended the
appointment a settlement judge, even though he said there was
some opposition to the idea voiced by CFC officials.
Administrative Judge Paul Abramson was appointed Tuesday by G.
Paul Bollwerk, chief administrative judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board.
Bollwerk also stated that both sides have until Tuesday to
contact Abramson and ''indicate to him whether they wish to
participate in the settlement process.'' If the answer is yes
from both parties, Abramson ''should move forward to aid them
with settlement discussions.''
Matters that could be mediated, as suggested by Farrar, are
changes in the design and operation of the irradiator and the
formation of a citizens advisory committee.
Copyright © 2004, [http://www.mcall.com/] >> Right to your
© 2004 THE MORNING CALL Inc.
*****************************************************************
34 Mos News: Russia Starts Building New Nuclear Submarine
- NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
Created: 19.03.2004 15:30 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:15 MSK
MosNews
A ceremony devoted to the start of work on the Aleksander Nevsky
nuclear submarine was held in the Russian naval base of
Severodvinsk on Friday. The ceremony also marked Submariners’ Day
which is celebrated in Russia on March 19.
The Aleksander Nevsky is a fourth-generation nuclear submarine of
the 955 (Borey) project. A representative of the Sevmash shipyard
has told the Interfax news agency that the ship would be a
transitional link between a prototype and a series production
model. The first submarine of the Borey project — Yuri Dolgorukiy
— has been under construction at the Sevmash shipyard since 1996.
Experts from the Jane’s Information Group report that work on the
Borey project was suspended after the cancellation of the SS-N-28
missile — the main weapon of an attack submarine.
In 1999, Vladimir Putin, then the Russian prime minister, ordered
a major modernization of the Russian Navy. Over the past several
years a number of major accidents have plagued the navy,
including the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine in August
2000. Foreign experts currently estimate the strength of the
Russian submarine fleet at 20 first class attack submarines in
operational condition.
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
Designed by kB "Gazeta.Ru" [http://design.gazeta.ru/]
*****************************************************************
35 asahi.com Kazuko Ito: Depleted uranium leads to suffering in Iraq
[asahi.com]
Self-Defense Forces troops have been dispatched to Iraq, where
violence shows no signs of abating. It is debatable whether
sending the SDF to such a dangerous area constitutes an
international contribution that does not violate the
Constitution.
And we have to face up to the issue of depleted uranium. Between
800 tons and 2,000 tons of depleted uranium ordnance were fired
in the Iraq war. Residual radioactivity from spent shells now
contaminates the entire nation.
As a prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for
Afghanistan formed under the initiative of a citizens' group, I
surveyed scientists' reports on how depleted uranium affects the
living. In October, I took part in an international conference
on the subject in Germany, where I was shocked to learn that
depleted uranium ordnance is causing irreparable damage to the
people.
Depleted uranium, a byproduct of the production of enriched
uranium, is a highly toxic, radioactive substance with a
half-life of 4.5 billion years. When shells made from depleted
uranium are fired, they discharge large quantities of
radioactivity. If a human being absorbs that radiation in the
air or drinking water, contamination continues within the body,
damaging cells and triggering diseases such as cancer or causing
congenital abnormalities among the children of people exposed to
the radiation.
A declassified 1943 memorandum, addressed to a general and
written by a U.S. scientist who took part in the Manhattan
project, explains in detail the deadly effectiveness of the
``radioactive weapons'' that eventually became the model for
depleted uranium ordnance. Records kept by the U.S. Department
of Defense that I have read show that the U.S. military has been
conducting studies on depleted uranium, including animal tests,
since 1974.
At the international conference in Germany, I spoke with Doug
Rokke, who led a project that examined the effects of depleted
uranium in soldiers at the Pentagon in 1994. According to Rokke,
the project's findings made clear to him how serious the effect
of depleted uranium is on humans. He urged that such weapons be
banned, but his warning was ignored by the military and the
project eventually disbanded.
More than 200,000 U.S. soldiers returned from the Persian Gulf
War suffering physical disorders, and about 10,000 of them have
died, Rokke said. While certain vaccinations are thought to have
had an deleterious impact on their health, depleted uranium also
contributed to their health problems, he said. Rokke asked
whether Japan does not care if its soldiers now face the same
danger.
Was this danger taken into account when the government decided
to go ahead with the SDF dispatch?
Even more ominous is the effect depleted uranium will have on
the health of Iraqis. The southern city of Basra was bombarded
with depleted uranium shells during the Persian Gulf War. In
recent years, cancer and congenital abnormalities have risen
sharply among local children. An Iraqi doctor handed me a large
number of photographs of patients suffering from depleted
uranium-related disorders. They left me speechless.
If we sit back and do nothing to stop the spread of radioactive
pollution during this Iraq conflict, many more people will die.
We must put an end to the occupation, and advance Iraqi
reconstruction under the initiative of the United Nations as
soon as possible, so that international society together can
prevent the ravages of depleted uranium from spreading. Research
on the contamination must be done, remaining pieces of depleted
uranium ordnance must be collected and contaminated soil
removed.
An Iraqi doctor told me: ``We don't want you to send us an army.
We want you to help us. We need more anti-cancer, antibiotic and
intravenous medications.''
Deploying SDF troops is expected to cost tens of billions of
yen. If all that money were instead put toward medical aid in
Iraq, it would help a great many more people. Japan, a country
that endured World War II's atomic bombings, has the medical
skill and technology to treat patients suffering from
radioactive contamination. We should put medical aid ahead of
any other kind of assistance.
Many people are dying slow, quiet deaths because of their
exposure to depleted uranium pollution. What can Japan and the
world do? To start, the government should withdraw the SDF from
Iraq and concentrate on peaceful humanitarian relief, especially
medical aid. That, I believe, is the only honorable choice for
Japan's international contribution.
The author is a lawyer. She contributed this comment to The
Asahi Shimbun.(IHT/Asahi: March 19,2004) (03/19)
+ Asahi Shimbun
[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
36 Deseretnews: Envirocare rival denied permit
[deseretnews.com]
Friday, March 19, 2004
Tooele says no to plans for 2nd N-waste facility
By Donna Kemp Spangler
Deseret Morning News
Envirocare of Utah is proving that it is the only game in town
when it comes to low-level radioactive waste disposal.
But former Envirocare president Charles Judd hopes to
change that. He'll just have to go to court to do it.
The three-member Tooele County Commission this week denied
a request by Judd, now president of Cedar Mountain Environmental,
for a permit to construct a low-level radioactive waste facility
on nearly 500 acres next to Envirocare in remote Tooele County.
In doing so, it upheld the Tooele County Planning and Zoning
Commission, which earlier recommended the permit be denied.
It's a setback for Judd, but he is not giving up.
"It will take more energy and effort," Judd said. "But
we'll take it to court."
Commissioners rejected the proposal because they believe
Judd didn't demonstrate a need for a competing facility.
Envirocare has maintained there isn't enough low-level
radioactive waste to make both companies profitable. And in the
end, Tooele County would lose out on revenue it receives from the
company.
Envirocare provides $5 million annually to Tooele County in
gross receipts tax revenue, not including property taxes paid to
the county.
Judd, however, says his company could bring an additional
$2 million to the county coffers.
Commissioner Gene White said he voted against Judd's
proposal because he didn't want another waste dump in the county,
period.
"The bottom line for me was why do I need another facility
when we have one that is operated very safely," White said. "Do
we want to open the door for more waste facilities?"
A Tooele County ordinance requires that waste companies
must demonstrate a need for such a facility before a
conditional-use permit is granted in Tooele County.
For low-level radioactive waste, it's a a three-step
political process. The Legislature and governor must grant
approval after state environmental regulators give their OK.
State approval for Judd is pending. But lawmakers have put
a moratorium on proposals like Judd's to accept hazardous and
radioactive waste until a task force completes a two-year study
to determine what to do with the waste products finding their way
to Utah. The task force intends to make a recommendation to the
2005 Legislature.
Judd is confident that in the end he can win approval.
"We'll keep plugging along," Judd said. "We think there's
a need for another waste facility and that there is plenty of
waste out there."
E-mail: donna@desnews.com [donna@desnews.com]
© 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
37 Salt Lake Tribune: Atlas cleanup criticized as slow to start
March 19, 2004
By Judy Fahys
Utah Reps. Jim Matheson and Chris Cannon joined a dozen other
members of Congress in criticizing the federal cleanup of the
Atlas uranium-mill tailings pile.
The lawmakers told Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a
March 11 letter that his agency is taking too long deciding how
to remove the massive mound of polluted waste from the banks of
the Colorado River near Moab. And they also criticized his
agency's refusal to identify which of five cleanup options the
Energy Department favors in a soon-to-be-released draft cleanup
plan.
"The Department of Energy has a duty to be responsive to
congressional intent," said the letter.
"The department also owes a debt of obligation to the
millions of people affected by the continued presence of the
tailings -- it needs to keep its promise to these Americans and
clean up this site."
The bipartisan group of 14 lawmakers who signed the letter
represent districts affected by the Colorado's contamination.
Their constituents are among the 25 million people in four
southwestern states who depend on the river for water.
A waste heap six times as big as the rubble taken from the
World Trade Center collapse, the tailings release uranium,
ammonia and other pollutants into the river. The lawmakers said
in their letter that Congress mandated the removal of the pile
more than three years ago and has appropriated funds for the work
ever since.
The Energy Department's Don Metzler, who oversees the Atlas
cleanup, declined to comment on the criticisms. His office is due
next month to release a draft environmental impact statement, a
document that typically would lay out the agency's preferred
solution.
Metzler said earlier this year the Energy Department wants to
take public comment before recommending a strategy, while the
lawmakers and other critics have said that will only leave the
public about 45 days to analyze and comment on the Energy
Department's final proposal.
Cannon, the Republican whose district used to encompass
Atlas, and Matheson, the Democrat whose current district includes
it, were not available for comment.
But Cannon spokeswoman Meghan Riding indicated the lawmakers
are growing impatient.
"That's the purpose of this letter: to seek action on the
project, which Congress has asked for before."
fahys@sltrib.com [fahys@sltrib.com]
Copyright Salt Lake City Tribune
*****************************************************************
38 Salt Lake Tribune: Landfill company to appeal denial
March 19, 2004
A company wanting to put another low-level nuclear waste
storage landfill in Tooele County said Thursday that it will go
a permit.
Cedar Mountain Environmental Inc. is proposing a landfill
next to its potential competitor, Envirocare of Utah. Charles
Judd, an owner of Cedar Mountain, is a former Envirocare
official.
Cedar Mountain had appealed to commissioners a Planning
Commission decision denying its application for a temporary
conditional-use permit. In a statement Thursday, Cedar Mountain
said the County Commission turned down its appeal.
"Consequently, Cedar Mountain will appeal its decision to
the state district court within 30 days," said the company.
Cedar Mountain is proposing a 315-acre facility to compete
with Envirocare for the national market for disposal of
low-level radioactive waste.
Copyright Salt Lake City Tribune
*****************************************************************
39 Salt Lake Tribune: N-waste piles up at Envirocare; state orders it to be buried
March 19, 2004
By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune
Envirocare has until next week to dispose of waste that
piled up last month at its Tooele County radioactive and
hazardous waste facility.
The state Division of Radiation Control cited the company
March 9 over the waste, assessing the privately owned landfill a
$750 fine and ordering it to be buried within two weeks. The
backlog of mildly radioactive waste, some in rail cars and some
unloaded and awaiting burial, has gotten big enough to fill up
to 60 rail cars.
"We stockpile material over the winter, and the size of the
stockpile got too big," said Envirocare Vice President Tim
Barney.
Barney said the backlog did not amount to "a safety issue"
and that the company expects to complete the state-ordered
disposal on time. As part of a routine site review, Envirocare
noted the excessive, undisposed waste on March 4.
The company told regulators the cold, wet winter made timely
burial impossible. In addition, its crews were busy constructing
new disposal cells.
Radiation Control Director Dane Finerfrock said he could
have imposed stiffer penalties -- including higher fines and a
ban on new waste until the site was back in compliance -- but
the company promptly addressed the problems.
"They acted appropriately under the circumstances," he said.
Claire Geddes of Utah Legislative Watch called the fine
"miniscule" and further evidence of weak regulation in Utah.
"It's one of those cases when it's easier to get
forgiveness," she said, "than to ask permission."
fahys@sltrib.com [fahys@sltrib.com]
Copyright Salt Lake City Tribune
*****************************************************************
40 Deseretnews: Nuclear waste could be sent to San Juan
[deseretnews.com]
Friday, March 19, 2004
By Donna Kemp Spangler Deseret Morning News
Lawmakers may have put the brakes on Envirocare's plans to take
hotter radioactive wastes, but they may have left a big loophole
for a San Juan County uranium mill to take similar wastes. And
the company is considering it.
International Uranium Corp., which operates a uranium
mill near Blanding that recycles radioactive waste to recover
traces of uranium, is looking at a government cleanup project
from Niagara Falls, N.Y. — waste from the Manhattan A-bomb
project. Those are the same types of materials that Utah
lawmakers had targeted earlier this year with legislation to
prevent them from coming to Utah.
"We're still pursuing that," said Ron Hochstein,
president of IUC. "But Niagara is probably three to four years
down the road."
An atomic researcher in Niagara Falls believes the waste
shouldn't be sent anywhere.
"This is nasty of the nastiest," said Louis Ricciuti, who
says his community is now a wasteland bigger than the infamous
Love Canal. "I'd like nothing better than to get rid of this
waste, but I'm not willing to put it in anybody's back yard."
The waste — nuclear byproducts from making bombs —
contains high-grade ores received from the former Belgian Congo.
Over half the radium-bearing residues, which date to the 1940s,
were stored at either Fernald, Ohio, or at a military base in
Lewiston-Porter, 10 miles north of Niagara Falls.
Given that radioactive-waste giant Envirocare last year
was seeking the radioactive wastes from Ohio that were hotter
than its current state license, Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St.
George, wanted to close a loophole that would have skirted
current law requiring legislative and gubernatorial approval for
hotter wastes.
So the 2004 Utah Legislature passed a law that bans
Envirocare from taking any hotter waste. But the law — which
Gov. Olene Walker is expected to sign Monday — exempted IUC.
"It was my understanding that IUC was not a player for
this waste," said Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, who co-sponsored
the bill. "If they are, and if this waste falls into that same
category, then I'm certain the task force will investigate that
and require the same type of legislation."
Bramble and Urquhart are co-chairmen of a task force
looking at waste issues, including Utah's tax structure on waste
companies. The task force meets through the end of this year and
will make recommendations to the Legislature in 2005, when the
real fireworks over waste are expected.
Envirocare officials believed all along the law was
unfair.
"We were concerned about this and we pointed it out to
the Legislature that this loophole existed and they chose not to
address it," said Tim Barney, senior vice president of
Envirocare.
Jason Groenewold of Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah,
one of the backers of the bill, said it wasn't overlooked, just
misplaced.
"There wasn't a neat way to capture them with House Bill
145," Groenewold said. "We decided let's deal with the animal of
Fernald this year and we will capture IUC later. But this
indicates the necessity to clamp down on what's happening."
Even though Envirocare dropped its request to federal
regulators to modify its federal license to accept the Ohio
waste, the loophole came to the attention of lawmakers who last
year passed a moratorium on so-called Class B and C wastes,
pending the task force report.
The loophole was created when the Ohio wastes were
reclassified as uranium mill tailings, something that is
included in Envirocare's current federal license but would have
required tweaking by federal regulators.
But critics say the Niagara waste contains some of the
hottest radiological materials around and should be sent to an
underground repository like the one planned for Yucca Mountain,
Nev.
The National Academy of Sciences has also weighed in on
the issue. In 1995, it concluded that the high-level residues
pose a potential long-term risk to the public if they are left
permanently at the Niagara Falls storage site. The Ohio waste,
which has been stored in concrete silos, will soon be moved to
the Department of Energy-owned Nevada Test Site.
In Niagara Falls, the waste was dumped into buildings
that were demolished.
"The stuff is in concrete, in the ground," Ricciuti said.
IUC would need a permit by state environmental regulators
before it could take the waste from Niagara Falls. And if that
happens it will do so over the protests of environmentalists.
"We're going to fight them every step of the way,"
Groenewold said.
E-mail: donna@desnews.com [donna@desnews.com]
© 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
41 Las Vegas SUN: Radio ads ask Ensign to block energy legislation
By Suzanne Struglinski
WASHINGTON -- The League of Conservation Voters on Wednesday
began running radio ads in Nevada to encourage Sen. John Ensign,
R-Nev., to continue to oppose pending energy legislation.
Congress has yet to pass a comprehensive energy bill that has
been talked about since the early days of the Bush
administration. It came close last year, when House and Senate
negotiators came to an agreement on a final version of the bill.
It passed in the House but stalled in the Senate.
Ensign voted to end debate on the bill, but promised to vote
against its final passage. The bill never made it that far.
Since then a new bill has surfaced in the Senate. Ensign
spokesman Jack Finn said he is still reviewing the so-called
scaled-down version of the energy bill, but as long as it
contains provisions promoting new investment in nuclear power,
he will oppose it.
"That's the deal-breaker," Finn said, adding that the senator
also has concerns about the overall cost of the bill.
The ads focus on the nuclear components of the bill and tell
listeners to call and thank Ensign for his opposition to the
bill.
"That's because Sen. Ensign knows that more nuclear power
plants means more nuclear waste," according to the ad. "And
where do you think that waste will be deposited?"
The Energy Department now has plans to take nuclear waste from
utilities and store it at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of
Las Vegas, which the state strongly opposes.
*****************************************************************
42 Times Argus: Nuclear waste may need state input
[http://www.timesargus.com]
March 18, 2004 -->
ASSOCIATED PRESS
MONTPELIER - The Legislature might get involved in Vermont
Yankee's plans to expand storage of high-level radioactive waste.
The nuclear plant, located in Vernon, recently won state approval
to raise its power output. The increased power, which still needs
federal approval, will result in more waste that must be stored
near the Connecticut River in southern Vermont.
State statute requires the Legislature to approve any new storage
of nuclear waste in Vermont. Yankee's spent nuclear fuel rods are
now submerged in a pool inside the reactor complex.
The pool, though, is getting full.
Vermont Yankee wants to store the old, radioactive fuel rods
inside dry casks on the reactor site until a permanent repository
is developed. These are large, above-ground concrete and steel
bunkers that are supposed to contain the radiation.
Vermont Yankee will need to move to dry cask storage a year
sooner - in 2007, instead of 2008 - because of the power increase
plan.
"I think it makes an immense amount of sense for there to be
legislative review on this question of whether there'll be the
dry cask storage of a substantial additional amount of waste from
the reactor," said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Welch.
The law exempts the Vermont Yankee Corp. from the legislative
review. But the Vernon reactor was sold in 2002 to the Entergy
Corp., a Louisiana company that operates seven other nuclear
plants.
Welch said the Legislature should probably get an opinion from
the attorney general on the legal question. Mark Sinclair, a
lawyer with the Conservation Law Foundation, said he believes
lawmakers would have to sign off on the waste storage plan.
The law requires state agencies to "use every proper and
available legal means to prevent" the storage site until
lawmakers approve the plan, Sinclair said.
He said in Minnesota, lawmakers got a nuclear plant owner to pay
for development of wind energy in exchange for expanded waste
storage.
"If Entergy intends to use the state of Vermont as a permanent
dumping ground for very hazardous nuclear waste, there's got to
be something in this for Vermonters," Sinclair said.
A Vermont Yankee spokesman said the company intends to seek
approval for the expanded storage sometime in the next few
months, and would address the issue of legislative jurisdiction
at that time.
[http://www.timesargus.com/]
*****************************************************************
43 Newsday: Facility to handle nuclear waste completed at West Valley
[http://www.newsday.com] [Everyday Hero]
[March 19, 2004]
WEST VALLEY, N.Y. -- The West Valley Demonstration
Project on Friday opened a remote-handled waste facility where
radioactive remnants from a nuclear fuel reprocessing operation
will be packaged for disposal.
The $42 million building allows West Valley to turn its attention
to contaminated metal and other debris at the site after safely
solidifying 600,000 gallons of liquid radioactive waste into
glass.
"The completion of this facility signifies the beginning of a new
phase of work here at the project," said Timothy Jackson, the
U.S. Department of Energy's acting director at West Valley.
The Energy Department last month announced a plan to leave the
site by 2008, raising concerns among a citizens group, political
leaders and DOE's partner in the cleanup, the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority. The state and federal
agencies have been at odds over long-term stewardship of the
Cattaraugus County site.
At Friday's building dedication, Jackson said the DOE "is
committed to continuing progress."
The DOE's four-year deactivation plan calls for placing grout
around two large underground storage tanks containing small
amounts of high-level liquid waste, rather than exhuming the
tanks. Most buildings would be removed from the site and
low-level radioactive waste shipped out. The canisters of
high-level vitrified waste would be stored on site until the
Yucca Mountain site in Nevada or another long-term storage
facility is approved.
An underground plume of contaminated water and a five-acre
federally licensed radioactive waste dump would remain.
Sen. Charles Schumer on Friday pushed the DOE to stay on site
until it was fully clean.
"I understand the Energy Department doesn't want to be in West
Valley forever," he said, "but leaving before the underground
tanks are removed, the reprocessing facility is demolished and
the contaminated groundwater is addressed is not an acceptable
solution," he said.
"The federal government can't just cut and run without finishing
the job it started here at West Valley," he said.
The new waste-handling facility includes a radiation monitoring
system that uses a remote detector and laser measuring system to
determine radioactivity levels. Three robotic arms, four cranes
and a conveyor system, operated by workers from behind shield
windows, will cut and package an estimated 500 tons of high-level
materials for offsite disposal.
The cost of cleanup at West Valley has topped $1.6 billion since
1980, when President Jimmy Carter signed the West Valley
Demonstration Project Act. The private Nuclear Fuel Services
reprocessed nuclear fuel rods at the 3,300-acre site from 1966 to
1972. It was the first such operation in the country.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press | Article licensing and
*****************************************************************
44 Pahrump Valley Times: Nevada charges 'sabotage' in lawsuit (Yucca)
March 19,, 2004
YUCCA MOUNTAIN NEWS
STATE OFFICIALS CLAIM ENERGY DEPARTMENT WITHHOLDING FUNDS NEEDED
TO FIGHT PROJECT
By STEVE TETREAULT
PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - Nevada officials charged in a new lawsuit Wednesday
that the state is being sabotaged financially as it continues to
fight the Yucca Mountain Project.
Attorney General Brian Sandoval urged federal judges to force the
Energy Department to guarantee Nevada a smooth flow of millions
in federal grants to evaluate DOE's license request for the
proposed nuclear waste repository.
Until then, the state requested in its suit that judges halt the
license application the department plans to file in December.
Nevada is "severely handicapped" preparing for upcoming license
hearings because of financial shortfalls brought on by DOE,
according to the state's lawsuit. It says the Energy Department
has ignored requests to set up new grants.
DOE spokesman Allen Benson said the department had no comment on
the lawsuit.
Department managers in the past have indicated they follow the
direction of Congress when it comes to distributing grants for
the state and local counties to oversee work on the Yucca
project.
Nevada's new lawsuit advances the idea that DOE is obligated to
give Nevada the money it says it needs no matter what Congress
does.
Nevada's funding for Yucca Mountain oversight has fluctuated over
the years, from a high of $11 million in 1989 to several years in
the mid-1990s when the state got no federal grants.
But the stakes have become higher now because the state plans to
use federal grants to pay experts and gather evidence to fight
the repository in license hearings that will be held by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"We're not asking for carte blanche here," Bob Loux, director of
the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said Wednesday. "We're
just trying to get a reasonable amount of money for us to
participate."
The new lawsuit is the seventh one Nevada has filed in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit against the
proposed repository.
A three-judge panel consolidated the earlier six cases and heard
arguments on them on Jan. 14. Attorneys expect decisions in those
cases this spring.
The latest lawsuit opens a new front.
Sandoval accused the Energy Department of recommending minimal
amounts of federal grant funding in order to shortchange its
adversaries in the state.
"It's a blatant conflict of interest when the agency in charge of
funding your participation moves to sabotage your participation,"
Sandoval said in a statement.
Attorneys for the state plan to file a motion in the coming days
seeking quick consideration of the lawsuit since the department
plans to file its license application later this year.
The department recommended Congress set aside $1 million this
year for Nevada funding for Yucca Mountain, while state officials
said they wanted $5 million.
Last year, the Energy Department recommended no state funding,
and Congress provided only $1 million, according to the lawsuit.
Nevada will probably require more than $10 million a year to
review Yucca Mountain science and to prepare and mount its
license challenges, according to Loux.
The state's lawsuit contends DOE will spend "hundreds of millions
of dollars" for studies and experts to testify before the NRC.
For comment or questions, please e-mail
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com] Copyright © Pahrump Valley
Times, 1997 - 2003
*****************************************************************
45 UN Nuclear Chief Urges New Rules To Fight Spread Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:00:28 -0500
UN NUCLEAR CHIEF URGES NEW RULES TO FIGHT SPREAD OF WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION
New York, Mar 19 2004 10:00AM
Declaring that nuclear proliferation is now “a different ball game”
in which “either we all will win or everybody would lose," the
head of the United Nations atomic watchdog agency has called for
international cooperation to devise new rules to combat the spread
of weapons of mass destruction.
"The non-proliferation regime right now is absolutely under growing
stress,” Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said at the end of a three-day visit
to Washington yesterday, during which he conferred with President
George W. Bush and other top United States officials.
“We are facing now the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction which is everybody's fight," Mr. ElBaradei said in an
interview on Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) television.
“What we have seen with A.Q. Khan associates, the black market, what
we have seen with some of the Al-Qaida people interested in nuclear
weapons, makes it clear that this is a different ball game
and we have to revise the rules, and that really was the focus of
my discussion with President Bush yesterday,” he added, referring
to the Pakistani scientist blamed for the spread of nuclear technology
to other countries.
"I think the message I'm getting from Washington this week (is) that
we really need to put our heads together, not just the US and
IAEA, but everybody in the international system.”
Drawing an analogy with the fight against terrorism, he said defeat
would spell widespread doom. “It's either we will win or everybody
would lose.”
Calling on the international community to look at the big picture,
Mr. ElBaradei declared: “There's a lot of measures we need to take,
control of the nuclear material, better export control, better
authority for the Agency, less countries having enrichment and
reprocessing."
2004-03-19 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
46 Winnipeg Sun: Energy study due back in April - Sale
[http://www.winnipegsun.com]
Fri, March 19, 2004
By FRANK LANDRY, LEGISLATURE REPORTER
An internal study on the cost of sending Manitoba power to
Ontario should be completed by next month, says Energy Minister
Tim Sale. The document is another step toward a highly touted
east-west power grid that would send Manitoba energy into the
most heavily populated areas of the country. The study would
determine whether the project is feasible.
"We and Ontario together are finalizing the report, which is
backed up by volumes of technical studies," Sale told The Sun
yesterday.
"We expect to have it completed within a couple of weeks."
Sale said a different report released yesterday that urged
Ontario to look to nuclear power and the private sector for its
future electricity needs doesn't concern him.
Written by former deputy prime minister John Manley, the report
concludes efficient, well-run nuclear plants are the cheapest and
most viable option for a province that could face a power
shortage as early as 2007.
NEEDS MORE
Sale said Ontario needs more power than its nuclear generators
can handle.
"The scale of their problem is so huge they'd have to build three
reactors per year in order (to keep up with demand for power),"
Sale said.
An east-west power grid is estimated to cost more than $1
billion. It would be powered by the proposed Conawapa dam on the
lower Nelson River, touted as the largest construction project in
the province's history.
CANOE, a division of Netgraphe Inc [http://www.netgraphe.com]
*****************************************************************
47 Daily Camera: Editorials Don't fence us out
Rocky Flats will be clean enough for public use
March 19, 2004
Anybody who lives near Rocky Flats, the now-defunct
nuclear-weapons plant south of Boulder, owes a debt of gratitude
to the activists who for decades have patiently labored in the
cause of public health and safety.
Thousands protested in the 1970s and '80s over the dangers of
radioactive contamination and the ethics of nuclear warfare. They
applied much-needed pressure when the government was highly
secretive.
Since the end of the Cold War, many of those same, dedicated
souls have remained relentless in their scrutiny, making sure
that the federal government didn't just close up shop and leave
Colorado with a poisonous legacy in its back yard.
Even after the government began to respond, activists have
continued pushing. But today, no pragmatist really expects their
agenda to rule the day.
And that, more or less, is where dedicated Rocky Flats activists
find themselves these last few years. When the DOE announced its
cleanup plan several years ago, the activists said only a wildly
expensive effort to clean the site to "background" levels of
radiation would do.
And now, following the passage of the "Rocky Flats National
Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001" authored by U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard
and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, activists are asking that there be no
public access to the 6,400-acre site, in perpetuity.
The activists may not have gotten their wishes on cleanup, but
what they got — what we all got — is very thorough (with,
admittedly, some issues yet to be worked out). It is, in fact,
more than safe enough to warrant public access when the refuge
comes under the management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Plutonium is highly dangerous to humans in tiny concentrations. A
single particle inhaled can cause fatal cancer. And plutonium
remains at Rocky Flats, though only in miniscule amounts on the
surface. For that, we can thank the activists.
At one point, DOE determined that around 600 picocuries of
radioactive material per gram of soil was sufficiently risk-free
to allow the public to use the site as open space. As it stands
today, the actual concentration has been reduced to 55 picocuries
per gram. Compare that to the 35 picocuries per gram that an
analyst hired by activist groups determined would be safe — for a
rancher who lives and works full-time on the site.
Nobody can say there is no risk of radiation contamination at
Rocky Flats. There are even deposits of radioactive materials
deep in the soil, which means excavation at the site must be
forever prohibited.
Activists note that plutonium has a radioactive half-life of
24,400 years, which means it remains dangerous for a quarter of a
million years. They worry that control over the site eventually
will fade and someone, sometime, will take that fateful step and,
say, propose a housing development there.
That strikes us as a fanciful scenario. Public and private
watchdogs are unlikely to lose interest in the site, barring an
unforseen catastrophe such as the collapse of the United States.
And that remote possibility has no bearing on the practical issue
today — whether the public gains access to this land for light
recreational use.
The DOE continues to study contamination at the site, and the
refuge will stop dead in its tracks if risks are determined to be
too high. But there is every reason to believe that risks to the
public and to Fish and Wildlife rangers will be infinitesmal. And
fencing off the site in perpetuity would go against the informed
wishes of most Front Range citizens, who want to be able to enjoy
the land.
As for the now-moot hopes of cleaning the site to "background"
levels of radiation, a question: Given the immense costs of such
an unprecedented undertaking, the scarcity of funds, the plethora
of other needs, and the tiny reduction in risk it would have
accomplished, would it have been worth it?
[http://www.dailycamera.com
*****************************************************************
48 Oak Ridger: Funding K-25 preservation work
Story last updated at 11:01 a.m. on March 19, 2004
PLAN: The money will have to come from a variety of sources.
By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff
paul.parson@oakridger.com [paul.parson@oakridger.com]
Determining how to preserve a portion of the historic K-25
building is one challenge; the other is funding the effort.
Of the three scenarios proposed by an architectural firm, the
costs - factoring in the demolition of the building - range from
$475.6 million up to $537 million. However, breaking those
figures down, the initial preservation costs run from $4.6
million to well over $100 million.
The massive, U-shaped K-25 building covers 40 acres at the Oak
Ridge K-25 site and is viewed as a vital part of the Manhattan
Project - a secret effort for developing an atomic bomb during
World War II. However, the K-25 site is currently in the midst
of a major cleanup effort that calls for the demolition of the
K-25 building.
Just this week, an April 2005 deadline was established for
identifying an acceptable plan and funding sources for the K-25
preservation effort. Part of this endeavor involves a document
prepared by Ehrenkrantz Eckstut &Kuhn Architects that outlines
three options with varying costs for preserving a slice of the
building's history.
Bill Wilcox, a member of the Oak Ridge Heritage and
Preservation Association, said he believes a "doable" solution
can be reached by next year's deadline. He is just one of
several community members working on the preservation effort and
participating in discussions this week on the Ehrenkrantz
Eckstut &Kuhn document.
According to the architects' report, one scenario involves the
demolition of the entire K-25 building while a small sample of
the equipment would be saved and displayed elsewhere. The
original footprint of the building would be recreated in
pavement.
While the estimated costs for this option are around $475.6
million, Wilcox figured the initial preservation cost to be $4.6
million of that total. The annual operational costs for this
scenario are $10 million, according to the architects' document.
A second scenario proposed by the architects assumes that all
of the K-25 building except the slab and a section measuring 350
feet by 400 feet - 9 percent of the total structure - would be
demolished. One piece of equipment that would be decontaminated
and reinstalled would be the Roosevelt Cell - a piece of
operating equipment that was spruced up for a planned visit by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt that never occurred. The
interior of the structure will be clean and able to accept
visitors.
The estimated costs for this option are around $537 million,
but Wilcox said the initial preservation cost would be around
$106.1 million of that total. The annual operational costs for
this scenario are $19.3 million, according to the architects'
report.
The third scenario calls for the removal of the entire building
except for the slab and an area measuring 550 feet by 400 feet -
13 percent of the total structure. Although the remaining area
would not be decontaminated, visitors would be able to view the
building and equipment through special glass barriers.
While the estimated costs for this option are around $501
million, Wilcox calculated the initial preservation cost to be
around $91.4 million of that total. The annual operational costs
for this scenario are $24.6 million, according to the
architects' document.
Although the costs of these scenarios factor in varying degrees
of the K-25 building's demolition, that work would be funded
through the Department of Energy's cleanup efforts.
It's the initial preservation costs and the annual operational
costs that could pose another challenge. Wilcox said payments
for these costs would have to come from a variety of sources,
possibly including assistance from the federal government,
private donations and corporate contributions.
"We can't rely on DOE alone," said Susan Gawarecki, executive
director of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee,
which closely monitors DOE cleanup efforts.
In addition, all three scenarios proposed by Ehrenkrantz
Eckstut &Kuhn involve a new visitor's center. It has come to The
Oak Ridger's attention that this new facility is not factored
into the total costs of the three schemes. In fact, this
facility would cost around $17.2 million.
Some other scenarios were tossed around during discussions this
week that involved representatives from the city of Oak Ridge,
the Oak Ridge Site-Specific Advisory Board, the state of
Tennessee, Local Oversight Committee, the Atomic Heritage
Foundation and the Oak Ridge Heritage and Preservation
Association. These new scenarios could significantly trim the
initial preservation costs.
Based on those discussions, Wilcox said he believes both DOE
and Bechtel Jacobs Co., which oversees the K-25 cleanup project
for the federal government, are supportive of the preservation
effort. And, Gawarecki said she appreciated the willingness of
Steve McCracken, DOE's local cleanup chief, to give the group a
year to "look at different options, funding partners and sketch
out a realistic plan."
The report from Ehrenkrantz Eckstut &Kuhn Architects is
available on the Web at www.oro.doe.gov/info_cntr/index.html. Go
to the section called "New Documents" and then click on the
"Other Documents" link.
*****************************************************************
49 Idaho Statesman: Energy chief asks students to be part of nuclear future
[http://www.idahostatesman.com]
Cars run by nuclear technology? Perhaps
Darin Oswald / The Idaho Statesman
William Magwood, director of the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology, discusses the future of energy use with a
class of students at Timberline High School on Thursday.
Julie Howard [jhoward@idahostatesman.com]
The Idaho Statesman Fourteen-year-old Zagid Abatchev doesn´t know
the type of vehicle he´ll be driving 20 years from now.
But he´s hopeful that it will be powered by nuclear technology
developed at the new Idaho National Laboratory.
Abatchev was among more than 30 Timberline High School students
who met Thursday with the country´s top ranking official for
nuclear energy.
William Magwood, director of the U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology, spent about 90 minutes with Timberline
students, sharing his vision of a world — and vehicles — powered
by nuclear technology.
“I think this is very real,” said Abatchev, who would like to be
a theoretical physicist. “It´s the technology that will come. The
prospect of using nuclear power plants to make hydrogen fuels a
reality is exciting.”
Magwood is the driver for major changes under way at the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. By the end of
January 2005, the site will no longer be known by the acronym
INEEL. Instead, the two-fold function of that site — nuclear
waste cleanup and the research laboratory — will be split into
two distinctive parts.
The research laboratory will be known simply as the Idaho
National Laboratory, and Magwood´s ambitious plan is to turn it
into the world´s foremost center for nuclear energy research.
Already, a gathering of the world´s top nuclear leaders is
planned in May at the site near Idaho Falls. The meeting will
bring together members of the Generation IV International Forum,
an international collective of 10 leading nuclear nations that
are pursuing jointly the development of next generation nuclear
and fuel cycle technologies.
While talking to Timberline students taking advanced studies in
chemistry, physics and environmental science, Magwood invited
four interested students to attend that meeting.
The students invited to attend are Alex Farnsworth, Brittany
Muntifering, Sara Clawson and Matt Fields. Magwood is expected to
extend a similar invitation to students at Idaho Falls High
School, where he speaks today.
Magwood´s two-day visit to Idaho, split between Boise and Idaho
Falls, was part public relations, part INEEL business and part
political recruiting. Acknowledging that negative public
perception of nuclear energy is a major hurdle he must overcome,
Magwood met with Gov. Kempthorne, Idaho´s Director of Science and
Technology Karl Tueller, members of the Boise Metro Chamber of
Commerce and the nuclear watchdog group The Snake River Alliance.
Jeremy Maxand, executive director of the Snake River Alliance,
called the meeting “a friendly meet and greet” and said he is not
concerned about the plans for nuclear research at the Idaho lab.
Instead, his worry is that a renewed push for new nuclear
reactors will overshadow the exploration of alternative and
renewable energy sources.
“I think we have a serious problem with energy policy in this
country,” said Maxand. “Nuclear energy is not a long-term
solution. We need an energy solution that will go several
thousand years into the future.”
Magwood is leading the Department of Energy´s Nuclear Power 2010
initiative, aimed at building a number of new nuclear plants in
the United States by 2010 as a key to long-term energy security.
He also heads efforts to apply nuclear technology to everything
from advanced medical isotope-based treatments for cancer to
creating advanced power systems to explore space.
Timberline students watched a demonstration of a model car
powered by a hydrogen fuel cell and peppered Magwood with
questions ranging from the cost of nuclear energy to the issue of
storing the hazardous waste.
Afterward, students said they were impressed by the presentation.
Matt Fields, 17, was intrigued by the idea of using nuclear
energy technology to power automobiles.
“It sounds kind of like science fiction right now,” said the
Timberline junior. “But if I could drive a car that I didn´t have
to fill up with gas every four days, that would be great.”
To offer story ideas or comments, contact Julie Howard
jhoward@idahostatesman.com [jhoward@idahostatesman.com] or
373-6618
Edition Date: 03-19-2004
*****************************************************************
50 Google News Alert - nuclear
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:13:47 -0800 (PST)
ENTERGY Nuclear Plant Passes Safety Assessment
KATV - Little Rock,AR,USA
Russellville (AP) - The Arkansas Nuclear One plant near Russellville has
passed all requirements in a safety assessment by the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission ...
TERRORISM stimulates a lost nuclear science
International Herald Tribune - Paris,France
To cope with the possibility that terrorists might someday detonate a nuclear
bomb on US soil, the federal government is reviving a scientific art that
was ...
See all stories on this topic:
TEHRAN Reportedly Offered To Talk To US Over Nuclear Weapons , ...
Radio Free Europe - Prague,Czech Republic
The British "Financial Times" daily reported on 17 March that Iran in May
2003 offered to hold talks with the United States on nuclear weapons and
terrorism. ...
See all stories on this topic:
US Get Set for Nuclear Attack
The Scotsman - Edinburgh,Scotland,UK
By Mark Sage, PA News, in New York. Secret plans are being developed to
deal with the aftermath of a nuclear attack on American soil, it was reported
today. ...
See all stories on this topic:
DPRK warns of stronger nuclear deterrence
Xinhua - China
... The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Friday denounced
the upcoming US-South Korea joint military exercises, warning of increasing
its nuclear ...
INDIA Tests New Nuclear-Capable Missile
ABC News - USA
NEW DELHI March 19 — India on Friday tested a new, extended-range version
of its nuclear-capable Prithvi missile that could easily reach the capital
of rival ...
See all stories on this topic:
CHINA committed to peaceful use of nuclear energy: Jiang
Xinhua - China
BEIJING, March 19 (Xinhuanet) -- China has always been committed to the
peaceful utilization of nuclear energy over the decades, said Jiang Zemin,
chairman of ...
NUCLEAR Spy may lecture in the Knesset
Maariv International - Israel
MK Issam Makhoul (Hadash-Ta’al) announced plans to invite “nuclear
spy” Mordecai Vanunu to lecture in the Knesset after he is released
from prison next ...
See all stories on this topic:
N.KOREA Tries to Link Nuclear Row with US Drills
Reuters - United States
... US-South Korean military drills to kick off next week showed the United
States was not serious about efforts to resolve a crisis over North Korea's
nuclear ...
See all stories on this topic:
MUST expand existing nuclear-power base, report says
The Globe and Mail - Canada
Ontario will likely need five more nuclear plants, costing about $15-billion
in total, just to meet the power-supply shortage expected in the next
few years ...
See all stories on this topic:
This daily-once News Alert is brought to you by Google News (BETA)...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Remove this News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts/remove?s=92d1672a1b037a07&hl=en
Create another News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts?hl=en
Try Google News:
http://news.google.com/
*****************************************************************
51 RIT: New knowledge about plutonium calms scientists
[http://www.innovations-report.com/home.php]
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) 19.03.2004
New analyses from KTH in Stockholm are creating order in the
uncertainty that has prevailed for the last four years about how
plutonium dioxide, one of the most important radioactive
compounds in nuclear waste, behaves when it comes into contact
with water. The findings are being published in the latest issue
of Nature Materials.
In January 2000 an article was published in the American
scientific journal Science. A research team had discovered that
plutonium dioxide, PuO2, quite unexpectedly could be transformed
by oxidation to form a new stable compound PuO2,27.
This sparked heated discussions and a great deal of uncertainty
in the scientific community, since the world was now facing a new
radioactive compound with unknown characteristics.
The consequences of this would be that hazardous nuclear waste
was probably much more easily soluble in water that was
previously thought, and thereby much more unstable. Previous risk
assessments were turned on end.
A research team at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in
Stockholm, with scientists from KTH, Uppsala University, and a
research institute in Budapest were commissioned by SKB, the
Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company, to study this.
It has taken four years, and advanced calculations have been
carried out in order to explain the earlier findings. The results
are considered to be of vital importance.
“It’s good news. It seems that this compound PuO2,27, is not
stable. It can only be created temporarily under special
conditions, which means that there is no reason to revise
previous risk analyses. We have filled in a few gaps in our
knowledge and found an explanation for the findings of the other
scientists,” says Pavel Korzhavyi, a researcher at KTH Materials
Science.
The team’s findings are based on computer simulations, and
neither Pavel nor his colleagues have been in contact with
plutonium.
More information: www.kth.se/eng/
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************