***************************************************************** 09/14/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.220 ***************************************************************** 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 BBC: UN to help tackle Iraq pollution 2 CNEWS Science: U.N. agency to study environmental "hot spots" in Ira 3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Wants Iran to Go Before U.N. Council 4 Guardian Unlimited: 'No proof' of Iranian nuclear weapons programme 5 Xinhuanet: IAEA discusses S.Korea, Iran 6 Straits Times: A nuclear arms race in North-east Asia? 7 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Fate of six-way talks 8 Korea Herald: N.K. unlikely to use last card up its sleeve 9 Korea Herald: [ANN]U.S.-N. Korea nuclear deal still on the cards 10 Korea Herald: Seoul downplays IAEA concern 11 BBC: N Korea 'will talk' says UK envoy 12 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Diplomatic Efforts Underway to Jumpstart 13 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Challenges Appear in Effort to Curb Sprea 14 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: IAEA Concerned by South Korean Nuclear Ex 15 JoongAng Daily: [EDITORIALS]A need to come clean 16 Korea Times : Seoul Dismisses IAEA Concern About Lab Test 17 Korea Times: NK Committed to 6-Way Talks - British Envoy 18 Korea Times: Suspicions Linger on Lab Test 19 Korea Times: Satellite to Check Cause of NK Blast 20 US: Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Find way to make whole 21 US: Joplin Globe: States can encourage wind energy 22 SA: news24: New documents in SA WMD case 23 SABCnews: Court appearance of WMD suspects delayed 24 Guardian Unlimited: In from the cold 25 Guardian Unlimited Politics: Blair warns of environmental catastroph 26 Guardian Unlimited: Blair calls for UK to lead on climate change 27 Guardian Unlimited: Blair's global warning 28 SA: Business Day: Bail postponed for nuclear accused 29 BBC: Blair 'shocked' by climate change 30 IAEA: Expert Meeting on Control of Nuclear Fuel Cycle 31 Daily Times: NA passes N-export control bill 32 Tri-Valley Herald: Uranium research toughens dialogue 33 Boston.com: Agents knew case flimsy, Powell says 34 Scotsman.com News: World Faces Environmental Catastrophe, Warns Blai 35 Turkist Press: Russia Repatriates Uranium From Eastern Europe In Fig 36 UK Independent: Blair unveils his green offensive with demand US rat 37 IAEA: Inspection in Iran, Libya & the Republic of Korea 38 SABCnews.com: Suspects in WMD case to apply for bail NUCLEAR REACTORS 39 The Hindu: Successful leak test of TAPP-4 reactor building 40 The Herald: EC poised to approve British Energy bail-out 41 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee accepts blame for fire 42 US: Times Argus: Yankee failed to heed warnings on conditions that l 43 US: Brattleboro Reformer: PSB orders 21 fans replaced 44 US: The Advocate: Lawmakers question agency's monitoring of nuclear 45 Scotsman.com: Nuclear Power 'Threatens the World Too' 46 US: TheDay.com: Dominion Plans To Staff Fire Brigade Internally To C 47 US: Public Citizen: Groups Charge Nuclear Agency with Illegally 48 AU ABC: Too early to licence nuclear reactor - Opposition. 49 Scotsman.com News: UK is urged to turn up nuclear power NUCLEAR SAFETY 50 [DU-WATCH] WHO: Radiological toxicity of DU 51 [du-list] DU - The stuff of nightmares 52 Censored: High Uranium Levels Found in Troops and Civilians 53 US: Buffalo News: Processing claims tied to N-arms work are criticiz 54 US: Spectrum: Experts refute exposure link 55 US: UPI: U.S. eyes missing nuclear bomb off Georgia - 56 Aljazeera.Net: Washington's secret nuclear war 57 Daily Times: Global nuclear safety regime needed - Admiral (r) Ramda 58 US: Boston.com: Not enough focus on nuclear threats 59 US: Pocatello Idaho State Journal: Bomb test fallout didn't stop at 60 Vladivostok News: Radiation level stable in Vladivostok 61 IAEA: Removal of Fissile Nuclear Material in Uzbekistan NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 62 US: The Australian: Ranger mine 'passes first audit' 63 Las Vegas RJ: STEVE SEBELIUS: A dissenting opinion 64 Las Vegas RJ: Sandoval may act on Yucca dust issue 65 Bellona: UK taken to court over nuclear waste dispute 66 Las Vegas SUN: State threatens criminal action over Yucca's safety p 67 Las Vegas SUN: Kerry to follow today's visit to LV by Bush 68 US: TheNewMexicoChannel.com: WIPP Containers Could Have Put Public A 69 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: WIPP contractor fined for violation 70 US: Morgan Hill Times: City about to turn on well NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 71 LANL: Laboratory grows world record length carbon nanotube 72 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern 73 Tri-City Herald: Hanford more timely on claims, GAO says 74 CBS 4 Denver: Dead Birds Prompt Rocky Flats Investigation 75 amarillo.com: Pantex considers effects of radioactive material 76 Daily Camera: Dead birds could lead to charges 77 lamonitor.com: LANL expansion envisioned by Edwards 78 lamonitor.com: Safety failures cited 79 Daily Camera: 'Hot spot' found in Flats buffer zone OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 BBC: UN to help tackle Iraq pollution Last Updated: Tuesday, 14 September, 2004 [Discarded weapons of war, PA] Unep will assess pollution, from oil spills to waste from military vehicles The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) has said it will help Iraq clean up the toxic pollution caused by a decade of conflict. Starting next month, Unep will assess pollution "hotspots", ranging from oil spills to waste from military vehicles. In a separate plan, it also hopes to analyse sites that may be polluted by excessive levels of depleted uranium. Unep has said it will take many years to clear up the chronic damage to air, water and soil that Iraq has suffered. Toxic chemicals In the first leg of the operation, Unep will visit five of the hundreds of locations that Iraqi scientists fear are contaminated. These will consist of industrial sites around Baghdad and Fallujah that contain thousands of tonnes of toxic chemicals and pollutants, which pose a direct threat to human health. "We estimate that there are more than 300 sites in Iraq considered to be contaminated to various levels by a range of pollutants," said Klaus Toepfer, Unep executive director. Examples include the 5,000 tonnes of spilled chemicals at the Al-Doura refinery, and a seed store where 50 tonnes of seeds coated with dangerous fungicide were looted, raising the threat of contaminated bread supplies. "My country is faced with a wide range of pressing issues that must be addressed if the Iraqi people are to enjoy a stable, healthy and prosperous future," the Iraqi environment minister, Mishkat Moumin, said. Depleted uranium Mr Toepfer revealed that Iraq's new government has also asked for help in clearing up hazardous depleted uranium, left by bombs used in the US-led conflicts. Depleted uranium dust has been blamed for causing severe illness long after ammunition explodes, and became the focus of a propaganda battle under Saddam Hussein's regime. Britain had handed over detailed maps of locations in southern Iraq where about 1.9 tonnes of depleted uranium was used in 2003, to help the clean-up, Mr Toepfer said. "We did not get additional coordinates or information from the United States so far," he said. "We need the coordinates otherwise a study or assessment is not possible." Unep is coordinating the whole project in cooperation with the Iraqi government as part of a wider $4.7m scheme funded by donors including Japan, Germany and Britain. ***************************************************************** 2 CNEWS Science: U.N. agency to study environmental "hot spots" in Iraq [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/home.html] September 14, 2004 NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) - Scientists will begin investigating environmental "hot spots" in Iraq as part of a long-term strategy to clean up the country after ten years of war and instability, the U.N. Environment Program said Tuesday. The U.N. agency has coordinated the training of Iraqi scientists in the latest laboratory and field testing techniques to collect information on suspected hazardous sites, officials said. The work will begin soon, a spokesman said. "We estimate that there are more than 300 sites in Iraq considered to be contaminated to various levels with a range of pollutants," said Klaus Toepfer, the agency's executive director. The agency also has been asked by the Iraqi government to investigate possible pollution by depleted uranium ordnance used to pierce tank armor during the 1991 Gulf War and the latest war. "We are considering this very, very clearly ... they are a very important threat," Toepfer said. The British government has given the agency detailed information on locations where it used 1.9 tones of depleted uranium in the south of Iraq, but the U.S. government hasn't come forward with the same information despite requests from the United Nations. The Japanese government has funded much of the US$4.7 million (euro3.8 million) project, which will be coordinated by the Nairobi-based U.N. agency and implemented by the Iraqi Ministry of the Environment. Samples _ collected by Iraqi experts _ will be evaluated by the U.N. Environment Program's Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva. The unit has also worked in the Balkans, the Palestinian territories, Afghanistan and Liberia. Pekka Haavisto, who heads the post-conflict task force, said the pollution in Iraq had been caused both by conflict and by the country's isolation under Saddam. "This region has suffered several wars, and there hasn't been a proper clean up after any of these wars. The isolation of Iraq during the times of Saddam contributed to the bad maintenance of industrial facilities. The picture is quite dark," he said. The project will concentrate on at least five sites, including the Al-Mishaq Sulfur State Company, the Midland Refinery Stores, Al-Suwaira Seed Stores, sites were oil pipelines have been sabotaged and scrap metal yards where destroyed military vehicles have been taken. Once the exact nature and extent of the contamination of the sites has been evaluated, the scientists will recommend remedial action to the Iraqi government, the agency statement said. "My country is faced with a wide range of pressing issues that must be addressed if the Iraqi people are to enjoy a stable, healthy and prosperous future," said Mishkat Moumin, in a statement released in Nairobi. "Delivering a clean and unpolluted environment is a key piece in this jigsaw puzzle." ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Wants Iran to Go Before U.N. Council From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday September 14, 2004 10:01 AM AP Photo NYET253 By ANDREA DUDIKOVA Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States wants the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency to add an Oct. 31 deadline and toughen language in a resolution to force Iran to once and for all dispel suspicions it seeks to build a nuclear weapon. Bouyed by growing European support, Washington also kept up pressure on the United Nations Security Council to take up the Iranian case for its refusal to freeze programs that can produce nuclear arms, a violation of Tehran's treaty obligations. A European diplomat said Monday that Washington's changes to the draft resolution originally written by France, Germany and Britain would establish the Oct. 31 deadline and makes other changes designed to shrink Iranian ``wiggle room'' for dispelling suspicions about its nuclear activities. The draft, summarized by the diplomat for The Associated Press, demands ``complete, immediate and unrestricted access'' to all sites and information requested by the agency in its probe of nearly two decades of Iran's clandestine nuclear activities that were only revealed two years ago. It also demands a complete list of nuclear materials and know-how imported by Iran, along with the identities black market suppliers. The U.S. draft calls for ``immediate suspension'' of all uranium reprocessing and activities related to uranium enrichment - both of which can be used to make nuclear weapons. The document does not directly threaten a referral to the Security Council. But by setting an Oct. 31 deadline, it implies a council hearing if Iran does not comply, said the diplomat. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington wants a unified international front on the issue before Iran would be taken to the Security Council, where it would face possible sanctions. ``The president wants Iran to answer to the Council, and that's where we're at now,'' he said. The European Union, long opposed to such a move, appeared to be inching toward Washington's position as it urged Tehran to give up work on uranium enrichment technology. ``There is a risk Iran is making a huge error,'' German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said. ``I hope they understand that. If not, we will end up in a very serious situation.'' Fischer and 24 other EU ministers meeting in Brussels had hoped Iran would compromise and abandon its uranium enrichment program, which Iran insists would produce fuel for electricity generation, not weapons. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei suggested he did not consider November a deadline, saying ``we will finish when I believe we are finished.'' Last week Iran confirmed an IAEA report that it planned to convert more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride, the feed stock for enrichment. Enrichment does not fall under Iran's obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but Tehran has been under mounting international pressure to suspend the enrichment technology as a gesture to dispel suspicions. At the start of its meeting Monday, the agency's board of governors publicly focused on South Korea, which last week acknowledged past secret plutonium extraction and uranium enrichment experiments. Plutonium and enriched uranium are two key ingredients of nuclear weapons. ElBaradei described South Korea's failure to report those activities a ``matter of serious concern from the proliferation perspective.'' Western diplomats revealed a link between tests conducted in 2000 and Seoul's secret uranium work in the 1980s, saying the connection cast doubt on Seoul's assertion that the experiments were the work of renegade scientists. But South Korean delegate Ho Chang-Bom told reporters the amounts used in the experiments were small and performed by scientists ``without the knowledge and authorization of the government.'' --- On the Net: IAEA: www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: 'No proof' of Iranian nuclear weapons programme Staff and agencies Tuesday September 14, 2004 The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog today said he was not certain that Iran's nuclear ambitions were entirely peaceful - but added he had seen no evidence to back allegations that the country was attempting to build a bomb. Speaking to reporters ahead of a closed door meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors about Iran, Mohammed ElBaradei said there was no smoking gun to back US claims that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. "Have we seen any proof of a weapons programme? Have we seen undeclared [uranium] enrichment? There is none of that," Mr ElBaradei said. "But are we in a position to say that everything is peaceful? Obviously we are not at this stage." The IAEA board is this week considering a joint French, British and German resolution calling on it to make a final decision about Iran at a November meeting. It would have the option of referring Iran to the UN security council for sanctions if it still had doubts about its nuclear programme. Iran, with Russian assistance and fuel, has been building civilian reactors to produce electricity, but the three European countries and the US fear it could produce weapons-grade fuel if it mines and enriches its own uranium. The Europeans began a policy of "constructive engagement" with Tehran in October 2003 in an attempt it to persuade it end enrichment, but have shown signs of losing patience and moving towards Washington's position. Iran promised to suspend its uranium enrichment programme in exchange for a wide range of "carrots" - including non-military nuclear and other technology and a guarantee that it could keep a peaceful atomic programme - but it has not yet done so. Hossein Mousavian, the country's chief delegate at this week's IAEA meeting, yesterday adopted a defiant stance when he said Iran would begin enriching uranium very soon. Diplomats said Iran and the three European countries were quietly negotiating behind the scenes, and would soon announce a more comprehensive suspension of Iran's enrichment programme. Mr Mousavian told Reuters that Tehran wanted to bring the standoff over its nuclear programme to a head in November. "We have nothing against serious dialogue aimed at providing assurances that Iran's nuclear programme will never, never be diverted to military purposes," he said in an interview. Mr ElBaradei said he hoped the resolution would prompt Iran and other countries to improve cooperation with the IAEA. "It is important to acknowledge progress and say we would like to see accelerated cooperation by Iran [and] by the countries that have been involved," he said in a clear reference to Pakistan, which provided much of Tehran's previously secret uranium enrichment technology. Iran claims traces of highly enriched uranium on its centrifuges were the result of contamination due to it buying the parts on the black market. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 5 Xinhuanet: IAEA discusses S.Korea, Iran www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2004-09-14 13:18:46 BEIJING, Sept. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- The board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting in Vienna to discuss clandestine nuclear experiments carried out by South Korea, as well as Iran's refusal to give up uranium enrichment. The meeting heard brief comments on South Korea's clandestine uranium enrichment and plutonium extraction experiments from agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei. He said South Korea's failure to report its experiments was a serious matter and promised to come up with a fuller report by the next board meeting in November. Defending his government, the delegate from South Korean said Seoul had nothing to do with the experiments. Cho Chang-Bom, S. Korean Delegate to IAEA, said: "These experiments were done by some small group of scientists for the research purposes on the laboratory scales without knowledge or authorization of the government of the Republic of Korea." He went on to add that the government of South Korea had no enrichment or reprocessing programme plans in the future. Meanwhile, Iran's refusal to abandon uranium enrichment set the stage for a confrontation. As the US and its European allies were proposing to set a November deadline for Iran to meet the IAEA's demands, Tehran appeared ready to compromise. Iran's chief delegate at the Vienna meeting said a partial freeze on assembling and making parts for centrifuges - a key part of the enrichment process - was in effect. But ElBaradei said Iran had not delivered on any such commitment, although talks with Tehran continued on the issue. (CCTV.com) Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Straits Times: A nuclear arms race in North-east Asia? - SEPT 15, 2004 By Bernard Loo RECENT revelations about South Korea's research into enriched uranium have thrown open the possibility, however slight, of a nuclear arms race in North-east Asia. It is too early to make a definitive assessment of the likelihood of such a race at this point, but it is important to understand the motives behind and the dangers posed by such a development. Concerns about the nuclearisation of South Korea are not new. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the conventional military balance on the Korean peninsula seemed tilted in favour of North Korea, Seoul apparently considered acquiring a nuclear arsenal as a quick and relatively cheap means of cancelling out Pyongyang's conventional military advantages. This flirtation with nuclear weapons occurred against a backdrop of what seemed then to be a gradual American disengagement from the Asia Pacific, following from the winding down of United States military involvement in the Vietnam War. However, the US - then as now South Korea's primary security guarantor - was quick to warn Seoul against such a course and, at the same time, to reassure the latter of its continuing commitment to Seoul's defence and security. South Korea has long been a little schizophrenic in how it views its security relationship with the US. While Seoul recognises that the mutual security relationship has allowed it to maintain defence spending at very manageable levels, at the same time it resents what it sees as American high-handedness in managing the security environment of the peninsula. Seoul remains almost solely dependent on the US for high-end weapons systems and platforms; the US is thus the main driver determining what South Korea needs or can buy for its defence. The US for instance has withheld from Seoul its most advanced air combat systems. The reason given being that Seoul's possession of such a system would provoke North Korea into resuming the war on the peninsula. At the same time, Seoul has never taken America's continuing commitment to its defence and security for granted. South Korean policymakers allow for the possibility - however slight - of the US eventually dismantling the South Korea-US mutual security relationship. Finally, deep in the South Korean psyche is a certain amount of disgruntlement, tacit if not explicit, towards the security relationship, which taps into a broader socio-cultural and historical wariness of the outside world. Against this backdrop, there are three possible motives - not mutually exclusive - for South Korea to have a nuclear research programme: to counter a nuclear-armed North Korea, in the event the US security umbrella is removed; to rid itself of its dependence on the US for its security and defence; and to squeeze from the US more concessions, in particular, access to high-end US weapons systems and platforms. This last possible motive encapsulates everything that is schizophrenic about the South Korean attitude towards its security relationship with the US. The research which came into the media glare last week clearly started years ago - long before the current plan for redeployment of US military forces was announced. The timing of Seoul's confession is thus interesting, coming as it does shortly after the US announcement of its detailed downsizing plans. What it seems to imply is Seoul wanting to retain the US-South Korea security relationship in more or less its current shape and form, a fact threatened by the proposed withdrawal of some 30,000 US troops from South Korea. Despite repeated reassurances from Washington that the redeployment of its troops will not spell a reduction of its interest and influence in the region, Asian countries which look to the US as a security guarantor remain concerned. These countries see the wider security environment as inherently unstable, with potential flashpoints in the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. Military power - often gauged in terms of military hardware and weapons platforms - remains the most potent security assurance to policymakers in this part of the world. A dwindling US military presence therefore does not reassure. What are the policy options? Obviously, the best-case scenario is one in which there is no nuclear arms race in North-east Asia. It would be an alarming prospect for the region if South Korea and Japan both embark on nuclear weapons programmes. In the unlikely event that Japan decides to militarise its nuclear programme, there can be little doubt that it can very quickly generate a significant amount of nuclear military power. If both South Korea and Japan go nuclear, Asia would need a dramatic shift - from preventing nuclear proliferation (which would obviously have failed by then) to managing nuclear proliferation. Countries in the region will have to accept the emergence of a nuclear balance on the Korean peninsula. Attention will then have to shift towards the creation of crisis management regimes - such as hotlines between Seoul and Pyongyang, advance notification of military training exercises that can be inspected and witnessed by each side, and mutual declarations of no first use. Secondly, what would have to be put in place for both Koreas would be sophisticated command and control systems that can minimise, if not totally prevent, the prospect of accidental or unauthorised launch of nuclear weapons. The good news, of course, is that all this is crystal-ball gazing at the moment. Seoul insists that its nuclear research was for peaceful purposes. It was also reassuring that it was Seoul which informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its aborted research programme. What is needed now is to reinforce IAEA inspections of South Korean nuclear facilities. Only then can the countries in the region be reassured of Seoul's continuing non-nuclear military posture, and that a nuclear arms race in North-east Asia remains an unlikely prospect. + The writer is an assistant professor at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies. The Straits Times print edition today. In it you get ***************************************************************** 7 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Fate of six-way talks 2004.09.15 Administration officials seem to be mostly pessimistic about the next round of six-way talks to resolve the North Korean nuclear problem, even unsure whether it will be held late in September in Beijing as originally scheduled. Recent disclosures of plutonium and enriched uranium experiments in South Korea in 1982 and 2000, respectively, are being seen as possible stumbling blocks to the talks, the fourth since they began in March 2003. They are closely watching Vienna where the International Atomic Energy Agency is holding a meeting of its 35-member board of governors to review non-proliferation efforts. In the opening session, Director-General Mohamed Elbaradei called South Korea's failure to report research on uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, as required by its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, "a matter of serious concern." The expression was a little stronger than what Seoul officials had expected from the IAEA head. Korea may be given either a warning by the nuclear watchdog or referred to the U.N. Security Council if the IAEA determines the experiments by scientists at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute were a serious breach of the nonproliferation regime. In either case, North Korea will use the South Korean "violation" as good ammunition to attack the United States for its "double standards." Pyongyang's boycott of the Beijing session may not be unlikely because it could have already concluded that any discussion before the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election would be of little meaning, given the significant gap existing between the positions of the Republican and Democratic parties on what to do about North Korea. Under these circumstances, we, however, would like to advise our diplomats both in Vienna and Beijing not to be overly apologetic because we have two points of conviction: One is that the amounts of the nuclear materials obtained through the KAERI experiments years ago are too small an amount to be considered as serious efforts to develop nuclear weapons; the other is that the South Korean government has not concealed anything from the IAEA and made reports to it sincerely and expeditiously when they became necessary after regulations changed. A review of the purpose of the multilateral talks in Beijing which put together South and North Korea, the United States, Japan, China and Russia, will find less reason for the North to shun the next session. North Korea was not coerced to join the conference but it took part in the talks, after making much ado initially, since the other five parties are the best possible providers of economic aid and security guarantees, which Pyongyang demands in exchange for abandoning its nuclear weapons development program. North Korea would rather use any advantage it might believe it has gained from the controversy over Seoul's experiments with fissionable materials as it tries to wring concessions from the United States and South Korea. But our delegate can counter the North's move by explaining how the KAERI scientists scrapped all the facilities they used for their one-time experiments in 1982 and 2000 in their dedication to the cause of nonproliferation. After all, what is important is not what happened in the past but what is underway at present and for what purpose. 2004.09.15 ***************************************************************** 8 Korea Herald: N.K. unlikely to use last card up its sleeve 2004.09.15 By Seo Hyun-jin In another episode demonstrating global concern about military provocations by North Korea, an explosion that the isolationist country calls demolition of a mountain for a hydro-electric project has not quelled speculation of a nuclear weapons test. But many experts and government officials here say North Korea would not go to such extremes as a nuclear test, at least now, because this would only deprive it of negotiating chips with which it hopes to gain economic benefits from the outside world. "North Korea is not likely to conduct a nuclear weapons test because this goes against the survival of its regime, though we cannot completely rule out the possibility," said Paik Hak-soon, a senior researcher at the private Sejong Institute. Paik said the North may consider that U.S. President George Bush would be reelected, even though some have speculated it would stage a provocative act before the November presidential election to harm Bush's chances and help his Democratic opponent John Kerry, believing he would take a softer stance. A senior government official also said Pyongyang would not test its nuclear weapons because that was the final card the country would use in nuclear negotiations with Washington and other countries. "North Korea seems to have a plan to rebuild its economy based on economic aid it expects to get in return for settling the ongoing nuclear tension, and compensation from Japan in normalizing diplomatic ties," the official said on condition of anonymity. Since the standoff over its nuclear weapons development flared up in October 2002, North Korea has ratcheted up the tension by expelling inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, withdrawing from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and reprocessing its spent fuel rods. A nuclear weapons test has been regarded as the North's last card because it would lead to a military confrontation which would prevent diplomatic ties or massive economic aid from the United States. The two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of inconclusive talks on the nuclear issue since August last year, and are struggling to open a new round. During the previous talks, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia agreed to provide North Korea with energy assistance if it agreed to freeze its nuclear facilities as a precursor to complete dismantlement. After a meeting with North Korean officials in Pyongyang yesterday, British Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell said the North was committed to resuming six-party talks, though it indicated no date. Despites observations of a majority of experts and the governments in Seoul and Washington that all rebuff the suggestion of a nuclear weapons test by the North, the question lingers whether anyone can trust the North's explanation that a huge blast on its border with China on the anniversary of its foundation was a mountain being blown up for a hydro-electric project. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday that Washington's intelligence showed that the huge blast was not the North's nuclear test. "I felt confident in going on television yesterday morning, on a talk show, and saying 'No, it was not a nuclear explosion,'" Powell said at a Senate hearing. But the conclusion of the debates on the credibility of the reclusive country's words will have to wait until the government gathers more scientific data, including satellite photos, because many scientists remain skeptical. A list of unanswered questions include why the North conducted the blast at night, especially on the eve of its national foundation day; why sound waves from the blast were not detected by the South's Korea Earthquake Research Center which normally would have picked up signs of a mountain demolition; and whether the site is suitable for building a dam. A military analyst said there is a possibility that North Koreans mishandled explosive liquid fuel at a Rodong missile base near the blast site. Professor Nam Sung-wook agreed that careless handling and clumsy systems in the impoverished country could have magnified what would normally have been a small accident. "Due to its economic difficulties, the system in North Korea has not been solid enough, and even military equipment has been poorly managed," Nam said. He said it would be embarrassing for the North that it could no longer cover up disgraceful incidents because of its increased contacts with foreigners and technology in Seoul and Washington that can pick up and interpret major happenings in the North. North Korea has previously hidden major mishaps in the country for fear of revealing weaknesses of its regime. (shj@heraldm.com) By Seo Hyun-jin ***************************************************************** 9 Korea Herald: [ANN]U.S.-N. Korea nuclear deal still on the cards 2004.09.15 By Ralph A. Cossa The Straits Times / Asia News Network SEOUL - "The odds of any progress regarding the North Korean nuclear issue appear slim to non-existent between now and the U.S. Nov. 2 presidential election. This is the conventional wisdom, as publicly proclaimed by South Korean officials. I have also heard this view echoed in Washington and Beijing in recent weeks. North Korea is hoping for 'regime change' in Washington, the reasoning goes, and the Bush administration is too divided and too preoccupied with Iraq for there to be any significant progress before November. This may well be true. But history and logic - to the extent that logic applies in dealing with Pyongyang - argue otherwise. There are good reasons why both Washington and, especially, Pyongyang may be willing to cut a deal prior to November. America's reason is simple: A settlement that achieves the minimum U.S. objective - a verifiable end to North Korea's nuclear weapons programs - defuses a potential major campaign issue (former President Bill Clinton ended the North's nuclear programs; President George W. Bush allowed them to start up again). But Pyongyang can also best achieve its ultimate objective - regime survival - by moving forward before November. North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is a master of brinkmanship politics. But he is not suicidal. Eighteen months ago, when U.S. forces were rapidly marching into Baghdad, he reportedly went into hiding, afraid that he would be next. After the United States became bogged down by Iraq, the North felt a sense of relief; Pyongyang had been given a free pass to misbehave and continue its game of playing all sides against one another. But the pass is not open-ended, and what may be brinkmanship next month could become Russian roulette in November, if President Bush wins a second term and regime change advocates in Washington gain the upper hand. While the North may think (falsely, in my view) that it would get a better deal from a Kerry administration than from a Bush administration, it also stands a better chance of getting Washington to take "yes" for an answer next month - when even the worst of the neo-conservatives would feel compelled to accept any halfway reasonable offer from Pyongyang - than after a successful reelection campaign. This is especially true if, as suspected, the current U.S. State Department "internationalists" do not continue into a second term. If Senator John Kerry is ahead by 20 points late this month, there is virtually no chance that Pyongyang would negotiate before the November elections. But, what are the odds of that? More likely, the race will at best be too close to call; today Bush is leading. Would North Korea be willing to bet its regime survival on a more unconstrained second Bush administration? I think not. It is, of course, always dangerous to try to predict North Korean behavior or motives. But we saw a similar tactic in September and October 1994, when Pyongyang negotiated the Agreed Framework immediately prior to U.S. mid-term elections. While I happen to believe the Clinton administration got the best deal possible at that time, the North Koreans can be excused for thinking that election year politics gained them a better deal, since this has been a steady Republican mantra for the past 10 years. Similarly, the North waited until just before the 2000 elections to try to entice then-President Clinton to visit Pyongyang; a tactic that almost succeeded, but was foiled by higher priority developments in the Middle East. If history is an accurate guide and survival logic continues to prevail, look to Pyongyang to suddenly become more responsive and to put forth at least a marginally acceptable counterproposal late this month or early the next. To be credible, Pyongyang must acknowledge that its suspected uranium enrichment program does in fact exist. Washington cannot accept anything less. But, despite its past denials, it is not impossible for Pyongyang to make a 180-degree turn and acknowledge that it did have a "peaceful" uranium program or that a rogue element in the North - Pyongyang's version of Pakistani A.Q. Khan - had been acting improperly without the knowledge of the government. Ironically, Seoul's recent admission that it had rogue scientists conducting uranium enrichment experiments four years ago, rather than undermining the prospects for a settlement - another piece of "conventional wisdom" - may actually provide a model for a similar "confession" by the North. Unless Bush's poll numbers start to decline dramatically, don't be too surprised to see Pyongyang becoming more receptive to Washington's earlier phased-approach proposal, which allowed rewards from others (but not from Washington) in return for a verifiable freeze as a first step towards nuclear disarmament. The pressure will then be on the Bush administration to deal constructively with Pyongyang or to explain to a war-weary American electorate why it won't take "yes" for an answer. The author is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS (pacforum@hawaii.rr.com), a Honolulu-based non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. -Ed. By Ralph A. Cossa The Straits Times / Asia News Network 2004.09.15 ***************************************************************** 10 Korea Herald: Seoul downplays IAEA concern 2004.09.15 By Choi Soung-ah Officials shrug off suspicions raised by latest revelations of nuclear tests By Choi Soung-ah What sounded like fresh information out of Vienna regarding South Korea's nuclear experiments was rejected by the government here yesterday, as they considered the U.N. nuclear watchdog's latest finding as "nothing new." Following yesterday's disclosure by the International Atomic Energy Agency of South Korea's production of 150 kilograms of uranium metal, top officials here explained that the material was developed from imported phosphate ores and part of the already revealed project of some 20 years ago. Top officials at Seoul's Foreign Ministry as well as Science and Techonology Minister Oh Myung said the IAEA's statement was information included in explaining the initial plutonium extraction. The minister reiterated that he found no problem with the report Director General Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA gave to Monday's assembly that said South Korean scientists produced 150 kilograms of uranium metal in the early 1980s so that part of it could be used in nuclear enrichment experiments in 2000. "It was done 20 years ago," Oh told reporters. "The facilities are already gone." He also stressed that the information is included in its reports to the IAEA as part of a plutonium extracting experiment that was conducted in 1982. The controversial experiments will be discussed at the IAEA meeting through Thursday. South Korea acknowledged this month that its scientists conducted a uranium enrichment experiment in 2000 and extracted a small amount of plutonium in 1982. Uranium and plutonium are two key ingredients for producing atomic weapons. The IAEA will likely make a decision in the November meeting on whether to refer the case to the United Nations Security Council. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the Vienna-based IAEA said Monday that "a small amount" of uranium metal was used in South Korea's later enrichment experiments. ElBaradei said South Korea's failure to report its experiments were a "matter of serious concern." He said he would have a more complete report on Seoul's clandestine nuclear activities by the next board meeting in November. Asked to comment on ElBaradei's expression of concern, Minister Oh said: "The term is commonly used when such things occur." Foreign Ministry officials have also said that it was a "cliche" terminology and does not refer to a literally "serious" situation. The controversy over South Korea's uranium-based experiment has threatened to further disrupt troubled efforts to persuade North Korea to dismantle its suspected nuclear weapons programs. South Korea said it should have reported the uranium enrichment experiment to the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency. It has denied any intentions of developing nuclear weapons. As part of efforts to gain support from its global allies over the issue, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon late Monday called his ally counterparts in the United States, China and Japan. In telephone conversations with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi, Ban explained that the experiments had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Powell said he understood that the experiments were done by some scientists for academic purposes and had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, according to ministry officials. In a similar conversation with Li, the Chinese foreign minister responded that he will instruct the Chinese delegation in Vienna, where the IAEA is headquartered, to closely cooperate with the South Korean delegation on the issue. The Chinese foreign minister expressed hope that Seoul will continue to cooperate with the IAEA on the issue. Kawaguchi, for her part, "expressed understanding for South Korea's position" and said she would instruct Japan's delegation to the IAEA meeting to "closely cooperate" with the South Korean delegation. (bluelle@heraldm.com) 2004.09.15 ***************************************************************** 11 BBC: N Korea 'will talk' says UK envoy Last Updated: Tuesday, 14 September, 2004 [South Korean passengers in a subway train read newspapers reporting an explosion in North Korea - 13/9/04] South Korean media has been speculating about last week's blast North Korea is still committed to six-party talks on its nuclear programme, according to a British envoy. But UK Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell said he did not know when negotiations would begin again. "Certainly one of the factors they are considering ... is the timing of the American presidential election" in November, he said. Mr Rammell was talking in Beijing, after a four-day visit to the secretive Communist state. China wants the talks to resume before the end of this month. "At the end of those discussions, what was clear to me was that the North Koreans were saying they were still committed to the six-party talks process but weren't prepared to commit to a date," he said, after holding talks in Pyongyang. "I simply said to them, 'You have got to come back to the table'." While in North Korea Mr Rammell obtained a pledge that UK officials could visit the site of a huge explosion last week that raised fears of a possible nuclear test UK ambassador David Slinn will lead a visit to the site, and "all the heads of missions in Pyongyang will be allowed to go on that trip," said Mr Rammell. Pyongyang says the explosion was in fact the demolition of a mountain as part of a huge hydro-electric project. 'Peculiar cloud' The United States and South Korea had already played down suggestions that the explosion, near Yongjo-ri in Yanggang Province, was caused by a nuclear device. "There was no indication that was a nuclear event of any kind. Exactly what it was, we're not sure," US Secretary of State Colin Powell told ABC television on Sunday. The blast is said to have happened on Thursday as the Stalinist state celebrated its National Day. It created what officials in Seoul said was a huge, and peculiarly-shaped, cloud. North Korea is under international pressure to end all nuclear programmes and disarm. But so far it has offered only limited concessions during "six-party" international talks involving both Koreas, the US, China, Russia and Japan. ***************************************************************** 12 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Diplomatic Efforts Underway to Jumpstart Six-party Talks Updated Sep.14,2004 14:25 KST Even as North Korea talks tough about not attending six-party talks to resolve nuclear tensions on the Korean Peninsula, accusing the United States of having double standards on the two Koreas, diplomatic efforts are underway to stage a new round. The two Koreas, the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia had previously agreed to meet again before the end of September. Though the date for the fourth round of six-party talks has yet to be set, a flurry of diplomatic activity is underway among South Korea, China, and Japan. In Pyongyang, a Chinese delegation met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il on Monday and relayed President Hu Jintao's message urging the North to return to the six-party negotiating table. The Chinese delegates also called for stronger coordination and cooperation between Beijing and Pyongyang. They said, "We hope the six party talks will continue as scheduled. What are we doing now is coordinating with every side to settle the date." Japan's Foreign Minister who was in Beijing for the World Economic Forum on Monday said she hopes to see positive results from the Chinese delegation's visit to Pyongyang. "Currently, of course the six party talks framework is aiming for the peaceful resolution of the North Korea nuclear issue, but in the future, these talks could take up a broader range of security-related issues in a deeper way and that will certainly yield enormous peace and security benefits for the Asian region," she said. In Seoul, Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon sought Tokyo's support on the early resumption of multilateral talks over a 20-minute phone conversation with Minister Kawaguchi. He stressed South Korea's controversial nuclear experiments were unrelated to nuclear weapons development and that the six-party process should proceed as planned. Also on Monday, Seoul's Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck left for Russia to drum up Moscow's help in persuading North Korea to participate in the next round of nuclear talks. Arirang TV ***************************************************************** 13 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Challenges Appear in Effort to Curb Spread of Nuclear Updated Sep.14,2004 11:22 KST For decades, there was just one Asian nuclear power: China. But in the past several years, three other Asian countries either have developed nuclear bombs or began trying to, posing new challenges for efforts to stop nuclear proliferation. In Asia, China had long been the only nuclear power. During the height of Cold War animosities with the United States, it began building a nuclear armory of about 450 missiles and bombs. But in 1998, Beijing's neighbors, India and Pakistan, joined the elite club of nuclear-armed nations, when both tested nuclear devices. They now are thought to have between 30 and 80 nuclear bombs or missiles each. The two South Asian nations have been foes since independence from Britain in 1947, and their new weapons raise the specter of a nuclear holocaust on the subcontinent. However, Uday Bhaskar, director of India's Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis, a government-funded agency, says it would be wrong to think the countries went nuclear only to threaten each other. He says nuclear weapons give a nation a new degree of diplomatic and scientific clout, and a broader overall defense policy. "Neither [for] India, or that matter, Pakistan, ¡¦the suggestion that nuclear capability is either targeted or aimed at only one person may sound very dramatic, but I think it would be misleading in terms of strategic reality," said Mr. Bhaskar. In the past year, as relations between New Delhi and Islamabad have improved, the fear of a nuclear war between the two has receded. Another fear, however, remains: that their nuclear secrets might be shared with other countries either as official policy, or through the work of rogue scientists. Indeed, earlier this year, Pakistan dismissed the head of its nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, for selling technology to other countries, and he now lives essentially under house arrest. That case created a problem for the United States, which is trying to push North Korea to give up its efforts to build nuclear weapons. While the United States condemned Mr. Khan's activities, it did not impose new sanctions on Pakistan. Alexander Lennon is an expert on weapons proliferation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an independent research organization in Washington. He says that in the Khan case, the Bush administration had to avoid putting too much pressure on Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, who has been a close ally in the war on terror. Still, Mr. Lennon says, Washington must be even-handed. That is particularly important, he says, regarding recent revelations that South Korea conducted secret nuclear tests as recently as 2000. "If it doesn't take the South Korean investigation seriously, then there are concerns that are raised about the U.S. approaches to North Korea as well as Iran and the Middle East, about whether the United States is unfairly discriminating against these countries or whether it is actually treating all potential proliferators equally," said Mr. Lennon. South Korea says the tests were scientific, and insists it is not building weapons. The United States has criticized Seoul for conducting the tests, but praised it for allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to investigate. While the United States has been restrained in its response to the South Korean revelations, nearby Japan has been concerned. Japan, the only nation to have suffered an atomic bomb attack, is fiercely anti-nuclear. Choi Jin Wook is a senior researcher at the government-run Korean Institute of National Unification in Seoul. He talks about Tokyo's response to the South Korean nuclear experiments. "They clearly oppose to the South Korean nuclear program, and they probably would try to pressure the United States to take tougher action, even though the United States does not take it very serious," he said. One Japanese politician has said it would be understandable if South Korea built nuclear weapons to fend off North Korea. But experts in Japan and other countries say a nuclear-armed Korean Peninsula would cause concerns. Katsuya Kodama heads Japan's private International Peace Research Association. "In that case, Japan will also have such a project," he added. "That will be possible. So this means the entire area may be nuclearized." South Korea's nuclear tests could be the latest obstacle to pressuring North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. There have been three big concerns about North Korea's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The first is that the isolated Stalinist state might use them. The second is that Pyongyang could sell the technology to other countries or terrorist groups. And finally, a nuclear North Korea would set off an arms race in North Asia. The United States and other governments trying to limit the spread of nuclear weapons are still coming to grips with the reality of a nuclear Asia. While many experts say there is little likelihood that either Seoul or Tokyo will go nuclear in the next several years, they warn that possibility complicates non-proliferation efforts. VOA News ***************************************************************** 14 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: IAEA Concerned by South Korean Nuclear Experiments Updated Sep.14,2004 10:53 KST The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says South Korea's undeclared nuclear experiments are a matter of serious concern, and a detailed investigation is underway. IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters Monday he is concerned that South Korea had only recently informed the agency about experiments involving uranium enrichment that took place four years ago. "Clearly any activity that involves the separation of plutonium or the enrichment of uranium are matters of serious concern from a proliferation perspective and therefore we are going to treat them with the seriousness they deserve," he said. Mr. ElBaradei told the IAEA board of governors that inspectors visited three previously undeclared facilities in South Korea. He says they discovered that South Korea had produced about 150 kilograms of natural uranium metal in the 1980s, which was used in experiments nearly twenty years later. A diplomat familiar with the IAEA, who did not want to be named, said this link raises many questions on the depth and history of a project that possibly spanned two decades. The head of the South Korean delegation, Cho Chang-bom, told reporters this was an "unfortunate" experiment carried out by ambitious scientists. "These experiments were done by a small group of scientists for research purposes on a laboratory scale and without the knowledge or authorization of the government of the Republic of Korea," he said. "And the government of the Republic of Korea, as you are all aware, did not have an enrichment or reprocessing program at all, and we do not have at the moment and we will not have that enrichment or reprocessing facilities." Mr. Cho said the research reactor was subsequently dismantled. The envoy stressed that Seoul is committed to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula and would fully co-operate with the IAEA in its investigations. The IAEA experts are analyzing photographs, records and environmental samples taken at the sites. Director ElBaradei says the agency wants to interview scientists and view the dismantled equipment before making another report to the board in November. VOA News ***************************************************************** 15 JoongAng Daily: [EDITORIALS]A need to come clean September 15, 2004 KST 11:24 (GMT+9) International controversy over Korea's unauthorized production of 0.2 grams of enriched uranium is intensifying. During the board of governors meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency two days ago, its secretary-general said that it was a seriously worrisome matter that South Korea did not report to the agency on the retention of 150 kilograms of unreported uranium metal. When the issue first broke, the Ministry of Science and Technology said there would be no problems. But it appears that the issue is becoming a serious international concern, as the Foreign Ministry anticipated. The government had said, "Our capability to extract enriched uranium is not great and we do not have any intention to produce nuclear arms. The IAEA knows that and thus it is not a special problem." But the unfolding events make the public wonder what the truth is regarding this matter. We do not know what measures the IAEA will take against Korea. The most desirable measure would be a word of caution like, "We understand the Korean government's effort to fulfill the safeguards. But there was a procedural problem." But there is also a possibility that the IAEA may decide to hand over the issue to the United Nations Security Council for failure to fulfill the IAEA safeguards. The government says it cannot make public its reactions with the IAEA as they are secret. We regret that the issue caused confusion and unease for the public. In particular, it was a mistake for the government to draw a conclusion at the beginning of the case saying, "There is no problem." The case is full of suspicions. Why are Korea's nuclear activities of 20 years ago being revealed now, all at the same time? It is also difficult to understand why the six problems the government reported to the IAEA appeared in the foreign press a couple of days after they were reported to the international nuclear watchdog. People are eager to know what connections the unfolding events have with the national interest of Korea. We are concerned that we might suffer unexpected damage because of our small mistake or misunderstanding of procedures. In this sense, the public needs to know about the truth of the issue. The government would not be able to obtain public trust if it were to make another explanation only after the foreign press disclose a new story. 2004.09.14 Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 16 Korea Times : Seoul Dismisses IAEA Concern About Lab Test Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will send its inspectors to South Korea again sometime this week for further investigations into the nation's nuclear experiments, sources said Tuesday. The inspectors from the world's nuclear watchdog will stay here for about a week to look into the two controversial laboratory tests that occurred in 1982 and in 2000, they said. The inspectors will take environmental samples at the sites and interview relevant scientists. Another IAEA inspection team visited South Korea early this month to investigate the experiments that led to the production of tiny amounts of plutonium and enriched uranium, the two main types of fissile material used in nuclear weapons. South Korea on Tuesday downplayed the first assessment given by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog on alleged mistakes in its nuclear activities over the past two decades, dismissing the expression of ``serious concern'' by the agency's chief as a normal cliche. ``It is a term commonly used when things of this kind occur,'' Science and Technology Minister Oh Myung told reporters before attending a Cabinet meeting. Oh also said he sees ``no problem'' with the new revelation made at an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assembly in Vienna that Korean scientists produced 150 kilograms of uranium metal in the early 1980s so that part of it could be used in nuclear enrichment experiments in 2000. ``It was done 20 years ago and all the facilities have been dismantled,'' he said. Speaking to the IAEA board of governors on Monday on nuclear activities recently revealed by Seoul, IAEA chief ElBaradei said that Seoul had recently acknowledged producing 150 kilograms of uranium metal at three facilities it had kept secret from his agency. ``A small amount'' of this substance was later used in nuclear enrichment experiments using laser technology, ElBaradei told the board. ``It is a matter of serious concern that the conversion and enrichment of uranium and the separation of plutonium were not reported to the agency as required by the Safeguards Agreement,'' said the IAEA chief. He was referring to Seoul's agreement with the IAEA aimed at preventing the diversion of nuclear resources to secret weapons programs. The Safeguards Agreement is required under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Repeating his government's stance, South Korean delegate Cho Chang-Bom told reporters that the experiments involved only minute quantities of enriched uranium and plutonium and were performed by a small group of scientists ``without the knowledge and authorization of the government.'' He said that with the revelations now public, South Korea harbored no more nuclear secrets. Speaking to reporters after the closed-door morning session of the IAEA board of governors, ElBaradei said he hoped to quickly wrap up his investigation into South Korea's experiments with two substances that could be used in nuclear weapons. ``We have a lot of work to do,'' he said. ``I hope that we can finish by November, but if not, we will continue.'' The IAEA will soon send a special team of inspectors to South Korea to check on alleged mishaps in past nuclear activities. South Korea acknowledged this month that its scientists conducted a uranium enrichment experiment in 2000 and extracted a small amount of plutonium in 1982. Uranium and plutonium are two key ingredients for producing atomic weapons. The IAEA will likely make a decision in the November meeting on whether to refer the case to the United Nations Security Council. In an effort to win the support of its allies on the controversial nuclear experiments, South Korea's Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon on Monday had successive telephone conversations with his counterparts in the United States, China and Japan. In talks with U.S. State Secretary Colin Powell, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi, Ban explained that the experiments had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Powell said he understood that the experiments were done by some scientists for academic purposes and had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, according to ministry officials. In a similar conversation with Li, the Chinese foreign minister responded by saying he would instruct the Chinese delegation in Vienna, where the IAEA is headquartered, to work with South Korean representatives on the issue. Kawaguchi, for her part, ``expressed understanding for South Korea's position,'' and also said she would instruct Japan's delegation to the IAEA meeting to ``closely cooperate'' with the South Korean delegation. jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 09-14-2004 16:41 ***************************************************************** 17 Korea Times: NK Committed to 6-Way Talks - British Envoy Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Reuben Staines Staff Reporter North Korea remains committed to holding six-party talks to resolve the standoff over its nuclear weapons programs despite its recent unwillingness to reconvene for a fourth round of negotiations, a British diplomat said Tuesday. British Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell, arriving in China after a series of discussions with officials in the North, said he is convinced Pyongyang will agree to hold more talks but has not decided when. ``At the end of the discussions, what was clear to me was that the North Koreans were saying they were still committed to the six-party talks process but weren't prepared to commit to a date,¡¯¡¯ Rammell said during a media briefing. Responding to the comments, a senior foreign ministry official in Seoul said they were a good sign of the North¡¯s willingness to continue negotiations. ``I believe that it¡¯s positive. But, at the same time, North Korea has often told us that it is willing to negotiate and I¡¯m not sure whether there is anything new in what it told Minister Rammell,¡¯¡¯ he told The Korea Times on condition of anonymity. The official added that South Korea appreciates the efforts of Britain, which has not been involved in the six-party process, to bring North Korea back to the bargaining table. At the end of the third round of nuclear talks in Beijing, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and China agreed to reconvene in Beijing by the end of September. But North Korea, upset over U.S. legislation dealing with its human rights abuses and other developments, has repeatedly stated in recent months that it sees no point in participating in further talks. Rammell supported analysts¡¯ suggestions that North Korea is delaying negotiations until after the U.S. presidential poll in November, saying, ``Certainly one of the factors they are considering is the timing of the American presidential election.¡¯¡¯ But the British envoy said he had urged North Korea to return to the talks immediately, arguing that the outcome of the election is unlikely to drastically change U.S. policy on the nuclear standoff. Rammell also said he had promised Pyongyang aid once it showed a willingness to open up to international inspectors. ``If they are prepared to renounce nuclear weapons and clean up their human rights abuses, then we are prepared to come forward with support and aid,¡¯¡¯ he said. rjs@koreatimes.co.kr 09-14-2004 16:38 ***************************************************************** 18 Korea Times: Suspicions Linger on Lab Test Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Jung Sung-ki Staff Reporter With back-to-back revelations of nuclear experiments by South Korea, the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency is probing whether Seoul has breached its responsibilities to nuclear safeguards agreements with the Vienna-based agency. South Korea has recently owned up to what it says was ``purely scientific¡¯¡¯ research in plutonium extraction and uranium enrichment conducted by a small group of unauthorized scientists in the early 1980s and 2000. But yesterday¡¯s disclosure of the production of 150 kilograms of uranium metal has caused Western diplomats further concerns about the possible linkage between tests conducted in 2000 and Seoul¡¯s clandestine uranium experiment in the 1980s. The uranium metal was produced in ``one of the three undeclared nuclear facilities,¡¯¡¯ which some also believe is a serious violation of International Atomic Energy Agency agreements. A small amount of the uranium metal produced two decades ago was used in the later nuclear enrichment experiments with laser technology, Mohamed Elbaradei, head of the IAEA, told the agency¡¯s board of governors meeting in Vienna. Some outside experts have raised questions over the nuclear activities, saying that the production of uranium metal almost two decades before the laser enrichment experiments suggests long-term planning that was targeted towards enrichment. South Korea¡¯s Science and Technology Ministry confirmed the production of uranium metal but rejected suspicions surrounding the country¡¯s nuclear activities. ``We¡¯ve kept the remaining 134 kilograms of uranium metal since it was used in the experiment four years ago, and already reported it to the IAEA in July,¡¯¡¯ sources from the ministry said. They said the IAEA identified it while inspecting the Korea Atomic Energy Institute from July until early this month. The ministry also explained that it has scrapped the undeclared facilities. However, the IAEA has also indicated the failure to report the changed amount of the remaining uranium metal may be a violation. In addition, the Seoul government made a mistake in marking a reprocessed nuclear fuel rod produced in 1983, when it reported about the 27 kilograms of spent nuclear materials after the experiment. Irradiated nuclear fuel is supposed to get the mark ``G,¡¯¡¯ but it was mistakenly marked ``F¡¯¡¯ for new fuel. Reiterating the government¡¯s stance, South Korean delegate Cho Chang-bom, who is also ambassador to Austria, emphasized that the country has no intention to develop nuclear weapons. He asserted the reporting of the experiments, not the research itself, was being investigated as a possible violation of safeguards. Plutonium and enriched uranium are two key ingredients of nuclear weapons. The controversy over South Korea's experiments has threatened to further disrupt troubled efforts to resolve the much-protracted North Korea nuclear issue. The IAEA will likely decide in the November meeting on whether to refer the case to the U.N. Security Council. gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr 09-14-2004 17:17 ***************************************************************** 19 Korea Times: Satellite to Check Cause of NK Blast Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Reuben Staines Staff Reporter New satellite photos will soon be able to verify the cause of Thursday's massive explosion and the resulting mushroom-shaped cloud of smoke in North Korea's Ryanggang Province, top government officials in Seoul said Tuesday. ``We will take satellite photos of the scene today and tomorrow, since skies are clear at the moment, in order to confirm North Korea's explanation of the incident,'' Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung said. The government released several images of the blast site yesterday. But analysts could not conclusively determine the cause of explosion due to cloud cover and the photos' low resolution, officials said. A U.S. military satellite will take the new photos, the Unification Ministry said. Pyongyang's Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun on Monday told visiting British Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell that the blast was a controlled explosion to clear a mountainside as part of a hydroelectric dam project. This explanation was repeated by the North's official news agency in a story headlined, ``Much Ado in S. Korea and U.S. Refuted.'' Paek also promised Rammell to allow diplomats from Britain and other nations to visit the blast site, located in an mountainous area near the North's border with China that is dotted with military installations. David Slinn, Britain's ambassador in Pyongyang, said he was making arrangements to lead a delegation to the area, possibly as early as today, in consultation with North Korean officials. But Seoul withheld judgment on North Korea's account of the incident, saying that the huge size of the explosion, the shape of the smoke cloud and the fact that it occurred at night require further explanation. ``Let's wait and see,'' Yoon said. ``But we should not be too concerned if it was not the detonation of a nuclear device.'' Reports of a mushroom-shaped cloud nearly 4 kilometers in diameter initially triggered concerns that Pyongyang had tested a nuclear weapon, but South Korea and the United States have all but ruled out the possibility. ``Government agencies share the understanding it is not a nuclear test, although we are still collecting information to make a comprehensive judgment,'' the defense minister said. Experts believe North Korea would be highly unlikely to test a nuclear device so close to the border with its closest ally, China, and no radiation has been detected in neighboring countries since the blast six days ago. They say an accidental explosion involving chemicals or munitions at a military installation is a more likely scenario. ``We are trying to work out the exact details (of the explosion),'' Unification Minister Chung Dong-young told reporters. Chung dismissed suggestions that the U.S. and South Korea intelligence agencies have failed to cooperate effectively over the incident, saying: ``We have had no problem in exchanging information with the United States.'' Conservative opposition parties, meanwhile, criticized the government for reacting slowly to the situation in Ryanggang. They said it took three days before the National Security Council convened to discuss the explosion. National Security Adviser Kwon Chin-ho called for patience. ``We need to further confirm it before making a premature decision,'' he said. ``We are trying to make an objective judgment.'' rjs@koreatimes.co.kr 09-14-2004 16:39 ***************************************************************** 20 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Find way to make whole [seattlepi.com] [OPINION] Tuesday, September 14, 2004 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD Congressional Republicans and the Bush administration ought to find a way to help the workers who helped America in the Cold War. A standoff among Republicans threatens to delay the badly needed reform of a compensation program for workers who have suffered health problems from their jobs at Hanford and other nuclear weapons plants. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Charles Pope reported in March, the Energy Department has accomplished almost nothing since Congress created the compensation program in October 2000. Workers or their survivors have filed more than 20,000 claims, but Associated Press recently found the Energy Department had paid money in fewer than three-dozen cases by the end of July. Most claims haven't even been processed. The reform issue has stalled on whether to move administration of the program to the Labor Department, as many senators of both parties believe should happen. We agree, because Labor has a better, but hardly perfect, record running similar programs. But the administration makes valid points in saying that changes are needed in some rules, especially limits on doctors' payments. With little time left in the congressional schedule, an agreement may be difficult to reach. But workers deserve a compensation program that works, not one that operates so poorly people are likely to die before their cases are settled. Back to top [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com [newmedia@seattlepi.com] ©1996-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Terms of Service/Privacy ***************************************************************** 21 Joplin Globe: States can encourage wind energy [http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives] The Joplin Globe • 117 E. Fourth St. • Joplin, MO 64801 • 417.623.3480 • 800.444.8514 • Fax 417.623.8450 9/14/04 An interesting point made by Pat Wood III, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to those attending the Kansas Electric Transmission Summit II ought to have officials in several states thinking about harvesting wind power. It can be good for energy production as well as for the economy. Wood, a former regulator in Texas, pointed out that the Lone Star State requires that all electric utilities get at least 3 percent of their power from the wind before the end of this decade. The result has been an increase in wind-power farms and new transmission lines, the latter being a key to any development. “If the state wants to say from an economic-development standpoint that it wants more wind energy to create more jobs for less populated areas of the state, there are some good models out there to follow,” Wood said, speaking at the Dole Institute of Politics. “A lot of them involve a little bit of the heavy hand of the state. As a free-market guy, that makes me cringe a bit, but you have to realize that you have to get started.” Western Kansas is a natural for wind farms. Unfortunately, adequate transmission lines are needed and the investment cost has been estimated at $400 million to build them there as well as in the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma. Should that money come from private investors or should Kansas and Oklahoma get involved by requiring utilities to start using wind power? The solution seems simple. But there is a kicker. Who will pay for the new lines? Consumers, of course, through higher utility bills. Taxpayers, too, might be asked to help out, perhaps with a sales tax on electric usage or statewide bond issues. Uncle Sam could offer tax incentives for developers. The point is that wind is a power source that remains relatively untapped. The nation has been slow to realize that its reliance on unstable foreign oil is not just expensive, but potentially dangerous to the economy. Other power sources are needed, including wind, thermal and nuclear. The questions that remain to be answered are who is going to foot the bill, and when? © 2004 The Joplin Globe Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 22 SA: news24: New documents in SA WMD case Vanderbijlpark - The bail application of two men charged under laws against the proliferation of nuclear weapons was delayed in Vanderbijlpark on Tuesday to give lawyers time to study new documents. Randburg engineering company directors Gerhard Wisser and Daniel Geiges were arrested last Wednesday. They face four charges of allegedly possessing equipment and components that could lead to the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. Their arrest came after similar charges were unexpectedly withdrawn against Vanderbijlpark engineering company director Johan Meyer. "We have been given some more papers to read through," said Wisser's lawyer Claudia Privato. Wisser's advocate, Annand Coundary, said earlier he wanted bail for Wisser on the grounds that a German court, where he faced similar charges, had also granted bail. "We will plead not guilty and would like to proceed to trial with alacrity," he said. The policeman investigating the case refused to comment on the whereabouts of Meyer. Meyer's attorney Heinrich Badenhorst told Sapa he would release a statement on behalf of his client on Wednesday. Edited by Andrea Botha ***************************************************************** 23 SABCnews: Court appearance of WMD suspects delayed September 14, [http://www.sabcnews.com/] South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © 2004, 10:37 The court appearance of two suspects in the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) case has been delayed in the Vanderbijlpark Regional Court. Lawyers representing Gerhard Wisser and Daniel Geiges say this is to enable all parties to go through documents issued by the State this morning. Wisser and Geiges are facing charges under the WMD and Nuclear Energy Acts. They were arrested last Wednesday after charges against Johannes Meyer were unexpectedly dropped. Meyer is a Vanderbilpark engineer who initially faced similar charges. ***************************************************************** 24 Guardian Unlimited: In from the cold Analysis North Korea's regime survived the cold war and has nuclear know-how. But it is in the west's interests to help it move towards a market economy Glyn Ford Tuesday September 14, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] The Korean peninsula is probably the most dangerous place on earth, made worse by those who extrapolate dodgy intelligence to fanciful "worst-case" scenarios that become the sand on which policy is founded. In reality, Europe being threatened by North Korea's nuclear missiles is about as likely as the Pope converting to Islam. The most "pessimistic" estimated range of Pyongyang's projected Taepodong 2 missile would fall well short. Even concerns over last week's "mushroom cloud" in the north-east were quickly dismissed by the US and South Korea. The truth is that North Korea is changing: it wants to come in from the cold. A country seen by many as the final remnant of the cold war is trying to transform itself, driven by need, and necessity to embrace the market. These steps signify a willingness for engagement not seen before, but they have been overshadowed by the "nuclear crisis" triggered in October 2002 when Pyongyang admitted to having the "know-how", but not the technology, for a highly enriched uranium route to nuclear weapons. In fact, North Korea didn't trust the US to keep to the 1994 framework agreement which promised - in exchange for the freezing and dismantling of its Russian-designed reactors capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium - a lifting of the 50-year economic embargo; normalisation of relations; a formal commitment not to use nuclear weapons against North Korea; two proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors; and an interim supply of oil. Pyongyang had a point. The US negotiators in 1994 were confident that after the collapse of the Soviet empire, North Korea was sure to follow. They failed to take into account that, in contrast to central and eastern Europe, North Korea's was an indigenous regime rooted in the country's history and culture. Now, the revelation that Seoul had its own clandestine nuclear programme, which went further than the one Pyongyang has admitted, undermines the US's righteous indignation. On top of that, North Korea's military budget is a quarter of Seoul's. South Korea spends more on defence each year than the North's entire GDP. In the 90s, North Korea suffered badly from a series of natural and man-made disasters, including droughts and floods, and from Russia and China switching from friendship prices and counter trade to demanding pre-payment in hard currency. Starvation killed up to 3 million people, one in eight of the population. Substantial humanitarian aid slowly stabilised the situation. The World Food Programme now estimates that "only" 250,000 children under six are suffering from chronic malnutrition, which will leave them stunted and brain damaged, while a million are badly malnourished. Again this year, there will be a 20% shortfall of cereals: 1m tonnes. It took a while, but in July 2002 North Korea embraced the market. Salaries were increased 18 fold, food prices 26 fold, and the exchange rate for the euro - Pyongyang's official currency for foreign exchange transactions - 70 fold. Farmers were set attainable targets for food delivery to the state, with the surplus allowed to be sold in new markets set up around the country. As the vice-minister of state planning, Pak Chang-ryun, said: "It has worked better than fertiliser in improving productivity." Last month North Korea went a step further, acknowledging that central planning must be curtailed because it loses local knowledge and undermines creativity. In future, factories will be set financial targets. Managers will be able to hire and fire at will, and choose what to produce and how much to charge. The new markets are flourishing. Crowds are buying everything from Spanish oranges to ice-cream makers. But rice price inflation is running at 400-500% per annum. Despite the people's distribution service delivering about 50% of daily needs at hugely subsidised prices, up to 5 million people no longer earn enough to feed themselves. The problem is particularly acute in the heavily industrialised north-eastern cities, where few factories are working and access to homegrown food or humanitarian aid is limited. A new rich class is emerging, and they are beginning to appropriate what little is available. Freeing the farmers to go to the market is having an impact on productivity, despite inflation. However, the same is not true in the manufacturing sector, where the boost in demand is merely sucking in imports. Without development aid to kick-start the economy, the situation will not change. North Korea, once a developed country with 70% of the workforce in manufacturing, is experiencing a reruralisation of the economy, with factory managers laying off industrial workers to grow food instead. What can be done? It is in our interest to negotiate away the country's nuclear programme - though Pakistan, the source of the technology sold or traded to North Korea and others, seems to be mysteriously escaping global condemnation. It is clear that the programme can be ended with a package of economic and political incentives. If we can set the North Koreans on the broad path to emulating China and Vietnam, the world will be a safer place. With a changing regime instead of regime change, we can move on to restart the human-rights dialogue. · Glyn Ford is the Labour MEP for South West England. He has just spent four days in Pyongyang at a workshop organised by the European commission, the North Korean ministry of foreign affairs and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation gford@europarl.eu.int [gford@europarl.eu.int] Graphic Map of North and South Korea [http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/graphic/0,5812,331538,00.html Useful links Korea Herald (South) [http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/] North Korean Central News Agency [http://www.kcna.co.jp] World Food Programme [http://www.wfp.org/index2.html] History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com [http://www.tcsaz.com/koreanwar.html] CIA factbook: North Korea [http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/kn.html] CIA factbook: South Korea [http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ks.html] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 25 Guardian Unlimited Politics: Blair warns of environmental catastrophe Tom Happold and agencies Tuesday September 14, 2004 Tony Blair warned today that time was "running out" to avert the human and economic catastrophe of unchecked climate change. Speaking at a round-table discussion about the environment, ahead of a speech on the subject this evening, the prime minister described global warming as a "huge issue" which needed renewed political will if it was to be tackled. Mr Blair is tonight expected to call for a "green industrial revolution" and promise to use Britain's presidency of the G8 group of leading industrial nations next year to push for greater international cooperation to tackle climate change. But Mr Blair will not confirm whether the UK government will expand the use of nuclear power, which many scientists believe is essential to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Questioned about the issue on BBC Radio 1's Newsbeat programme, he said: "I think there are still major problems [with nuclear power] ... we have to handle the issues to do with storage and waste." "We're not shutting the door on anything but you have to take account of those realities," he added. "And in the meantime there are other technologies that we could be using that would make a significant difference to climate change." Mr Blair's speech comes after he was criticised yesterday by the Conservative leader, Michael Howard, for his failure to persuade the US to sign up to the Kyoto protocol, which was designed to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. Mr Howard also side-stepped the nuclear issue yesterday; excluding it from his speech, and replying when challenged about it afterwards that it was a matter for a Conservative government to decide once in office. Scientists are increasingly pushing for the government to give the go ahead for an expansion in nuclear energy, as the only means for Britain to meet its Kyoto target to cut greenhouse gas emissions. A report in today's Times claims that the director of strategic development at the Department of Trade and Industry's energy unit, Adrian Gault, has told ministers that nuclear power will have to provide half of Britain's electricity needs if it is to do so. Currently, nuclear power provides only a fifth of Britain's electricity, but the nation's nuclear power plants are ageing and will be closed down progressively from 2008. Earlier today, Mr Blair's official spokesman played down the DTI advice, describing it as only an option paper, which has not been seen by ministers. Speaking at the round-table discussion, Mr Blair was pessimistic about the prospects of the US government changing its position. "Let's be absolutely blunt about it: I do not think the US Senate is going to vote for ratification of Kyoto. It would be nice if they did, but I can't see it. "We have to do two things at the G8 - the first is an explicit acceptance of the science by all the governments there. That has not really happened up until now for a very obvious reason, because the next question is: 'Well, what are you going to do about it?' "The next thing we need is an agreement on the process to take this forward. That will require an examination of the science and technologies... step by step so that certain measures are taken." This evening, Mr Blair is also expected to focus on the environmental impact of the expanding airline sector, saying that he wants to use Britain's presidency of the EU next year to press for the aviation industry to be brought within the EU's emissions trading scheme. And he will say that it is his ambition to use Britain's G8 presidency to "build a scientific and policy consensus among governments around which vigorous global action can be taken". The prime minister plans to host a conference on climate change at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in February in advance of the G8 summit at Gleneagles in Scotland. He will also add that Britain can lead the world in developing renewal energies, such a wave and tidal power, bio-energy and hydrogen fuel cells. "We need a green industrial revolution for the 21st century that sustains growth but protects the environment," he is expected to say. Interactive Guide to drilling for oil in the Arctic Calculate your personal carbon count [http://www.bestfootforward.com/carbonlife.htm] Key resources The Kyoto protocol [http://www.unfccc.de/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html] Bjorn Lomborg: Are we doing the right thing? [http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/08 /14/warming.pdf] Useful links UN framework convention on climate change [http://www.unfccc.de/] Greenpeace [http://www.greenpeace.org.uk] Friends of the earth [http://www.foe.org] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 26 Guardian Unlimited: Blair calls for UK to lead on climate change World science conference to discuss how to avert 'disaster' Paul Brown, environment correspondent Wednesday September 15, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Tony Blair has called a world scientific conference for next February to decide an upper limit on how much the temperature can rise before the world faces the "catastrophic consequences of climate change". He said the idea was to put pressure on the US administration to take action and to include China and India in a programme of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Speaking last night in London to an audience mainly of business people but including the Prince of Wales and environmental groups, he said global warming "has become alarming and was simply unsustainable in the long term". It was not just a question of adjustment. "I mean a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power, that it alters radically human existence." He said it was not some distant threat centuries ahead. "I mean in the lifetime of my children certainly; and possibly within my own." Even the Kyoto protocol, which the US has repudiated, was insufficient to address the problem of climate change and he would use the presidency of the G8, which he holds next year, to put pressure on the US to rejoin the process and go beyond Kyoto. He said that "to acquire global leadership on the issue then Britain must demonstrate it first at home". He announced that sustainable development would be incorporated to every one of the new schools in the current huge building programme. "It will be in its bricks and mortar and the way the school uses and generates its own power. Our students won't be just told about sustainable development, they will see and work within it: a living learning place in which to explore what a sustainable lifestyle means." And in another move to silence critics in the green movement that the prime minister's rhetoric is not matched by action, Mr Blair said building regulations would be changed to make new homes and offices more energy efficient. He said the new Thames Gateway development would be made sustainable in both transport and energy use to demonstrate what was possible with new development. He conceded that while the UK was doing better in reducing greenhouse gases than most countries, it might not be on course for the 20% reduction his government had promised before the last election. Currently it was 14% and rising slightly. As a result, the government would today publish a review of its efforts on targets so far and Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, was producing a comprehensive five-year plan for the environment this year and sustainable development plan early in 2005 to address shortcomings in the programme. Although Mr Blair referred to nuclear power saying the government would turn to it if necessary, his speech was about technological innovation to start new business and create jobs in renewables. Earlier, he had spent two hours visiting a solar power company, Solar Century, and talking to young people about the need for action on climate change. As a result he said: "We have been warned. On most issues we ask children to listen to their parents. On climate change, it is parents who should listen to their children. Now is the time to start." He said solar panels no longer needed to be large panes placed on the roof of buildings but could be incorporated into windows. Returning to the international theme, he said the UK had demonstrated that economic growth did not have to be at the expense of the environment. Between 1990 and 2002 the UK economy grew by 36% while greenhouse gas emissions fell by around 15%. "The world's richest nations in the G8 have a responsibility to lead the way: for the strong nations to better help the weak." He said Russia was needed to ratify the Kyoto protocol to bring it into effect but that would be only a first step. "We know there is disagreement over this issue but the US remains a signatory to the climate change convention and recently the US energy secretary and the commercial secretary jointly issued a report accepting the potential damage to the planet through global warming." He said the scientific conference in Exeter in February at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change would address "the big questions". "What level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self evidently too much? What options do we have to avoid such levels?" Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace, said: "This was an emotional speech which promises strong diplomacy but we need to bring forward the domestic actions to the next three months to give the UK the authority it needs to pull it off." Prime ministers' promises Margaret Thatcher "The problem of global climate change is one that affects us all," she said in a groundbreaking speech to the UN in November 1989. "It is no good squabbling over who should pay." What happened next: In closing the coalmines she indirectly gave the UK a world lead in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and she opened the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, now a world leader. John Major "Today we are here, not to argue for a national cause, but for the future of our planet," he told the first Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992. What happened next: The UK signed the UN climate change convention and the biodiversity convention. Tony Blair "Earth is the only planet in the solar system with an environment that can sustain life. Our solemn duty as leaders of the world is to treasure that precious heritage," he told the UN a month after he took office. What happened next: The UK took a leading role in negotiating the 1999 Kyoto agreement on reducing CO2 emissions and undertook a 12.5% cut in UK greenhouse gases. A pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 20% in the 2001 Labour manifesto has since been reduced to an aspiration and is unlikely to be met. At the Earth Summit in September 2002 he restated his commitment but told how the US "stood outside" over targets which could damage its economy. Since then CO2 emissions have risen. Special report Green politics Useful link Green party of England and Wales [http://www.greenparty.org.uk] Email us Email your comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk [ politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Blair's global warning Wednesday September 15, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] No one reading or hearing the prime minister's impassioned speech last night on the urgent need to tackle climate change could doubt his sincerity in this vital area. Speaking at a dinner hosted by the Prince of Wales business and the environment programme, he called it the world's greatest environmental challenge, which was causing global warming at a rate "that began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long-term". He added that the long-term did not mean centuries but within his children's lifetime - and possibly within his own as well. Environmentalists will inevitably be disappointed at the lack of bold new measures. One of the few new items was a pledge to argue strongly for aviation to be brought within the EU's emissions trading scheme when Britain assumes the presidency of the EU next year. This is a thoroughly creditable aim, but is somewhat tarnished by the government's decision earlier this year to endorse a huge expansion of airports, despite advice from a royal commission that no more runways should be built because of the effects on climate change. To be fair, the government has a relatively good record on climate change, both compared with its own targets in other policy areas and set against what other countries are doing. Even its critics admit that the government is on course to meet its Kyoto target of a 12.5% decline in greenhouse gas emissions during the 20 years to 2010 - even though much of the progress is due to the decline of coal, which was engineered by the previous Conservative administration. During the course of a thoughtful speech on the environment this week Michael Howard, the Tory leader, was right to point out that under Tony Blair's watch CO2 emissions have actually risen. He was also right to call Labour's policy on transport a "jumble of contradictions". Good green rhetoric by Labour has been undermined by a failure to solve the growing problems of road transport (not least by abandoning the Conservatives' fuel duty escalator) and by endorsing airport expansion. Yesterday, Mr Blair said that the minimum standard for the energy performance of new houses was being raised by 25% a year. That is fine - but he did not say whether the benefits would be negated by the huge number of new homes to be built as part of the government's plans to solve the housing crisis. Individual countries can make big contributions on their own. The scope for Britain to exploit wind, solar and wave power - and to build an international business in the process - is enormous. The government has already made substantial progress with wind power and its intention to stimulate the harnessing of energy from wave power makes its aspiration to have 20% of Britain's energy requirements met from renewable resources by 2020 a credible aim. Mr Blair was careful yesterday, however, not to rule out more nuclear plants. Yet in the end this is a global problem. It therefore needs a global solution. Next year, Britain intends to use its presidency of the European Union and, more important, the G8 group of leading industrialised countries, to negotiate a blueprint for survival. Mr Blair's most urgent priority to help stem global warning is to use whatever influence he will have on the Bush administration (if it wins the November election) to persuade the US to accept the Kyoto targets. America has under 5% of the world's population but is responsible for almost 25% of carbon dioxide omissions. This task will not be easy because, as Mr Blair reminded us yesterday, the US senate voted 95-0 to refuse ratification. But bringing the US back on board is the single most important thing that needs to be done to conquer climate change. The world - and Mr Blair - have a lot to gain from that. Green party of England and Wales [http://www.greenparty.org.uk] Email your comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 28 SA: Business Day: Bail postponed for nuclear accused The bail application of two Randburg men charged under laws against the proliferation of nuclear weapons was postponed at the Vanderbijlpark Regional Court until Thursday to give their lawyers time to study new documents. Randburg engineering company directors Gerhard Wisser and Daniel Geiges were arrested last Wednesday. They face four charges of allegedly possessing equipment and components that could lead to the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. Wisser and Geiges, originally from Germany and Switzerland respectively, face charges for the alleged possession of uranium enriching equipment. Their lawyers said they needed more time to study and reply to "voluminous documentation", which also contained affidavits relating to their arrests. When led up to the court, Wisser, the managing director of Krisch Engineering, looked calm, but his director Geiges looked bleak. Wisser's attorney, Claudia Privato, said the documents they needed to study related to the state opposing bail for their clients. Wisser was already on bail on similar charges in Germany. The SA Council for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons said the arrests came as part of an international investigation into uranium enrichment equipment intended for Libya's now abandoned nuclear weapons programme. The men's arrest came after similar charges were unexpectedly withdrawn against Vanderbijlpark engineering company director Johan Meyer. Wisser's advocate, Anand Choudree, said earlier he wanted bail for Wisser on the grounds that a German court, where he faced similar charges, had also granted bail. "We will plead not guilty and would like to proceed to trial with alacrity," he said. The policeman investigating the case refused to comment on the whereabouts of Meyer. Meyer's attorney Heinrich Badenhorst said he would release a statement on behalf of his client on Wednesday. Sapa Wednesday 15 September 2004 http://www.bdfm.co.za/ BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd disclaims all liability for any loss, ***************************************************************** 29 BBC: Blair 'shocked' by climate change Last Updated: Tuesday, 14 September, 2004 [Tony Blair] Mr Blair wants to use Britain's G8 presidency to push for change Tony Blair has said time is running out for tackling climate change. The prime minister, speaking ahead of a major speech on the issue, said he had been shocked by scientists' warnings about the growth of the problem. He told BBC Radio 1: "We will start to notice within reasonably short periods of time real difficulties." Environmental campaigners fear Mr Blair's speech on Tuesday evening will contain no firm policies to combat global warming. But media reports say he may call for measures to control aviation pollution. The prime minister will set out his vision to the Prince of Wales' Business and the Environment charity on Tuesday evening in London. Extreme weather On Monday, Tory leader Michael Howard accused Mr Blair of squandering the chance to lead efforts against climate change. The prime minister is expected to respond by saying he wants to use Britain's presidency of the G8 next year to push the major industrialised nations towards environmentally sound policies. He will warn of forecasts that sea levels could rise by another 88cm by the end of the 21st Century, threatening 100 million people around the planet. Unchecked climate change h the potential to be catastrophic in both human and economic terms Prime Minister Tony Blair He will echo the government chief scientist's warnings that "unchecked climate change has the potential to be catastrophic in both human and economic terms". On Tuesday morning, Mr Blair told a private meeting with environmental professionals: "It's a huge issue but time is running out. "When I had my last presentation from government scientists on this I was shocked about how the speed of this is gathering." Disappointment fears Chief scientist Sir David King said earlier this year that climate change was a bigger problem than the threat of terrorism. The prime minister told the meeting he did not think the US Senate would ratify the Kyoto agreement on climate change. But at the G8 summits, which Britain chairs next year, governments had to accept the scientific evidence explicitly and say how to take the process forward. [Wrecked cars in Boscastle] Parts of the UK have been affected by extreme weather this year Mr Blair said he wanted to develop technologies such as solar energy. He added: "The problem for a lot of people as individuals, is that it's not that they don't care, they just don't know how to implement environmentally sustainable lifestyles. "They get confused about whether they are really making a difference or not, and is it just a waste of time." After the meeting, he told Radio 1's Newsbeat: "This is a serious issue and it is going to get worse... because every year we are piling more green house gases in to the atmosphere... "There are whole communities that are going to be affected. The time to act is now." Campaigner reaction BBC environment correspondent Sarah Mukherjee said Mr Blair's speech risked disappointing environmental campaigners if no specific policies were outlined. She said one campaigner who worked closely with the government had said he believed the prime minister wanted to stop climate change - but was not convinced Mr Blair knew what that meant in practice. Some reports say the prime minister will push for the aviation industry to be brought within the EU's emissions trading scheme. The prime minister may also face pressure to take action to push US President George Bush to take climate change seriously. The US has yet to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol under which industrialised nations agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker said if Mr Blair was sincere he would scrap government plans for more roads and airport terminals. Mr Baker asked: "How many hurricanes and tornadoes will it take for the prime minister to realise that paying lip service to the environment is just no use?" ***************************************************************** 30 IAEA: Expert Meeting on Control of Nuclear Fuel Cycle IAEA Director General Calls on Group to Study Possible Multilateral Approaches Staff Report 10 September 2004 [Bruno Pellaud] The expert group meeting was chaired by Mr. Bruno Pellaud (centre) of Switzerland, who was formerly Deputy Director General of the IAEA Department of Safeguards. (Photo Credit: D. Calma/IAEA) + Story Resources + Focus: Nuclear Fuel Cycle » + Multilateral Approaches to Fuel Cycle + Towards A Safer World, by IAEA Director General, The Economist, October 2003 Given the emerging threats to the nuclear non-proliferation regime, it is time to consider possible multilateral approaches to better control sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle - that is, uranium enrichment and plutonium separation - Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, told the inaugural meeting of an international expert group assembled to study the issue. The meeting of 23 experts follows the Director General´s suggestion to the IAEA´s General Conference in 2003 that wide dissemination of the most proliferation sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle could be the Achilles heel of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The renewed interest in international cooperation on nuclear issues provides an impetus to the possible evolution of the regime to fit 21st century realities, the Director General said. The task of the expert group is to build upon past efforts, which started with the Baruch Plan of 1946 and included more recent efforts undertaken during the period of the Cold War in the 1970s and 1980s. The group has been asked to report its findings to the Director General by the spring of 2005. Dr. ElBaradei said that in recent years the nuclear non-proliferation regime has been under tremendous stress as a result of the growth in both supply and demand for technology related to nuclear weapons and the production of associated nuclear materials. The world has learned that nuclear technology and know-how is no longer confined to a few countries, and that there exist illicit international supply networks in nuclear equipment, expertise and material, which have proved capable of supporting the clandestine efforts of a number of States within the NPT. Furthermore, sub-State groups have expressed clear interest in acquiring nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Dr. ElBaradei suggested that multilateral control of sensitive parts of the fuel cycle should be given new consideration, in light of several new developments. With regard to the spread of technology, he noted that the traditional means of controlling the use of nuclear technology had been challenged. Enrichment technology has in some cases been passed to the private sector, and an increasing number of countries are now developing capabilities. In addition, it is clear that existing export controls are no longer sufficient and need to be made binding and universal. In addition, the Agency´s safeguards nuclear verification system has also been challenged by the rapid spread of nuclear technology and knowledge. The Director General stated that while the Additional Protocol to safeguards agreements has strengthened the Agency´s ability to carry out its verification mandate, nuclear verification remains inherently complicated and difficult - and it cannot provide absolute guarantees. At the outset of the study, Dr. ElBaradei asked the group to be mindful of the importance of their work and its potential to have a positive impact on the international security front. He said that the group must be aware of the perceptions and expectations of all interested stakeholders, and that to be successful new approaches must go beyond the outright denial of technology. The study should serve to support decision making in government and industry by providing: 1. a clear baseline of agreed factual information; 2. an initial analysis of the most promising institutional and technical approaches; 3. an overview of possible options and the associated legal, security, economic and technological incentives and disincentives; and 4. possible avenues for attracting any necessary financial investment. The Director General noted the importance of examining multilateral options with respect to both the front end and the back end of the fuel cycle, noting that any solution must be inclusive and without reference to so-called "good" and "bad" countries. He asked the group to not confine itself to finding "one-size-fits-all approaches"; what works in one region may not be the most ideal approach in another. The key, he said, is fairness and recognizing the interests of all parties. Dr. ElBaradei said that there are three areas of vital importance: the first being how to guarantee the supply of fuel for nuclear generated electricity; the second, how to set up one or more international repositories for spent nuclear fuel; and the third, how to bring about multilateral oversight for sensitive parts of the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, namely uranium enrichment and reprocessing. The latter might be the most difficult - but any progress the group could make towards identifying a possible approach would be most welcome. Dr. ElBaradei suggested that the group might want to devote its initial attention to the first two issues. The Director General noted that sanctions have not proven to be a workable solution, and in many cases simply serve as a catalyst for clandestine nuclear programmes. He suggested that a solution to the problem of assurances of supply would help take away the economic and national self-sufficiency arguments, and would obviate the need for every State to develop its own nuclear fuel cycle. He added that, under its Statute, the Agency might be able to facilitate the provision of international guarantees in this area. Dr. ElBaradei closed by noting that success would not be entirely within the exclusive control of the group itself. The adoption or implementation of their recommendations could also depend upon progress being made on other related fronts - for example, progress in nuclear disarmament, and in particular progress towards the conclusion of an internationally verified fissile material cut-off treaty, banning the production of enriched uranium and separated plutonium for nuclear weapons, a treaty that has been called for in numerous United Nations General Assembly resolutions adopted unanimously since 1993. But the stakes of success for the group are very high; a lack of progress in confronting the growing risk of nuclear proliferation, in Dr. ElBaradei's words, "could lead to self-destruction". The expert group concluded its inaugural meeting on Friday September 3 and will meet again towards the end of October. Copyright 2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: [Official.Mail@iaea.org] Disclaimer ***************************************************************** 31 Daily Times: NA passes N-export control bill Wednesday, September 15, 2004 By Shaukat Piracha ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly on Tuesday evening passed a bill that will apply export controls on goods, technologies, material and equipment related to nuclear and biological weapons and their delivery systems. The house rejected four amendments moved by Liaqat Baloch of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). Three more amendments (two by the Opposition and one by Treasury member MP Bhindara) were withdrawn. The house debated the bill for around three hours on a motion moved by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr Sher Afgan to suspend the rules and take up the bill. State Minister for Foreign Affairs Khusro Bakhtiar wound up the debate on the bill saying that its passage would fulfil Pakistan’s obligations under UN Security Council resolution 1540, which asked all member states to put in place laws to curb proliferation. Chaudhry Aitizaz Ahsan, of the Pakistan People’s Party-Parliamentarians (PPP-P) criticised the government for passing the bill without outing it to the National Assembly Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Opposition pressed the government to refer the bill to a select committee of the house so that the Opposition members’ input could be incorporated in the bill. Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) said the bill had the potential to limit Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Liaqat Baloch said the Opposition had no major differences on the bill, but had objections about the procedure adopted to make this legislation. The House also witnessed an exchange of harsh words between Mr MP Bhindara of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and MMA’s Hafiz Salman Butt and Khawja Saad Rafiq of the PML-N. Mr Bhindara withdrew the remarks. State Minister for Information Technology Ali Asjad Malhi said that there was no need to move any court against Dr Qadeer Khan because he confessed his crime and was pardoned. The house passed the bill and was adjourned until Thursday at 5pm. Home | Main Daily Times - All Rights Reserved [http://www.wcis.com.pk] ***************************************************************** 32 Tri-Valley Herald: Uranium research toughens dialogue 9/14/2004 Concealable lasers undermines S. Korea's assertions that work was done by 'rogue scientists' By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER For enriching uranium, South Korea chose a sophisticated and easily concealable method using exotic green lasers that throws into question government assertions that it was the unauthorized work of "rogue scientists." The method, pioneered separately by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Soviet researchers in the 1970s, would have cost at least several million dollars and posed nuclear-safety risks that would not have gone unnoticed in a U.S. laboratory. South Korea's belated admission that its scientists experimented with laser-isotopic separation of uranium metal and tried harvesting plutonium from reactor fuel are certain to complicate negotiations over suspect nuclear activities in North Korea and Iran. Arms-control experts said the revelations could harden the resistance of North Korea and Iran to freezing their nuclear efforts. "If South Korea isn't dealt with in the same way as Iran, then Iran can say it hasn't been dealt with fairly and that if you're a U.S. ally, you get a pass," said David Albright, a scientist and former weapons inspector who heads the Institute for Science and International Security. U.S. officials quietly dissuaded South Korea from pursuing nuclear weapons in the mid-1990s, after catching wind of plans by its military leader- ship to build a plutonium-pro- ducing reactor and purchase large "hot cells" for chemically separating plutonium from reactor fuel. But the more recent revelations suggest that its scientists kept pursuing small-scale experiments in uranium enrichment and plutonium separation as potential routes to an arsenal to deter North Korea. South Korean diplomats and research executives told the International Atomic Energy Agency that a small group of scientists pursued laser enrichment without the knowledge or approval of the government. But the group worked inside the large, well-funded Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute in Taechon, a town established by the government as its "Science City." And the team had been pursuing laser spectroscopy and enrichment techniques for a decade before the uranium enrichment experiments that the government now says took place in January and February of 2000. It took 25 years and close to $2 billion for Livermore to perfect atomic vapor laser isotopic separation or AVLIS, as the process is known. Scientists use a high-temperature or an electron beam to vaporize uranium metal inside a special chamber pumped free of oxygen or supplied with an inert gas. That's essential because particles of uranium, in contact with oxygen or water, can burst into flame. Scientists then shoot laser beams shoot through the cloud of molten uranium to energize U-235 atoms, changing their electrical charge so that they are drawn to charged plates inside the chamber. It's an expensive proposition, with more sophisticated, production versions costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to build and operate safely. "Certainly the laser technology itself is probably several million dollars, and I would think they would spend a similar amount on the system itself to vaporize and separate the uranium," said one U.S. expert. In the early 1990s, a private U.S. nonproliferation researcher began tracing the South Koreans' efforts through their published scientific reports. "These guys were pretty sharp. They had a trained cadre of physicists in this area, and they were working with three or four universities," said the researcher, Mark Gorwitz. The South Koreans moved to separation of medically valuable rare-earth elements, such as gadolinium and lanthanum. "Obviously uranium was one in a series of elements to look at. It's a logical progression," said Gorwitz. "It shouldn't have come as a surprise" to South Korea, the United States or the International Atomic Energy Agency. According to South Korean statements, its scientists used five pounds of uranium metal as feedstock and ended up with 200 milligrams of laser-enriched uranium. According to Republic of Korea statements to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the enrichment levels ranging to from a few percent to 77 percent, well beyond commercial reactor fuel and in the realm of weapons-grade enrichment. But U.S. experts say the amounts, if borne out by investigation, suggests the South Korean team was still working at a "benchtop" experimental level and never teased good efficiency out of their lasers. "They were probably at the stage where they were playing with the process and trying to tune it, but they obviously didn't do very well," said another U.S. expert in laser separation. South Korea never reported the experiments, as required under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Albright suspects the scientists pursued laser separation just to be sure they could do it, if South Korea were later forced to build nuclear weapons by confrontation with a nuclear armed North Korea. "The scientists may have been thinking, 'If the day comes when we need to do this, yeah we can,'" he said. The consequences are likely to hamper efforts at restraining the nuclear efforts of North Korea and Iran, Albright said. "It makes it harder," he said. "North Korea can be genuinely worried, and they're paranoid so they see the worst things. It will feed into the hardliners there that say they really need a nuclear arsenal, and it gives them a tremendous proproganda club." North Korea may agree to inspections to verify the state of its nuclear work only if South Korea also agrees to open its military facilities. "North Korea can make demands for things to happen in South Korea that may not be so easy for S. Korea to agree with," Albright said. Tri-Valley Herald All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 33 Boston.com: Agents knew case flimsy, Powell says The Boston Globe" Doubts on Iraq kept from him, he testifies By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | September 14, 2004 WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that at the time he made the case to the United Nations for the invasion of Iraq some US intelligence officials already knew many of the claims about weapons and terrorist ties were suspect, but they had not informed him or other senior policy makers about their doubts. Powell has previously said that it later became clear some information cited in his February 2003 speech to the UN Security Council was ''not solid." He went further yesterday, indicating in testimony to Congress that intelligence officials, whom he did not identify, were aware of that beforehand. ''What . . . distressed me is that there were some in the intelligence community who had knowledge that the sourcing was suspect and that was not known to me," Powell told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. ''They knew at the time I was saying it that some of the sourcing was suspect." Powell stated he has learned some intelligence reports produced before his UN speech included ''disclaimers" that were not circulated to top officials, including himself and President Bush. After more than a year of fruitless searching, Powell repeated his view that at this point it is ''unlikely we will find any stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Senators and former intelligence officials said the testimony raised new questions about why US spy agencies failed to correct what they knew were false statements and why senior officials planning the war, including Powell himself, failed to ask for more information. The comments also appeared to renew public debate over whether US intelligence was simply wrong about Iraqi weapons or whether doubts had been ignored by senior officials planning the war. ''It leads to about a dozen follow-up questions, which I'm going to have to wait for," said Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Members of Congress often submit written follow-up questions to official witnesses, particularly if classified information is involved. Powell presented the US case against Iraq to the Security Council, where he provided a litany of what he referred to as facts -- such as the existence of mobile biological weapons labs, tons of chemical agents, evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and Hussein's harboring of an Al Qaeda operative. He said at the time that the evidence proved Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and had links to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda's leader. The United Nations did not support a resolution drafted by the United States and Britain to sanction the use of force to disarm the Iraqi regime. Powell did not specify which pieces of information in his speech were based on suspect sourcing, and he did not say how he had learned that. He did say he had removed from his draft speech some claims about Al Qaeda that he said were uncorroborated. In the past Powell has said the information he relied on came directly from the CIA. The CIA's public affairs office yesterday declined to respond to Powell's comments. Powell testified along with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on how proposed changes in the structure of intelligence agencies, such as the creation of a national intelligence director, would help avoid such a massive breakdown in the future. The secretary of state said he believes that a powerful intelligence czar to oversee all US spy agencies and give a full hearing to divergent views would place the United States in a ''better position" to avoid the same kind of mistakes made in his UN speech. Former Iraq weapons inspectors and Powell's own intelligence advisers agree that the CIA did not include all the necessary caveats put forth by its own analysts and those from other agencies, including the State Department and the Department of Energy, when Powell met with CIA officials to review intelligence reports in the days before his UN address. But some quickly criticized the secretary of state's testimony, noting that even his own intelligence advisers warned him that many of the claims in his speech were highly questionable. ''It's disingenuous for Powell not to mention the fact that even his own people were doing their best to warn him about categorical statements and warn him about exaggerating the threats, warning him about the reliability of some of the human intelligence reporting," said Greg Thielmann, formerly Powell's chief of intelligence on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Thielmann said analysts at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research provided Powell with a report just two days before the speech calling into question many of the claims. Among them were disagreements that Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubing was for use in a nuclear weapons program. Thielmann had left the administration a few weeks before the speech. Powell and others in the Bush administration have acknowledged that many of the conclusions about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda reached before the war were wrong. But they have noted that other allied countries also erred in concluding Iraq had and was building more weapons of mass destruction. David Kay, the former CIA official who led the hunt for the weapons in Iraq after the invasion, said earlier this year that ''we were all wrong." Yet Powell's comments to the Senate committee mark the first detailed acknowledgement by a senior Bush administration official that there were deep doubts in the intelligence community before the war. Congressional investigations into prewar intelligence have previously disclosed misgivings about the quality of the intelligence, but those concerns had been quiet or ignored during the debate leading up to the invasion. Most of Powell's major assertions were based on faulty information. They included the claim about aluminum tubes; the existence of mobile bioweapons labs, which came from a discredited source; stockpiles of hundreds of tons of chemical agents such as VX and Sarin nerve gas; and hidden Scud missiles armed with germ warheads. ''It's hard to find any major statement in his speech that is true," said Joseph Cirincione, a weapons proliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He said ''the problems with the intelligence don't excuse Powell's suspension of his own disbelief to support this flimsy case." Others, however, credited Powell for honesty in his testimony. ''You wonder if Powell heard the whole story," said David Albright, a former UN nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq. ''He is the only one who is trying to wrestle with 'what did i do, was I wrong, what does it mean?' It is tragic that it is Powell who is wrestling with this while others in the administration push it aside." c Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 34 Scotsman.com News: World Faces Environmental Catastrophe, Warns Blair Tue 14 Sep 2004 By Chris Moncrieff, PA News The Prime Minister will warn today that climate change has the potential to unleash a global human and economic catastrophe if left unchecked. Mr Blair’s grim warning this evening – in which he will also call for a “green industrial revolution†– coincides with a forecast that nuclear power will have to provide half of Britain’s electricity needs if the Government is to meet its key international commitment on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power provides one-fifth of Britain’s electricity. But Adrian Gault, director of strategic development at the Department of Trade and Industry’s energy strategy unit. has advised that nuclear power must play a major role in electricity generation if Britain is to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the international concordat under which developed nations have agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels. In a major speech, Mr Blair will warn of forecasts that sea levels could rise by another 35 inches by the end of this century – threatening 100 million people around the planet now living below that level. He will say he wants to use next year’s British presidency of the G8 club of major industrialised countries to build a scientific and policy consensus for vigorous action at a global level to check climate change. The Prime Minister will also focus on the environmental impact of the expanding airline sector, saying that he wants to use the UK’s presidency of the European Union next year to press for the aviation industry to be brought within the EU’s emissions trading scheme. Mr Blair will tell an audience in London that the world cannot afford to ignore the evidence provided by melting glaciers, declining sea ice and snow cover and increasingly frequent extreme weather events. He will note that the UN now estimates that last year’s European heatwave caused up to 30,000 premature deaths and this summer has seen violent weather extremes in parts of the UK. “We cannot afford to ignore the warnings,†Mr Blair will say. He will add: “We have to do more, as I share the Chief Scientist’s (Sir David King) view that unchecked climate change has the potential to be catastrophic in both human and economic terms.†Mr Blair will say that his ambition for Britain’s G8 presidency is to “build a scientific and policy consensus among governments around which vigorous global action can be takenâ€. He will caution that there is little point in governments taking tough and unpopular decisions on a whole range of issues if they ignore the compelling scientific evidence that without action, future generations will have to contend with heatwaves, flooding and other problems that devastate huge areas. “We cannot let the world of tomorrow pay the price for the pollution of today,†he will insist. The scale of the challenge, Mr Blair will acknowledge, is daunting. Carbon dioxide emissions must peak and begin to fall in the next 10 to 30 years in order to avoid the worst projections becoming a reality. Yet by 2020 the world may need 40% more energy than it uses today, with much of the extra demand coming from developing countries. Mr Blair will also argue that the UK has a real opportunity to lead the world in developing renewable energies such as wave and tidal power, bio-energy and hydrogen fuel cells. “We need a green industrial revolution for the 21st century that sustains growth but protects the environment,†Mr Blair will say. Mr Blair will also argue that the Kyoto Protocol should be regarded only as a first step in combating climate change. The US has yet to sign up to Kyoto, and Mr Blair’s words are likely to be interpreted as an appeal to the US’s President Bush to take climate change more seriously. [ ***************************************************************** 35 Turkist Press: Russia Repatriates Uranium From Eastern Europe In Fight Against Terror [http://www.turkishpress.com/] Tuesday, September 14, 2004 [http://www.anatolia.com] MOSCOW, Sept 14 (AFP) - Russia has already recovered 900 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium from Eastern Europe and Libya to prevent it from falling "into the hands of terrorists," Russian atomic energy officials said Tuesday. "In total, Russia has repatriated some 900 kilograms (1,980 pounds) of enriched uranium from the reactors of research institutes in former Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Libya," ITAR-TASS quoted an official at Rosatom, Russia's atomic energy agency, as saying. The initiative is part of an US-Russia agreement backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to remove enriched uranium fuel from countries where it could potentially be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. "The goal of the US and of Russia ... is to reduce the increasing risk of nuclear material falling into the hands of international terrorists," Rosatom spokesman Nikolai Chingaryov told the news agency. According to Rosatom, Russia has been given the green light by 12 different states, including ex-Soviet republics and countries in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, to remove enriched uranium from 16 reactors. Last week, the US and Russia repatriated 11 kilograms (24.2 pounds) of enriched uranium from the Academy of Science of the former Soviet republic of Uzbekistan, whose government is facing growing Islamist unrest. The fuel included highly-enriched uranium that could be used for manufacturing nuclear weapons which was brought to Uzbekistan during Soviet times. In June 2001, the Russian parliament had passed amendments to the law on the evironmental protection allowing Russia to import used nuclear fuel for stocking and reprocessing. In June of this year, Russia said it was building an international facility to stock used nuclear fuel, under the control of the IAEA. [http://www.afp.com/] Copyright 2004 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse. © 1997-2004 Anatolia.com Inc. ***************************************************************** 36 UK Independent: Blair unveils his green offensive with demand US ratifies Kyoto By Andrew Grice, Political Editor 14 September 2004 Tony Blair will today urge the United States to commit itself to tougher action to combat global warming and promise that a list of green policies will be included in Labour's general election manifesto. The Prime Minister is to raise the profile of green issues as part of a drive to woo back people disaffected by the Iraq war. Labour's private polling shows that "progressive voters", many of whom were alienated by Mr Blair's stance on Iraq, regard the environment as a top priority. Speaking to a conference staged by the Prince of Wales's Business and the Environment Programme, Mr Blair will stop short of a full-frontal attack on President George Bush, but will make clear that when Britain takes over the presidency of the G8 group of leading industrialised nations in January, it will expect America to accept its responsibilities on global warming. Mr Blair, who believes the Kyoto treaty does not go far enough, will reiterate his call for the United States to sign it. He will identify climate change as one of the the greatest challenges facing the planet, saying that one country acting alone cannot solve the problem. He believes that nations who promise to act must be assured that they will not be undermined by "free riders" who refuse to play their part. He will also urge businesses to join the battle, arguing that companies must not drag their feet about implementing higher environmental standards. He will say that there is no conflict between protecting the environment and a strong economy, and that "green" scientific advances can help to boost growth. He will insist that economic development, social justice and environmental modernisation must go hand in hand. The Prime Minister will seek to recapture the initiative on green policy by pledging action both abroad and at home, and insisting that the Government's record on the environment is better than it is often given credit for. He wants environmental protection to form a plank of Labour's manifesto for the election expected next May, which is likely to include a firm pledge to boost renewable energy and build more wind farms. He will call for a new partnership between central and local government and other public bodies to promote sustainability. The pressure on the United States to act will be stepped up this week by Stephen Byers, a former cabinet minister who is a close ally of Mr Blair and co-chairs an international task force on climate change. He is in Washington for three days of talks with the Bush administration, John Kerry's Democratic campaign team, Congressmen, business interests and environmental groups. Mr Byers said yesterday: "The reality is that unless we can get the United States engaged - responsible as it is for around a quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions - then any hopes of successfully tackling global warming will be doomed to failure. "I know that there is a considerable body of opinion in America that believes the introduction of measures to tackle global warming will adversely affect the American way of life. But for millions of Americans, climate change is already having a damaging and disrupting effect on their lives. Time is running out if we are to win this battle against climate change, and we need America to join the international effort." Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Tony Blair has an historic opportunity to lead the world in the crucial battle against climate change. We are delighted that he will be putting it at the top of the European Union and G8 political agenda. "The Prime Minister must awaken the world to the scale of the problem and say that the time has come for tough decisions and tough action. But the Prime Minister's warning will carry greater weight if it is backed by firm action to tackle the problem at home." THE GREEN AUDIT: SIX EXPERTS GIVE THEIR VERDICT Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth Tony Blair and his ministers have a mixed record on environmental issues. He has been a strong advocate for global action, but traffic increases and coal-fired power plants have seen carbon dioxide emissions increase under Labour.Ecological goals lose out to policies that increase economic growth. There have been some improvements in wildlife protection, but we still have huge challenges in agriculture. Farmers are disappearing almost as fast as sparrows and the policies to save them are still not in place. Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace Tony Blair is serious about climate change. Ever since 1997, he has prioritised a global agreement, and only he can influence Bush on this. But this is compromised by his government's feeble efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. Prescott's Transport White Paper - a good package of policies which could have controlled carbon from road transport - was torn up almost as soon as it was published. Imminent airport expansion would undo all efforts to reduce our impact on the climate. Michael Meacher, former environment minister Europe is leading the world in climate policies and Germany and Britain are the main reformers. Our target is a reduction in emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2011. Today it is about 5 per cent. Climate change is a worse risk than terrorism - 3,000 people died in 9/11 but 160,000 a year die because of disease caused by climate change. ButBush has let down the whole world. We have had no return for kowtowing to Bush over Iraq. It is time we had some pay-back. Caroline Lucas, Green MEP I'd like to see the same commitment, resources and energy that was used in Iraq used in the fight against climate change. Since Labour came to power in 1997, emissions from aircraft alone have risen by up to 23 per cent. Every time there's a fuel crisis the Government backs down, instead of using their vast majority to passing necessary but contentious legislation. If Mr Blair says nuclear power is a viable alternative, it would show a complete ignorance of the issues. The incremental measures Mr Blair is likely to propose aren't sufficient. Sir Jonathon Porritt, chairman, Sustainable Develop-ment Commission Labour is one of the few governments that are on course to meet their environmental targets in the coming years. The Prime Minister has taken a lead role in persuading other countries to move faster ... The Government must address domestic environmental policy ... Transport is a shambles in terms of its environmental implications and Labour needs to pursue their targets for renewables, energy efficiency and combined heat and power. Sara Parkin, founding programme director, Forum for the Future Labour's policy is not commensurate with the overwhelming evidence of climate change and they haven't twigged the economic opportunities associated with low-carbon goods and services. There is an economic market gagging for investment ... There are advantages in secure, affordable low-carbon supplies - clothes, food or whatever, yet the Government is wimpish. If you want people to behave differently, you must make them understand why. UK Independent Ltd. ***************************************************************** 37 IAEA: Inspection in Iran, Libya & the Republic of Korea Transcript of the Director General´s Press Statement on IAEA Inspection in Iran, Libya & the Republic of Korea IAEA Headquarters, Vienna Delivered on morning and afternoon of 13 September 2004 This is a rush transcript. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. I hope that the Board deliberation as always, will go smoothly. I will report this morning to the Board on how I see things. Obviously there will be a good time spent on responding to my statement, in drafting resolutions, and I´ll keep you informed as we go along. Q: Dr. ElBaradei, do you think that November should be the end of the process for Iran? A: Well, I never set any deadline. It depends on co-operation. It depends on the kind of co-operation we get from Iran, the kind of co-operation we get from other Member States, which is also indispensable to our ability to understand some of the issues. So, it is an open process and we finish when I believe that we are finished. Afternoon Statement I reported on the state of play of the different issues before the Board. On Libya we have made good advances in our verification of the Libyan programme and we have reached a point where additional activities will be looked at as part of our routine verification activities. With regard to the Republic of Korea, I reported on the new information that came to our knowledge that there was enrichment activity at the experimental level in 2000, and that there was also some separation of plutonium in the early 80s. We obviously have sent a team to Seoul upon ROK informing us of these activities. We still have a lot of work to do. We are getting active co-operation by the Republic of Korea and I hope that co-operation will continue. I will be in a position in November to give a full written report on these activities, including its nature and scope. And hopefully be able by that time to assure the international community that these activities are isolated activities and that all measures have been taken to ensure their non-recurrence. Clearly, any activities that involve separation of plutonium or enriching of uranium are matters of serious concern from a proliferation perspective and therefore we are going to treat them with the seriousness they deserve. With regard to Iran, again as I mentioned to the Board, I made a clear distinction between two types of responsibilities. We assume one is ensuring compliance by Iran of its legal obligation under the Safeguards agreement and the Additional Protocol, and there I am pleased to note, that we are making steady progress in understanding the nature and extent of Iran´s nuclear programme. Some of the issues like laser, like conversion, we have again reached a point when additional work would be conducted as part of our routine, verification activities. With regard to the central issue of enrichment in Iran, again we are making some progress particularly with regard to the contamination. As you saw, I reported, it is plausible, according to our analysis that enrichment did not take place at Kalaye or at Natanz, however we still need to do much more work with regard to the contamination, to make sure that there is no undeclared enrichment in Iran, or undeclared nuclear material there. With regard to the advanced centrifuges, again we are making progress but we still need further information to make sure, to confirm or validate Iran´s statement that nothing has happened in the period between 1995 to 2002. The other set of issues that we are dealing with is the confidence building measures that have been requested by the Board for Iran to suspend enrichment related and reprocessing activities until assurances have been provided by me to the Board and until the Additional Protocol has been fully applied. There again, I reported that while we can assure the Board that there is no enrichment per-se, Iran has reversed some of its earlier decision with regard to testing or producing some enrichment components. I clearly, calling on Iran, as well as many Board Members that at this delicate phase, while we are still verifying Iran´s past programme, it is in the interest of Iran to do its utmost to continue to pursue a policy of full transparency and to show full co-operation, full and active co-operation, for us to be able to resolve the remaining issues in the next few months and provide the required assurances to the international community. To me this should be a precursor, or a trigger for a broader dialogue on many of the underlying issues that are under discussion between Iran and the Europeans, in particular, and the international community in general. So, that´s where we are on some of the issues that we are facing this week. There is obviously a lot of discussion among Board Members on resolutions to respond to my report, but these discussions are at quite an early stage. Q: Has Iran indicated to you today that they have again partially suspended centrifuge assembly and construction? A: I have been in discussion, as I have mentioned, with Iran, the European 3, the United Kingdom, Germany and France, and I have also been in discussion with Iran, urging them to go back into full suspension, the discussion is still ongoing. I still hope that within this week, maybe some positive results can come out of these discussions. That´s obviously part of the discussion Iran is conducting with the three Europeans as part of their discussion with regard to the content of the resolution, which is being discussed. However, in my view, and I made that very clear to Iran, they have everything to benefit by showing full transparency, to try to establish as much confidence as possible at this delicate stage, I think this would be, as I said, could be the beginning of a broader dialogue which would allow a political settlement of this issue. Q: Why is the IAEA conducting verification activities in Iran and not Israel? A: It´s a question I have answered so many times – the Agency has a clear cut jurisdiction, a mandate. Our mandate is to verify nuclear programmes of countries that are party to the NPT. Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as another 184 non-nuclear weapons states. Some other countries like Israel, India, Pakistan as well as the five weapons states, are not party to, are not subject to our verification. India, Pakistan and Israel are not party to the NPT and while I would like, in the future, to see everyone subject to comprehensive verification, right now, the Agency have no jurisdiction or mandate to do such verification. So it is not a question of double standards, it is a question of mandate and jurisdiction that is entrusted by the international community to the Agency. Q: What about reports that enrichment in the Republic of Korea was up to 77%, very close to being bomb grade level. And secondly, do you think in Iran, uranium conversion is part of the agreement to suspend enrichment related activities? A: Well, on the level of enrichment in Korea, Michael, I think we, I would like to wait until we go and do our technical measurements. I know that the average enrichment in Korea was about 10%, there could be some higher peak. But I would like to wait until we do our measurements. On your second question, uranium conversion has always been a controversial issue, whether that has been part of the suspension or not. Iran has stated on a number of occasions that they never accepted suspension with regard to the conversion. At an earlier stage, the Agency thought that they were, that it was part of the suspension, but they made it clear that they never made a commitment to have conversion as part of the suspension. Q: (Inaudible) A: Well it is delicate because the international community, as I mentioned in my report, is clearly concerned about the nature of the Iranian programme and we´d like to clarify any doubts surrounding that programme as early as possible. The programme has also a history of being undeclared for many years so it was difficult for us to reconstruct that programme and it is also part of the problem that there are international concerns about that programme, so it is a delicate stage because we are making progress, but we would like bring our investigation to a closure and yes, I still am of the view that should I get full co-operation, not only by Iran but, I have said, there is an increasing co-operation on the part of Iran, but I´d like to see co-operation also by countries that provided equipment, that provided components. This is crucial to our understanding of some of the issues, like contamination, for example. On the assumption that everybody will give us a hand, I would like to see some of these issues clarified by the end of the year. Q: (Inaudible) A: Our role is to present the facts to the Board of Governors. I have presented the report, which I think is very clear, in terms of where we are today, what we have done with regard to Iran´s compliance with its safeguards´ obligations, what we have done in terms of monitoring confidence building measures, requested by the Board. What is going to be the Board´s reaction, is something, clearly for the Board and it is not for me to express views on. Q: Some members of the Board have expressed the view that the South Korean issue should be reported to the Security Council. Do you share this view? And second part of the question, do you really think that this issue can be dealt with by November, given that new elements and details seem to be coming out daily? A: First of all we need to understand the nature and scope of the activities that took place in the Republic of Korea before we discuss what sort of action the Board needs to take. I think that the Board, at this stage, will simply ask me to continue to investigate the initial report we have received. And it will take us time, I would hope we can finish by November, but if not, then we will continue. Again, it depends on what we see; it depends of the level of co-operation we get from South Korea. But, as I said, so far, I am getting good transparency and good co-operation from Korea and I´ll hope we should get a comprehensive report and get to the bottom of this issue by November. Thank you very much. Copyright 2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: Official.Mail@iaea.org [Official.Mail@iaea.org] Disclaimer ***************************************************************** 38 SABCnews.com: Suspects in WMD case to apply for bail South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © September 14, 2004, 05:42 Two men facing charges under Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Nuclear Energy legislation are expected to apply for bail in the Vanderbijlpark regional court today. Gerhard Wisser and Daniel Geiges were arrested last week. This followed the unexpected release of Johan Meyer, aVanderbijlpark engineer, who faced similar charges. Wisser, a German national, was arrested in Germany last month for allegedly violating arms control legislation in that country. Investigations into their case have been linked to Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear scientist, and the Libyan nuclear programme. ***************************************************************** 39 The Hindu: Successful leak test of TAPP-4 reactor building Tuesday, September 14, 2004 : 1740 Hrs Mumbai, Sept. 14 (PTI): The country's first Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor of the Tarapur Atomic Power Project crossed a major milestone with the successful completion of the leak test of reactor building. The test, conducted yesterday, established the integrity of the containment as also the efficacy of the design, said A I Siddiqui, Senior Manager, Corporate Communications, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL). The test brings the 540 MWe Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR), a step closer to its first criticality, expected towards the end of this year, he said. The reactor building comprises a double containment, following a "dome-inside-dome" concept. It houses the reactor core -- the heart of a nuclear reactor and all other critical nuclear components including the steam generators. The robust containment has a diameter of 60m and an overall height of 50.5m, making it one of the largest containment volume of any reactor in the world. The wall of the inner containment is 750 cm thick and is made of high performance, high strength concrete of grade M60 and is a pre-stressed structure, Siddiqui said. The outer containment, also called secondary containment, 61 cm thick, is a reinforced cement concrete structure. The state-of-the-art containment system ensures that no radioactivity was released in the environment during any phase of plant operation and even under highly unlikely hypothetical accidental conditions, he said. Copyright © 2004, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of ***************************************************************** 40 The Herald: EC poised to approve British Energy bail-out Web Issue 2093 September 14 2004 BEN GRIFFITHS BRITISH Energy's life-saving £5bn restructuring plan yesterday looked destined for approval on September 22 after it emerged that the European Commission was prepared to support the government-backed deal. A source close to the situation said EC officials could next week give the go-ahead for the nuclear power generator's rescue package. However, approval would mean disregarding the concerns of Polygon, the group's rebel shareholder. EC officials were due to meet Polygon this week to discuss its proposals for an alternative restructuring. Polygon, a US hedge fund, has been pressing for other options to be explored since it acquired a stake for a knock-down price in July. East Kilbride-based British Energy was brought to the brink of insolvency by falling wholesale electricity prices. Unless shareholders approve the restructuring, the firm has threatened to de-list its shares leaving investors with nothing. Under the terms of the carve-up, shareholders will be left with 2.5% of the company. The government promised £650m to avoid bankruptcy in return for 65% of its operating cashflow after restructuring in a deal which also gave banks and bondholders 97.2% of British Energy's equity. However, since the deal was cut a year ago, power prices have risen by around 30%, making British Energy a viable business again. [http://www.pressnow.co.uk/] :: About Us :: Terms of Use ***************************************************************** 41 Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee accepts blame for fire [http://www.reformer.com/] September 14, 2004 Brattleboro, VT By CAROLYN LORIÉ Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO --Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee officials pinned the cause of the June 18 transformer fire on their own failure to maintain and monitor equipment, as well as their failure to heed industry operating experience. The early morning fire shut the plant down immediately. It did not return to full power until July 5. During the unplanned outage, Green Mountain Power and Central Vermont Public Service were forced to buy energy on the open market, costing the utilities $525,000 and $800,000, respectively. In an event report dated Aug. 16 and submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, plant officials wrote that the fire was caused by "inadequate preventative maintenance for cleaning and inspections during outages and failure to monitor age related degradation." The report went on to state that plant officials had failed to "effectively use industry operating experience to prevent similar events from occurring at VY." The fire was caused when an accordion-like device meant to expand and contract with the extreme temperature swings around the transformer flexed once too often in its 32-year life and broke loose. It banged around along the plant's bus duct B, one of three pipe-like devices moving huge amounts of power from the plant's generator to its transformer, causing bus duct B to short out. That in turn sent a burst of power through bus duct A, overwhelming its surge protector. Bus duct C was then involved. As the electrical faults continued, they dislodged a flange on an oil line, and the transformer's oil supply was ignited. The report said the failure of both the expansion device and bus duct A's surge suppresser were linked to the plant's failure to implement lessons learned at other nuclear plants -- or as Vermont Yankee put it -- "a failure to effectively use industry (operating experience) to prevent similar events from occurring at" Vermont Yankee. While the equipment in question was inspected during refueling outages, they did not include examinations of the bus ducts. Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said that it was known within the industry as early as 1990 that inspections of the bus ducts were necessary. The plant, however, did not incorporate the practice into its maintenance routine. Williams did not offer an explanation as to why this was not done. According to Neil Sheehan, NRC spokesman for Region I, the report is still under review. The cause and handling of the fire will be included in the regulator's next inspection report slated for November. The NRC will also be looking into whether the plant has had similar events and if sufficient action was taken. Sheehan said he did want to speculate about whether Entergy would be fined. Though plant officials have taken responsibility for the fire, ratepayers may ultimately bear the cost of the outage. The ratepayers protection plan that Entergy agreed upon only goes into affect if an outage is uprate related. According to Vermont Yankee officials, it was not. Dorothy Schnure, spokeswoman for Green Mountain Power, said the utility was still looking into whether it was in agreement with Vermont Yankee's conclusion. Steve Costello, director of public affairs for Central Vermont Public Service, said CVPS was doing the same. The Department of Public Service will also weigh in on whether the ratepayer protection plan should go into effect. If it does not, the utilities can make a case before the Public Service Board to increase rates to absorb some of the costs incurred by the unplanned outage. On June 25, the nuclear power watchdog group, the New England Coalition, petitioned the board to investigate the outage. Last week the board rejected the group's request, stating that the parties involved -- Entergy, the Department of Public Service and the utilities -- argued that the board's involvement would be "premature." In its March 15 order, the board approved a plan in which disputes regarding the ratepayers protection plan could be resolved but since there was no dispute, "there is no need for the board to step in at this point." The Associated Press contributed to this report. Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc., a ***************************************************************** 42 Times Argus: Yankee failed to heed warnings on conditions that led to fire September 14, 2004 By David Gram Associated Press MONTPELIER — The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant failed to heed warnings from two nuclear industry groups about conditions that led to a major fire around the plant's transformer in June, documents show. One of those warnings — relating to the first in a sequence of events that led to the fire — was issued by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, an industry research group, 14 years ago. Robert Williams, spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear, said Monday that Vermont Yankee "routinely" incorporates lessons learned at other power plants into its own operations. But on the need to perform preventative maintenance on the equipment that failed, Vermont Yankee wasn't planning to do that until its 2005 outage — 15 years after one industry group recommended it and six years after another did. "We routinely use industry operating experience but in this case it was to be implemented in the next outage," Williams said. In a report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Vermont Yankee took itself to task for "inadequate preventative maintenance" on one piece of equipment related to the fire and "failure to monitor age-related degradation" in another. The report and interviews with Vermont Yankee, an NRC spokesman and a former nuclear engineer now working with an anti-nuclear group drew the following sequence of events in the accident, all of which occurred in less than a second. An accordion-like device meant to expand and contract with the extreme temperature swings around the transformer flexed once too often in its 32-year life and broke loose. It banged around along the plant's bus duct B, one of three pipe-like devices moving huge amounts of power from the plant's generator to its transformer, causing bus duct B to short out. That in turn sent a burst of power through bus duct A, overwhelming its surge protector. Bus duct C was then involved. As the electrical faults continued, they dislodged a flange on an oil line, and the transformer's oil supply was ignited. The report said the failure of both the expansion device and bus duct A's surge suppressor were linked to the plant's failure to implement lessons learned at other nuclear plants — or as Vermont Yankee put it — "a failure to effectively use industry (operating experience) to prevent similar events from occurring at" Vermont Yankee. A key question since the fire has been whether it was related to Vermont Yankee's proposed 20 percent power increase, a proposal that is currently pending before the NRC. Vermont's utilities take the bulk of Vermont Yankee's energy, and the three-week shutdown forced them to buy more expensive power from the spot wholesale power market. Estimates of the extra cost have ranged up to $1 million. Under an agreement with the state, Vermont Yankee promised to pay the utilities any extra costs they incur buying replacement power if Vermont Yankee suffers an outage related to the power boost. Vermont Yankee has maintained that the fire was not related to preparations for the power boost. The plant's old transformer was replaced two years ago with a larger one designed to accommodate increased power output, Williams said. But he added that "it would have been replaced anyway." As part of the changes, many of which were put in place during last spring's refueling outage, the air flow was increased through the bus ducts from 10,500 cubic feet per minute to 17,000 cubic feet per minute. Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Northeast regional office, said Entergy had told the NRC "that the increased air flow within the bus duct following the refueling outage modifications may have accelerated the failure timetable" of the piece that broke loose. "However," Sheehan added in an e-mail interview, "the (Entergy) report also points out that the failure would have occurred at some point in the future even at the original flow rates." The nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition called on the Vermont Public Service Board to open an investigation into whether Entergy should be required to pay Vermont's utilities. The board said Entergy and the companies have a procedure to resolve any disputes that might arise between them, and that it would only intervene if that process failed to resolve the question. © 2004 Times Argus [http://www.timesargus.com/] ***************************************************************** 43 Brattleboro Reformer: PSB orders 21 fans replaced [http://www.reformer.com/] September 14, 2004 Brattleboro, VT By CAROLYN LORIÉ Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee will have to install 21 new cooling tower fans, not the 22 initially called for in the board's March 15 order. Last week, the Vermont Public Service Board ruled on the number of fans that should be upgraded before Entergy pursues a 20 percent energy increase at the plant. Plant officials argued changing one particular fan in its 22 cooling tower fans would be too complex and too costly. New England Coalition was urging the Public Service Board to order all 22 fans be replaced. The group claimed not doing so could lead to problems, including the possible failure of the cooling towers. The Public Service Board's decision came in the form of an amendment to its March 15 order granting Entergy conditional approval of an uprate. In response New England Coalition's assessment, the board said that adding "more complex electronics" to the plant's cooling towers would not be in the best interest of safety and reliability. Engineers at the plant will still be required to do a structural analysis on the towers to insure that they can withstand the new fans. According to David McElwee, senior engineer liaison at Vermont Yankee, the study is already underway and the work may begin, and even be completed, before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules on the uprate request. A ruling is expected early next year. Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc., a ***************************************************************** 44 The Advocate: Lawmakers question agency's monitoring of nuclear power plant security Associated Press September 14, 2004 WASHINGTON -- Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cannot independently verify that every nuclear power plant is taking required safeguards to protect against a terrorist threat, congressional investigators told a House subcommittee Tuesday. Senior NRC officials strongly challenged that assessment and said the agency, through onsite inspectors and other activities, is aggressively monitoring security compliance at the nation's 103 reactors at 65 sites. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., chairman of the subcommittee, said there still "is no reasonable assurance plants are adequately protected" even though the NRC in April 2003 developed new standards as to what kinds of potential terrorist attacks plant operators must be prepared to repel. He accused the NRC and industry of trying to "minimize the risks" of a terrorist attack that could lead to a radiation release and accepting "a cozy, indulgent regulatory process that looks and acts very much like business as usual." That brought an emotional response from Roy Zimmerman, head of the NRC's security office, who said he was concerned that lawmakers were assuming the NRC is not paying attention to security. "We're laying awake at night. We've very concerned," Zimmerman said. "We're constantly looking and working very long hours to get out ahead of those that want to do us harm. We're not lackadaisical." The Government Accountability Office told the subcommittee that the NRC's monitoring of reactor security has been largely "a paper review" that falls short of assuring that industry security plans are meeting the more stringent requirements now demanded. At the same time, the GAO, which is the auditing arm of Congress, said critical "force-on-force" mock attacks to physically test security at the plants will not be completed at all facilities until late 2007. "It will take several more years for NRC to make an independent determination that each plant has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to protect against the (terrorist) threat presented," GAO investigator Jim Well told a House Government Reform subcommittee on national security. NRC officials, who also testified before the panel, strongly disputed the GAO assessment and said the agency has increased inspection hours at the power plants fivefold and has physically reviewed 80 percent of the security items plant operators must address. "We have inspectors (at the plants) all the time," said Luis Reyes, the NRC's executive director for operations. "We are there where the rubber meets the road when it comes to inspections." The GAO report also criticized the NRC for "not following up to verify that all violations of security requirements have been corrected" and for not filing official reports on all such incidents. At least two NRC inspectors are assigned to each of the 65 commercial nuclear power plant sites in 31 states. Reyes acknowledged they have broad responsibilities and do not file written reports on all security shortcomings - only "the more significant ones." Those viewed as of "low level" importance are evaluated on a sample basis, he said. "It's a matter of resources." In separate testimony, nuclear industry representatives said utilities have spent more than $1 billion on security improvements and increased security forces by 60 percent, hiring 3,000 additional officers, since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "Nuclear power plants are the most secure commercially owned facilities in the country," said Marvin Fertel, senior vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group. Among the improvements cited were expansion of security perimeters around plants, more patrols within security zones, installation of new barriers to protect against vehicle bombs, installation of high-tech surveillance equipment, increased communications and coordination with local, state and federal police authorities. The NRC also has required plants to conduct force-on-force mock drills once every three years, instead of once every eight years as required before 2001. -- On the Net: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.nei.org Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press © 2004, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc. ***************************************************************** 45 Scotsman.com: Nuclear Power 'Threatens the World Too' Tue 14 Sep 2004 By Tom Whitehead and Chris Moncrieff, PA News Using nuclear power to combat climate change would replace one global threat with another, green campaigners warned today. The stark message came after a Government official forecast nuclear energy would have to provide half of Britain’s electricity if it is to hit international targets to cut greenhouse gases. But environmentalists said strong dependence on nuclear power would put the world in as much danger either from its dangerous waste or weapons and terrorist attack. Tony Blair will warn tonight that climate change has the potential to unleash a global human and economic catastrophe if left unchecked. The Prime Minister will call for a “green industrial revolution†and will pledge to use next year’s British presidency of the G8 club of major industrialised countries to build a scientific and policy consensus for vigorous action. But Adrian Gault, director of strategic development at the Department of Trade and Industry’s energy strategy unit, has advised that nuclear power must play a major role in electricity generation. It is needed if Britain is to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the international concordat under which developed nations have agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions relative to 1990 levels. Nuclear power currently provides one-fifth of Britain’s electricity. A Greenpeace spokesman said: “There is absolutely no sense in replacing one environmental threat with another. “It is rather like taking up smoking to lose weight. We can meet very ambitious targets for cuts in CO2 in Britain, simply by harnessing the wind energy and other renewable energy.†Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper said nuclear waste remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years and facilities are vulnerable to terrorists. “Furthermore, the technology of nuclear power is intimately connected with the technology used to make nuclear weapons,†he said. “If we use nuclear, then we will have to accept that everyone else can too, including countries like Iran and North Korea.†The campaign groups welcomed Mr Blair’s commitment to the major issue of global warning but stressed it was time for action not words. In his speech this evening, Mr Blair will warn of forecasts that sea levels could rise by another 35 inches by the end of this century – threatening 100 million people around the planet now living below that level. He will also focus on the environmental impact of the expanding airline sector, saying that he wants to use the UK’s presidency of the European Union next year to press for the aviation industry to be brought within the EU’s emissions trading scheme. Mr Blair will tell an audience in London that the world cannot afford to ignore the evidence provided by melting glaciers, declining sea ice and snow cover and increasingly frequent extreme weather events. He will note that the UN now estimates that last year’s European heatwave caused up to 30,000 premature deaths and this summer has seen violent weather extremes in parts of the UK. “We cannot let the world of tomorrow pay the price for the pollution of today,†he will insist. The scale of the challenge, Mr Blair will acknowledge, is daunting. Carbon dioxide emissions must peak and begin to fall in the next 10 to 30 years in order to avoid the worst projections becoming a reality. Yet by 2020 the world may need 40% more energy than it uses today, with much of the extra demand coming from developing countries. Mr Blair will also argue that the UK has a real opportunity to lead the world in developing renewable energies such as wave and tidal power, bio-energy and hydrogen fuel cells. “We need a green industrial revolution for the 21st century that sustains growth but protects the environment,†Mr Blair will say. Mr Blair will also argue that the Kyoto Protocol should be regarded only as a first step in combating climate change. The US has yet to sign up to Kyoto, and Mr Blair’s words are likely to be interpreted as an appeal to the US’s President Bush to take climate change more seriously. The Greenpeace spokesman added: “His Government has to get behind wind energy in the UK and at the same time cash in some of his credibility in Washington and speak very bluntly to President Bush about the effect that America’s intransigence is having on Kyoto.†Mr Juniper said: “Global warming dwarfs all other threats to the security of humankind and the stability of the environment. “The Prime Minister has sounded the alarm and society must now respond at all levels.†[ border=] ***************************************************************** 46 TheDay.com: Dominion Plans To Staff Fire Brigade Internally To Cut Costs, Improve Oversight By PATRICIA DADDONA Day Staff Writer, Waterford Published on 9/14/2004 Waterford  Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc. has decided to staff the fire brigade for Millstone Power Station by hiring its own employees instead of using a private contractor. The Millstone fire brigade, currently contracted from JLN Associates of Old Lyme, is trained to prevent and deal with fires at the site of three power plants, two of which are still in operation. The third reactor is in the process of being decommissioned. In March, Dominion hired JLN Associates to manage fire prevention, surveillance testing, equipment maintenance, inspections, firefighting, hazardous material response and emergency aid to injured workers, according to JLN owner John L. Nickerson. Dominion's decision to hire more than 24 people within the company to do the job is intended to save the company money and allow Dominion more direct supervisory control of the brigade, said Dominion spokesman Pete Hyde. He would not say how much money the company expects to save as a result of the change. JLN's performance was not a factor in the decision, he added. Waterford First Selectman Paul B. Eccard said Monday that the company had informed him of the planned changes and assured him that the new brigade will provide the same level of fire protection available now. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently evaluating whether or not to allow Dominion to operate automatic fire suppression equipment manually at Millstone 3 after mishaps occurred there five years ago. Since 1999, the plant has relied on a round-the-clock fire watch instead of the malfunctioning fire suppression system. Dominion's new fire brigade will comply with existing procedures and any new approaches the NRC may allow, Hyde said. We've been talking about this for a year and a half, he said of the switch to an internal brigade. We're going to meet every requirement that's set out by the NRC, and provide all that is necessary to ensure fire safety at the station. The two-year contract with JLN is still in place at this time and the switch to an in-house brigade won't occur until we're ready, Hyde said. Dominion does not need NRC approval to make the staffing switch, NRC public affairs spokeswoman Diane Screnci said, as long as individuals who are hired have the right credentials. The NRC routinely inspects fire protection services at nuclear reactors, she added. JLN has more than 20 years' experience with nuclear generation sites in New England and has supported projects for Bridgeport Energy, Duke Energy, Steam Generator Team Ltd. and other companies, Nickerson has said. He did not return calls seeking comment on the change. 1998-2004 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 47 Public Citizen: Groups Charge Nuclear Agency with Illegally Eliminating Public Participation; 1st U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals Hears Arguments Today in Boston Sept. 13, 2004 WASHINGTON, D.C.  New rules issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) violate the public interest and should be overturned, Public Citizen and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS [http://www.nirs.org/] ) will tell a court today. Judges in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston are scheduled to hear oral arguments today in a case brought by the two Washington-based public interest groups, which charge that the new rules are illegal because they do not require an on-the-record, public hearing during reactor licensing proceedings, as called for by federal law. Early this year, the NRC modified agency regulations, under 10 C.F.R. Part 2, with the stated goal of injecting added certainty and efficiency into the licensing process.   But Public Citizen and NIRS say the new Part 2 regulations, as they are commonly called, violate the Atomic Energy Act by eliminating the right to an on-the-record hearing in most agency adjudicatory proceedings.  Further, the groups charge that the NRC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in crafting the rules because: (1) it did so without adequate basis or explanation; (2) the NRC chose to preserve the right to an on-the-record hearing in certain cases for reasons that apply equally to reactor licensing proceedings where hearings were dropped; and (3) the agency eliminated the right to discovery and cross-examination on the unsupported assumption that such procedures are unimportant. This is another example of the NRC acting to minimize public participation in and scrutiny of agency actions, said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. The ultimate effect is a reduction in NRC accountability and public safety. Even though the new Part 2 rules did not become effective until Feb. 13, 2004, their effects already are being felt because they have been applied to several cases filed before that date.  The new exclusionary rules are being applied in three separate challenges to applications for early site permits for potential nuclear reactors, filed by the energy companies Dominion, Exelon and Entergy in Virginia, Illinois and Mississippi, respectively.  Although the applications were submitted in the fall of 2003, the cases are to be heard under the new Part 2 rules, based on direction from the NRC commissioners.  And in a challenge to a proposed uranium enrichment facility in New Mexico, the application for which was filed in early February 2004, the NRC again mandated that the case proceed under the new Part 2 rules to the extent possible (on-the-record hearings for uranium enrichment facility licensing are required by law). The new rules are not just illegal, theyre unreasonably burdensome, said Michael Mariotte, executive director of NIRS.   NRCs stated goal of making the licensing process more efficient is a thinly veiled disguise for making it impossible for the public to effectively raise legitimate safety concerns. The new rules also require intervenors to submit legal arguments simultaneously with their petitions if they want to challenge the licensing proceedings, giving them a mere 60 days from the NRCs initial notice of hearing to pore through thousands of pages of a license application, identify issues of contention, hire legal counsel, contract expert witnesses and craft arguments.   Under the old rules, petitioners were allowed up to two months to draft and submit their arguments after the initial filing to intervene. Nonprofit public interest groups are not the only victims of the new rules.  The state of New Mexico, potentially home to a uranium enrichment plant, has been barred from raising important radioactive waste management issues in legal proceedings concerning the proposed plant, after submitting what the NRC considered to be an incomplete petition under the new, compressed timeline. During a public comment period on a draft version of the rules in 2001, 1,422 people expressed opposition to the new rules while only nine generally supported NRCs efforts.  Still, the draft rules were adopted with little substantive change. Other interveners in this case include Citizens Awareness Network and the National Whistleblowers Center. Attorneys general from Massachusetts, New York, California, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Connecticut filed amicus briefs in support of the lawsuits.  ### ***************************************************************** 48 AU ABC: Too early to licence nuclear reactor - Opposition. 14/09/2004. ABC News Online [http://www.abc.net.au/] The federal Opposition says it is too early to apply for an operating licence for Australia's second nuclear reactor. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation has lodged the application with the radiation safety authority ARPANSA. The approval process is expected to take several months. But Labor says an independent review of the reactor project should take place, and only when a national strategy for the storage of nuclear waste from the facility is agreed upon. [http://www.abc.net.au] © 2004 Australian Broadcasting Corporation This service may include material from Agence France-Presse (AFP), AAP(International), APTN, Reuters, CNN and the BBC World Service which is copyright and cannot be reproduced. ***************************************************************** 49 Scotsman.com News: UK is urged to turn up nuclear power [http://www.scotsman.com/] Tue 14 Sep 2004 NUCLEAR power will have to provide half of Britain’s electricity needs if the Government is to meet its key international commitment on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a leading Department of Trade and Industry official has warned. Nuclear power currently provides a fifth of Britain’s electricity, but the nation’s nuclear power plants are ageing and will be closed down progressively from 2008. At present there are no plans to replace the generators which are shut down. The Energy White Paper, published in February 2003, put in place a policy of "not now but not never" towards new nuclear generators. But according to reports, Adrian Gault, director of strategic development at the DTI’s energy strategy unit, has advised ministers that nuclear power will have to play a major role in electricity generation if it is to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. However, a DTI spokesman said: "The report looks at differing scenarios for reaching the 60 per cent carbon dioxide reduction target by 2050 - it includes both nuclear and non-nuclear possibilities. "It is a research document to help inform government policy but in no way does it constitute government policy. We are not abandoning renewable energy." [ ***************************************************************** 50 [DU-WATCH] WHO: Radiological toxicity of DU Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:59:06 -0500 (CDT) Hi all, I have been trying to get this paper for some months. Obviously not trying hard enough. Worth a look, particularly with respect to the failure to clean up RRW. For example, with respect to 50 mm uranium rounds used in the Balkans, there are independent reports that some contaminated hardware remains easily accessible in Kosovo, 5 years later. The story in drier climates, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, is of still greater concern. Robert = = = = = = = http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/DU-Radiological-Toxicity-WHO5nov01.htm Radiological toxicity of DU K. BAVERSTOCK, C. MOTHERSILL & M. THORNE (Repressed WHO Document) 5nov01 Keith Baverstock World Health Organization European Centre for Environment and Health Hermann Ehlers Strasse 10 D-53113 Bonn, Germany Tel: +49/228 2094 430 Fax: +49/228 2094 201 e-mail: kba@ecehbonn.euro.who.int Carmel Mothersill Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin Street, Dublin8, Ireland Tel. +353-1-4027509, Fax. +353-1-4023393 e-mail: cmothersill@rsc.iol.ie Mike Thorne Mike Thorne and Associates Limited Abbotsleigh, Kebroyd Mount, Ripponden, Halifax, West Yorkshire, HX6 3JA, UK Tel/Fax: +44-01422825890 e-mail: MikeThorneLtd@aol.com Abstract: Background: The military use of depleted uranium (DU) and/or recycled uranium (RU) has given rise to public concern as to the impact on public health of exposure to environmental sources. Exposure to soluble natural uranium, through drinking water and the food chain, is ubiquitous. After military use, DU / RU are present in the environment either as metal or as oxide dusts. Due to the low specific activity of uranium, the potential effects of exposure are generally attributed to chemical toxicity. Insoluble particulates may be an exception. Results: DU/RU dusts are a mixture of oxides of differing solubility, such that, if retained in the lung, partial dissolution occurs over the time scale of about a month. As DU has been shown to be capable of transforming human cells to a tumourigenic phenotype without the involvement of radiation, such particles present a unique radiological/chemical toxic hazard. The bystander effect may be of relevance where an alpha-particle emitter of low specific activity is distributed over the lung. Conclusions: The health risks of exposure to DU/RU are likely to be only partially reflected by the radiation dose per received. Further work on the chemical transforming ability of DU, the potential for an interaction between its chemical and radiological toxicities and the significance of the bystander effect in this context is required to fully estimate the public health significance of exposure to DU/RU. [1] Disclaimer The ideas and views expressed herein are those of the author and should not be taken to necessarily represent those of the World Health Organization. 1. 0 Introduction The military use of depleted, and or reprocessed uranium, in Iraq and the Balkans, as penetrators in various munitions and as armour, has raised questions as to the radiological toxicity of these forms of uranium. Although it should be emphasized that there is no established evidence (as opposed to media claims) that links exposure to the environmental residuum of these weapons to diseases that would normally be associated with radiation, that populations live close to contaminated zones inevitably gives rise public health concerns. In addition, claims of illness in military personnel who have served in theatres where DU has been employed are currently being investigated. In this connection the UK Royal Society (RS 2001) have examined the health hazards of DU munitions to military personnel and the United Nations Environmental Programme has carried out an environmental assessment. (UNEP 2001) This paper is concerned with the health implications of exposure to DU after its military use. Although the primary emphasis is with its radiological toxicity, aspects of chemical toxicity are also addressed. Various studies on employees in the Uranium processing industry (eg. Ritz 1999; Archer 1981; Cardis and Richardson 2000; Dupree, Cragle et al. 1987; Checkoway, Pearce et al. 1988; Kathren and Moore 1986, Kathren, McInroy et al. 1989; Loomis and Wolf 1996; McGeoghegan and Binks 2000; Ritz, Morgenstern et al. 2000) do not present a clear picture of the health effects of exposure to uranium due to small numbers and potentially confounding exposures. However, associations with lymphopoietic, lung, bone and kidney malignancies cannot be ruled out. At the same time, uranium is also ubiquitous in the natural environment. It is often argued that this natural exposure can be used as a "benchmark" for exposures such as that to DU after its military use. We show here that this is not necessarily the case, and that both the chemical form and the route of entry into the body may have a critical influence on toxicity. Following military use, DU will be distributed in the environment either as the metal, in anything from whole armaments to fragments and shards, or as oxide particulates with diameters ranging from the order of microns to nanometres. The dissolution of the metal into aqueous solution will be a slow process, leading to the contamination of groundwater and soils over a period of several hundred years. Uptake by plants from contaminated soils will be limited, as uranium is relatively strongly excluded from root uptake (Sheppard and Evenden 1988). Overall, the natural uranium content of soils, plants, animals and drinking water will be somewhat increased over the area in which the depleted uranium is dispersed. In these circumstances, the chemical toxicity of the additional uranium is of much greater interest than its radiological toxicity. Furthermore, chemical toxicity will only be of importance if the depleted uranium is present at concentrations that are comparable to, or higher than, those of available natural uranium (i.e. excluding that component of natural uranium that is incorporated in uraniferous minerals and hence is not available for uptake). In most soils this concentration is a few parts per million. (WHO 2001) 1.1 The origins of depleted uranium and its military application Uranium is a naturally occurring element with isotopes of long radioactive half life and, therefore, low specific activity. The principal isotopes in natural uranium are 238U, 235U and 234U. Depleted uranium (DU) is a waste product of non-nuclear enrichment processes (e.g., gaseous diffusion of uranium hexafluoride) in which the content of 235U in natural uranium is enriched, leaving the DU with a reduced content of the lower atomic weight isotopes. The enriched uranium can be used to generate 239Pu by partially "burning" it in a nuclear reactor. After extraction of the 239Pu and other radioisotopes of elements other then uranium, the residual uranium can be enriched for further burning and plutonium production, generating additional uranium depleted of the lower atomic weight isotopes. As this material, which has been subject to nuclear processes, is potentially contaminated by isotopes generated by the neutron flux in the reactor (e.g. technetium, plutonium, neptunium, americium) it should be distinguished from the material arising from the first enrichment process, and here it is termed reprocessed uranium (RU). In terms of its physical properties, uranium is a dense and hard metal that is pyrophoric. It is these properties that give the effectiveness at penetrating armour and destroying tanks and their occupants. On burning, uranium produces a dense smoke, which, in a confined space, is rapidly suffocating. 1.2 Initial considerations in estimating the toxicities of environmentally distributed DU and RU The isotopic composition of an element makes no substantial difference to its chemical properties but may influence its radiological properties though modification of its specific activity. Since 235U and 234U have higher specific activities than 238U, the radiological toxicity of DU is expected to be lower than that of natural uranium by about 40%. The specific activity of RU will depend on the extent to which the uranium is contaminated by fission products and other nuclides produced by the neutron flux in a nuclear reactor, and not removed by the subsequent processing. There are only very limited animal and human data on the radiological and chemical toxicities of DU and none relating to RU, but there is much more abundant evidence from the ubiquitous exposure to natural uranium, particularly in terms of its chemical toxicity. These data can be used as a reliable guide to the effects to be expected from DU, provided account is taken of the chemical form and route of entry into the human body. Limited epidemiological data are available from studies of workers in uranium milling plants who were exposed to dusts containing uranium. Studies of the behavior of inhaled dusts in the lung have resulted in models from which the radiation doses to lung and other body tissues can be calculated. Such models provide both absorbed and equivalent doses in Gy or Sv per Bq of inhaled dust, contingent on the solubility and size distribution of the dust particles. Thus, if the specific activity (Bq/ unit mass) of the inhaled material, characterized by its solubility and particle size distribution, is known, the radiation doses to the lung and other tissues can, in theory, be estimated. (ICRP 1995). The burning of uranium produces a mixed oxide dust, part of which is relatively soluble in lung fluids and a part of which is insoluble. As the burning of DU arises almost exclusively in military operations, reliance has to be placed on the limited data released by the military authorities. Much of this information is summarized in a US Department of Defense Report (CHPPM 2000). According to this report, DU burns on impact with a hardened target, such as the armour of a tank. The extent of burning depends upon the characteristics of the impact and factors such as the degree of fragmentation of the DU. The extent of release of DU oxides to the wider environment also depends on the particular situation. In some cases, where the DU penetrates the target, most of the DU oxides will be retained within the structure of the target. However, a hardened target may lead to fragmentation and burning of the DU in the open and a release of the DU oxide dusts to the environment. Of relevance to environmental exposures to DU/ RU are the following: Total mass of DU/ RU delivered into the environment. Proportion of that mass that hits a "target". Proportion of the material hitting the target that burns to produce DU/RU oxide dusts. Proportion of that dust that is released to the wider environment. Mobility and lifetime of the dust in the environment. Exposure of humans to the dust and its respirability. Proportion of DU/ RU dust that is soluble in the lung. Particle size distribution of the DU/ RU oxide dust. (This is also related to solubility.) Specific activity of DU/RU oxide dust for each of the radionuclides present. 1.3 Evaluating the extent of DU/ RU oxide contamination of the environment In any given instance of environmental contamination by DU/ RU, the situation will need to be assessed by environmental monitoring. However, the CHPPM report gives some indications that would allow an initial "desk" assessment, from readily obtainable information, to be made. Given that the total mass used is available, the CHPPM report estimates that, for an aerial attack about 10% of penetrators hit a target. It can, therefore, be assumed that about 90% of the material will be on the ground or buried, in a metallic form. In a tank-to- tank battle the proportion of hits on targets will be greater. The extent to which the DU hitting a target burns, and the fraction of oxide released to the environment depends on the circumstances and could be anything from a few to several tens of percent. According to CHPPM, a representative figure could be 70% burned, up to half of which is released as highly insoluble oxides. (RS 2001) Little quantitative information exists on particle-size distribution. Generally, it is concluded that a substantial fraction falls within the respirable size range and that ultra-fine particles, which have a tendency to coalesce, are also formed. (RS 2001) The CHPPM report has little to say on the question of RU. It notes that traces of other nuclides, notably plutonium, neptunium and americium are contained in some of the so-called DU used in armour and some munitions but that this additional activity "adds less than one percent to the internal radiation risks." However, the report leaves open the question of whether, in the case of all munitions, this 1% is a maximum. It can, therefore, be concluded that environmental contamination by DU/ RU does have a potential for both chemical and radiological toxicity, thus creating the necessity for assessing the public health impact for those living in contaminated zones. 2.0 Exposure Routes and Biokinetics of Uranium Because of the importance of uranium separation, enrichment and fabrication in both military and civil applications of nuclear power, there is over fifty years of experience in working with the metal and a wide variety of its chemical compounds. Over that period, tens of thousands of workers have been exposed, both by ingestion and inhalation. In consequence of this operational experience and complementary experimental studies on both humans and animals, there is comprehensive understanding of the biokinetics and toxicology of uranium. This understanding is relevant to an appreciation of the specific issues relating to the use of depleted uranium in projectiles and armour. Uptake of ingested uranium from the gastrointestinal tract is relatively low. Even for soluble salts of the element or for uranium incorporated in food, the fractional gastrointestinal absorption (f1) is less than about 0.05. Results from a recent study on uranium in drinking water from Finland (Kurttio, Auvinen et al., in press) find a value for f1@ 0.003. This is the first human study for which this value has been determined. It is possible that some uranium in well water is in an insoluble form and that this accounts for the relatively low value of f1. For insoluble salts, such as UO2, the fractional absorption is much less, typically less than 0.01 (ICRP, 1995). The uptake of inhaled uranium to the systemic circulation can be much greater. Typically, about 60% of inhaled material is deposited in the respiratory system, with the remainder lost upon exhalation (ICRP, 1994). For soluble salts of uranium, almost all the deposited material is transferred to the systemic circulation on a time scale of a few days. For insoluble uranium, the situation is rather different. Mechanical processes clear the majority of uranium in the upper respiratory tract, including the bronchial tree, on a time scale of hours to days. The cleared material is swallowed and is almost entirely lost by faecal excretion. However, insoluble salts of uranium deposited in the deep lung (the pulmonary parenchyma) are typically retained with a biological half life of around 100 days (or longer for high-fired UO2). Clearance of this material occurs by both mechanical clearance, often of particles ingested by phagocytes, and by solubilisation. A few percent of inhaled insoluble material reaches the systemic circulation by dissolution. A further small fraction may be translocated as particles to the tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes and from there to the systemic circulation (ICRP 1994, ICRP 1995). Once uranium has reached the systemic circulation, its subsequent biokinetics is well described by the model developed by the ICRP (ICRP 1995) (see Figure 1). A large fraction of uranium that enters the systemic circulation is taken up and retained in mineral bone. Smaller fractions exchange with the liver and general soft tissues. Although there is a very limited degree of excretion from the liver to the gastrointestinal tract, almost all excretion is in the urine. It is the urinary excretion component that is of specific relevance to the chemical nephro-toxicity of uranium. This urinary excretion path is illustrated schematically in Figure 2 (based on Leggett 1989). In body fluids, the main form of uranium is thought to be the uranyl ion, UO2++ (Leggett 1989). However, in the blood plasma approximately 40% of uranium is present as transferrin complexes and 60% as low molecular weight anionic complexes. These low molecular weight anionic complexes are filtered rapidly by the glomerulus and enter the lumen of the kidney tubule. The rapidity of this process may be illustrated by noting that, in the first 24 hours after entry of uranium nitrate into the systemic circulation, around 80% will have been filtered by the glomerulus (Leggett 1989). As the filtered uranium complexes pass along the renal tubules they are subject to a fall in pH. This results in their partial dissociation. Whereas some complexed uranium plus a proportion of the uranyl ions produced on dissociation is excreted in the urine, the remainder of the uranium binds to the luminal membranes of the renal tubules. The bound uranium is removed from the luminal membranes by combining with ligands in the urine, shedding of microvilli, sloughing of dead cells, or entering cells. The rate of loss by each of these processes is thought to be dependent on the magnitude of the exposure to uranium, such that the fraction of uranium retained in the kidneys increases with increasing administered amount (Leggett 1989). It is thought that the mode of entry of uranium into renal tubule cells may be primarily by endocytosis. Intracellular accumulation is mainly in lysosomes, with microcrystals formed at high concentrations. Destruction of the lysosomes then releases these microcrystals into the cytosol. Although intracellular uptake is primarily into lysosomes, smaller amounts of uranium accumulate in the nucleus, mitochondria and other intracellular organelles. (Leggett 1989) Overall, uranium-containing debris may be retained for an extended period in the lumen of the tubule or in reticuloendothelial cells. Retention of uranium in the kidney is known to give rise to a variety of biochemical effects that may have implications for the clinical toxicity of the element (Leggett 1989). These include the following: Binding to the brush-border membrane may reduce reabsorption of sodium, glucose, proteins, amino acids, water and other substances; Structural damage to plasma and lysosomal membranes may occur, the latter resulting in the release of damaging enzymes; Mitochondrial dysfunction and defects of energy production may occur; Transport of calcium may be affected, leading to accumulation of that element in renal tubule cells. At an overall tissue level, the kidney may develop tolerance to uranium exposure after repeated or chronic exposure, but this is associated with regenerated cells with a degraded brush border. Impairment of function can be associated with such tolerance. For example, tolerant animals have been observed to exhibit high urine volumes and a diminished glomerular filtration rate. It has been concluded that acquired tolerance to acute affects does not prevent chronic damage. (Leggett 1989) Conventionally, it has been assumed that if kidney concentrations of uranium are maintained at less than 3 m g/g, symptoms of clinical toxicity will be avoided. However, this limiting concentration was based on tests of limited sensitivity and on criteria for toxicity that are less stringent than would now be employed. In view of these considerations, it has been suggested (Leggett 1989) that it may be prudent to lower this long-standing level by one order of magnitude. 3.0 The Relative Significance of Chemical and Radiological Toxicity for Depleted Uranium The oxide particulates may be much more refractory to dissolution than the metal, if they are primarily composed of UO2. Refractory particles inhaled at the time of their production or subsequently, as a result of resuspension, could be of greater significance radiologically than through the chemical toxicity of their uranium content. This is because such particles can be retained in various organs and tissues, including the respiratory and reticuloendothelial systems, irradiating their surroundings. If such particles are leached only slowly, they will contribute to only a limited degree to an increase of uranium concentrations in the kidneys. The distribution and retention of inhaled radioactive refractory particulates has been studied extensively. In particular, a great deal of work has been undertaken on high-fired PuO2. Particles, with aerodynamic diameters of up to a few tens of micrometres are readily inhaled. Particles with aerodynamic diameters of more than a few micrometres are mainly deposited in the upper part of the respiratory tract (the nasal passages, trachea and larger bronchi) and are largely cleared by mechanical action on a time scale of a few hours. Smaller particles penetrate more deeply into the lungs and sub- micrometre particles are deposited mainly in the respiratory tissues (the pulmonary parenchyma) comprising the bronchioli and alveoli. (ICRP 1994) Material deposited in the alveoli is beyond the limits of the region from which direct mechanical clearance can occur (ICRP 1994). Therefore, clearance from this region is due mainly either to solubilisation or to incorporation and transport of particles in phagocytes (the alveolar macrophages). These macrophages may either migrate to the bronchial region and be mechanically cleared, or they may penetrate the alveolar interstitium and be carried to the regional lymph nodes. In the 1970s, there was considerable interest in whether such focal sources of radiation (`hot particles') were of greater concern than homogeneous irradiation of respiratory tissues to a similar average radiation dose. In general, it was found (Burkart and Linder 1987) that such focal sources were no more radiotoxic than uniform irradiation and could be substantially less toxic. The latter result was attributed to cell sterilisation effects around the focal sources, as sterilised cells are incapable of reproduction and cannot be the precursors of cancer. However, some caution should be exercised in interpreting the results that were obtained, because the work was largely based on the assumption that only cells that are `hit' by radiation tracks can be transformed to neoplastic precursors. More recent studies have demonstrated a bystander effect, in which unirradiated cells close to irradiated cell populations can exhibit genetic alterations. It may, therefore, be prudent to examine again the question of whether focal sources of irradiation could induce a spectrum of effects that differs from that induced by more uniform irradiation. In the specific context of uranium, it is of interest also to consider whether the enhanced soluble uranium concentrations that could exist in the vicinity of individual particles or aggregates could interact synergistically with the localised irradiation of tissues, particularly if some of the effects of irradiation are mediated by substances released from the irradiated cells. In considering whether such effects could occur, it is appropriate to recognise that particles could accumulate or aggregate in interstitial tissues of the lung, in pulmonary lymph nodes or in reticuloendothelial tissues. In the context of reticuloendothelial tissues, an analogy can be drawn with the colloidal radiographic contrast medium Thorotrast (ThO2). This was found to give rise to substantial aggregates in the liver, spleen and bone marrow, and excesses of both liver cancer and leukaemia have been observed in the exposed populations (Van Kaick, Muth et al. 1986). However, too much weight should not be placed on this analogy, as the masses of Thorotrast used were large (around 25 g per patient) and it was introduced directly into the systemic circulation giving enhanced opportunities for aggregation and deposition into reticuloendothelial tissues. 4.0 Heath impacts of uranium 4.1 Inhalation of uranium oxide dusts Breathing uranium containing dusts is an established occupational hazard with which clear health consequences are associated. Most information relates to uranium miners, whose exposure to uranium ore dusts is compounded by collateral exposure to radon daughter products. The much greater activity concentrations of radon daughters in air leads to relatively larger doses to the lung than from the uranium itself, and thus the established yield of lung cancer from such exposures is attributed to radon. However, workers in uranium milling plants, where the radon daughters are not so abundant, also show indications of increased disease that could be due to radiation (Cardis and Richardson 2000). Lung cancer is elevated in a number of studies (see Cardis and Richardson 2000; Ritz 1999; Checkoway, Pearce et al. 1988; Loomis and Wolf 1996), although it should be noted that the situation is compounded by exposures other than to internal a - emitters and, in individual studies, numbers are generally small. In the most recently reported study of uranium plant workers at Springfields in the UK (McGeoghegan and Binks 2000), where uranium ore was handled, there was a substantial healthy worker effect and no absolute excess or trend with dose for lung cancer. In other stages of the uranium processing industry, where soluble uranium may be inhaled as aerosols, there are indications of increases in lymphopoietic (Loomis and Wolf 1996, Ritz, Morgenstern et al. 2000) brain, kidney, breast, prostate (Loomis and Wolf 1996) and upper aerodigestive tract (Ritz, Morgenstern et al. 2000) cancers. In a response to an editorial (McDiarmid 2001) in the British Medical Journal, Alvarez has drawn attention to health effects seen among uranium process workers, as described in an unpublished report (see http://www.bmj.com/cgi/letters/322/7279/123). As noted, (Ritz 1999) there were positive associations for several cancer sites with chemicals used in the uranium processing industry. It is, therefore, clear that working in the uranium processing industry is associated with a number of different types of cancer, but whether this is due to insoluble or soluble uranium or other chemicals used in the processing is not clear. The uranium dusts encountered in the milling process may be more insoluble than the dusts generated by burning DU and are almost certainly of different particle size distribution. Burning metal has the tendency to produce sub-micron particles as well as the more usual 1 to 10 micron Activity Median Aerodynamic Diameter particles that are generally associated with radiological toxicity. Such sub- micron particles present some features that may be significant in evaluating the toxicity of DU (as opposed to natural uranium). These ultra-fine particles may be more soluble in physiological fluids, thus creating a local environment of enhanced uranium concentration in the cells proximal to the particle of DU-oxide. In this respect it is notable that DU-UO2 2+ cation is capable of transforming human osteoblast cells in culture to a tumourigenic phenotype (Miller, Fuciarelli et al. 1998). Similar transformation can be achieved with nickel and, to a lesser extent, with lead, leading to the conclusion that this transformation may have little to do with the radioactivity of DU. This conclusion is confirmed by the small fraction (0.0014%) of cells hit by alpha particles at the uranium concentrations used. It is relevant to note that nickel is an established carcinogen (IARC 1990) and has been shown to induce a genomic instability similar to that induced by radiation (Coen, Mothersill et al. 2001). Partially soluble dust particles, either because of chemical composition or size, produce a unique situation in which a volume of tissue a few cell diameters in radius, around the particle will be subject to both a relatively high concentration of UO22+ and the occasional alpha particle from decay of the 238U. A 1m m particle of pure 238U weighs 5.8x10-6m g and on average emits 2 alpha-particles per year. Assuming that over a period of weeks half the material dissolves and is retained within a volume of radius 3 cell diameters, or 30m m, the concentration of UO22+ in this tissue volume is about 20m g/g or 0.8mM well in excess of the 10m M concentration at which cellular transformation associated with (or leading to) tumour formation in nude mice was seen. For a total intake of 1 mg of such a dust and assuming that 25% is retained for a long period in the lung of which 50% behaves as a Class M (ICRP 1994) material and dissolves relatively slowly, the remainder being insoluble, there would be about 0.4 x 108 such foci with 20% (8 x 106) also experiencing one alpha passage in the first month. This is not a situation that has been experienced in any exposure situation for an alpha or any other emitter in the lung. It is not possible to extrapolate the risk of such an exposure from human experience. In particular the risk to the lung of exposure to DU dusts cannot be inferred from the experience gained from uranium miners, or from survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, upon which the current ICRP radiological protection standards are based. A second factor is the potential for small particles to become trapped in the interstitial spaces where they may form aggregates. Clearance is likely to be to the local tracheobronchial lymph nodes (TBLN), where they may be retained indefinitely. A significant excess of lymphatic and haemopoietic cancers, other than leukaemia, (4/1.02) in uranium mill workers, whose concentration of uranium in urine was elevated, is noted (Archer, Wagoner et al. 1973). It is suggested that these malignancies could have resulted from an accumulation of long-lived radioactive materials in the lymph nodes. However, Baverstock and Thorne (Baverstock and Thorne 1989), in reviewing evidence for consequences of irradiation of the lymphatic system from material retained in the tracheobronchial lymph-nodes, concluded that, in spite of the real possibility of substantial doses, there was little reason to expect an excess of lymphatic leukaemia. They noted, however, that their arguments could not be wholly conclusive. Furthermore, small particles (10 to 100nm) are capable of passing through the pulmonary blood vessels into the blood stream. Experience with directly injected colloidal particles of thorium oxide, in the form of the x-ray contrast medium Thorotrast, shows that such particles have a tendency to aggregate in reticuloendothelial tissues, where they are retained, if insoluble, over long periods. In the case of Thorotrast, the long-term consequences were liver cancer and leukaemia. Doses from the injection of Thorotrast are likely to have been very much larger than could be obtained from inhaling DU smoke, as the direct transfer through pulmonary blood vessels is only a minor lung clearance route. Overall, there seems to be a compelling case for investigating whether uranium, internally incorporated through inhalation, has a combined chemical and radiological carcinogenic potential, which can potentially lead to cancers in the lung and other parts of the body, including the lymphatic system, the bone marrow, the bone and the kidney. Therefore, the extent to which DU, present in the environment as dust and smoke from burning metal, is able to cause these consequences, though a combined radiological and chemical effect, is a matter for further research. The implications of the bystander effect also need to be considered in this context. It has been convincingly demonstrated that changes, similar to those caused directly by irradiation, can be wrought in cells growing close to a cell that has been irradiated, or even if they receive activating signals in medium harvested from irradiated cells, even though the changed cells experienced no ionising event. Such changes include genomic instability, widely associated with the cancer process, and even mutations, also widely believed to be related to cancer induction (Mothersill and Seymour 2001). The basis for this phenomenon is not well understood, but it has been demonstrated that a calcium pulse occurs and resolves within 5 minutes of exposure of non-irradiated cells to medium harvested from exposed cells. Alpha particle radiation is known to be a potent cause of bystander effects, particularly in the form of genomic instability and, since heavy metals can also cause instability (Coen, Mothersill et al. 2001), there is a strong case that the mixed radio-chemical exposure may be acting in this context. As directly inflicted DNA damage is precluded as a cause of the bystander effect, it can be inferred that a chemical agent is transmitted from the irradiated cell and that this changes the state of the recipient cell in an apparently irreversible manner. A recent study (Belyakov, Malcolmson et al. 2001), using micronucleus formation as an endpoint and a micro-beam facility capable passing a single alpha particle through the nucleus of a specific cell, showed a three-fold increase in damaged cells within the environment of the irradiated cell. Typically, 5000 cells were scored with some 100 excess damaged cells. However, excess affected cells were found at distances of mm from the irradiated cell and thus the number of potentially affected cells per particle can be very large. Within 1 mm radius of the irradiated cells there are approximately 106 cells, thus if the same ratio of affected cells applied some 2 x 104 could be affected. The bystander effect is predominant at low tissue doses, where few cells experience an alpha particle passage. At higher doses, recipient cells increasingly experience alpha passages themselves, with a high probability of cell killing and almost certainty of inducing other changes, thus reducing the relative effectiveness of the bystander effect. For this reason, uranium particles, which emit few alphas, would have a greater chance of inducing effects through the bystander mechanism than "hotter" particles. The implication of the combined chemical and radiological transforming capability of uranium and the bystander effect, means that, in estimating its significance in causing cancer, the simple assumptions, based on committed effective dose, ie (committed absorbed dose to the lung, modified by a radiation weighting factor for the fact that the radiation arises from alpha particles) as has been adopted in recent reports by the Royal Society (RS 2001), the WHO (WHO 2001) and UNEP (UNEP 2001) would be an inadequate basis for predicting risks. 4.2 Other considerations The usual assumption, based on the specific activity of uranium, standard tissue and radiation weighting factors (ICRP 1991) and the distribution of uranium between different tissues, is that impairment of kidney function will always be more important that any carcinogenic effect. This assumption can, however, be questioned on two grounds, namely the potential for synergy between chemical and radiation toxicities, and the bystander effect, as discussed above. In the experiments with osteoblasts (Miller, Blakely et al. 1998), the concentration of UO2++ was 10m M, which is close to the 0.3m g/g level in the kidney assumed to be below the threshold for toxic effects. In the transformation assay, this produced a ten-fold increase in the tumourigenic phenotype with about 1 in 105 cells being hit by an alpha particle. It is feasible to explain the transformation in the osteoblasts by the bystander effect alone, but the similar level of transformation brought about by the same concentration of nickel ions cannot be explained radiologically. If there is indeed a synergistic effect between the chemical and radiological properties of uranium, why is exposure to naturally occurring uranium apparently without radiological health consequence? One answer to this question is that natural uranium is almost entirely ingested. The fraction of even soluble uranium crossing the GI tract is low (typically around 0.02, see ICRP Publication 69 (ICRP 1995)), most being excreted in faeces. In the occupational context, the primary route of entry will be inhalation of aerosols. Where the uranium is soluble, the transfer to blood of deposited material is rapid and complete (ICRP 1995). Potentially much higher body burdens could be acquired in this way. Among the soft tissues in which systemic uranium locates are the testes. This raises the prospect of hereditary effects arising from systemic burdens. The non-specific nature of the location of uranium at the cellular and sub-cellular levels implies that all testicular cells are at some degree of risk, including the spermatogonial stem cells. The relevance of the transforming effect observed for uranium is problematic. If that transforming ability is mediated by mutations then a synergy may also be expected here. In the Miller study (Miller, Blakely et al. 1998), changes in gene expression and sister chromatid exchanges were observed, leaving the question open. 5.0 Practical public health implications of the use of DU/RU in two theatres of war, the Balkans and Iraq/Kuwait. Ammunitions containing DU and RU have been used in the Balkans and Iraq/Kuwait. Comparing the two instances there are important differences that have a bearing on public exposure to DU/RU. (RS 2001). In the Balkans, the ammunition was exclusively fired from aircraft, whereas in Iraq the tank-to-tank battles also took place. In air-to-ground fire, fewer DU/RU rounds hit targets such as tanks, most, as much as 90 to 95%, becoming buried in the ground. Thus, only 5 to 10% was at risk of fragmentation and burning. In Iraq/Kuwait, a larger percentage will have hit hardened targets and burned to produce the oxide smoke and dust. The United Nations Environment Programme has carried out an environmental assessment in Kosovo (UNEP 2001). Metallic DU/RU buried in the ground will slowly dissolve (over centuries) so somewhat enhancing the natural level of uranium in the natural environment. It is legitimate to place the risks of this exposure in the context of naturally occurring uranium levels in the environment and it seems unlikely that the small increase in uranium levels this will entail (except in the circumstance that a penetrator lodges in very close proximity to a drinking water well) will constitute a hazard to health. Given the climatic conditions in the Balkans, it seems unlikely that re-suspension of the dusts resulting from the 5 to 10% of munitions burning will lead to prolonged exposure of the population by this route although in the first year or two hot summer weather may have led to some resuspension. In any case weathering and leaching of the dust on the ground will result in a lowering of its potential toxicity. The health risks to the civilian populations, peacekeeping troops and aid workers in Balkans are, therefore, likely to be minimal in the future, the principal risks being confined to those who were on the ground during the actual time of use of the weapons, namely a small minority of the indigenous population and the Serbian troops. The situation in the Iraq/Kuwait theatre, for which there is no environmental assessment, is somewhat different. Given the higher percentage of burned DU/RU in the tank-to-tank fire, the generally dry and arid climatic conditions of the area and the presence of a civilian population at the time of the battles, the potential for exposure to dusts and smoke of the combatants and civilian populations present during and after the battles is much greater. However, these exposures have to be seen against the background of other exposures to potentially toxic agents associated with this war. Although exposure to DU may have played a role in the induction of any health effects demonstrated to have been induced, it may prove difficult to disentangle its effects in this multiple exposure situation and make clear attributions of specific health consequences to specific agents. Nevertheless, continued exposure to re-suspended DU/RU dusts could have posed and could continue to pose, a health hazard to the civilian population in the regions affected by the hostilities. As the soluble component is "weathered" away the risks will tend to converge towards those predicted on the basis of the ICRP lung model, taking into account the particle size distribution and any influence of the bystander effect. References ARCHER, V. E., 1981, Health concerns in uranium mining and milling. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 23, 502-505. ARCHER, V. E., WAGONER, J. K. and LUNDIN, F. E., 1973, Lung cancer among uranium miners in the United States. Health Physics, 25, 351- 371. BAVERSTOCK, K. F. and THORNE, M. C., 1989, Radiological protection and the lymphatic system: the induction of leukaemia consequent upon the internal irradiation of the tracheobronchial lymph nodes and the gastrointestinal tract wall. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 55, 129-140. BELYAKOV, O. V., MALCOLMSON, A. M., FOLKARD, M., PRISE, K. M. and MICHAEL, B. D., 2001, Direct evidence for a bystander effect of ionizing radiation in primary human fibroblasts. British Journal of Cancer, 84, 674-679. BURKART, W. and LINDER, H., 1987, Hot particles in the environment: assessment of dose and health detriment. Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, 32, 310-315. CARDIS, E. and RICHARDSON, D., 2000, Invited editorial: health effects of radiation exposure at uranium processing facilities. Journal of Radiological Protection, 20, 95-97. CHECKOWAY, H., PEARCE, N., CRAWFORD-BROWN, D. J. and CRAGLE, D. L., 1988, Radiation doses and cause-specific mortality among workers at a nuclear materials fabrication plant. American Journal of Epidemiology, 127, 255-266. CHPPM, 2000, Follow-up DoD Exposure Report; Depleted Uranium in the Gulf II, US Department of Defence. Available at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/chppm_du_rpt_index.html COEN, N., MOTHERSILL, C., KADHIM, M. and WRIGHT, E. G., 2001, Heavy Metals of Relevance to Human Health Induced Genomic Instability. In Press. DUPREE, E. A., CRAGLE, D. L., MCLAIN, R. W., CRAWFORD-BROWN, D. J. and TETA, M. J., 1987, Mortality among workers at a uranium processing facility, the Linde Air Products Company Ceramics Plant, 1943-1949. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 13, 100-107. IARC, 1990, Nickel and Nickel Compounds . Lyon, France, IARC. ICRP, 1991, Recommendations of the International Commission on Radialogical Protection, Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP ICRP, 1994, Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection Publication 66, Annals of the ICRP. 24 (nos 1 - 3). ICRP, 1995, Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 3 - Ingestion Dose Coefficients. Publication 69 Annals of the ICRP. 25(no 1). KATHREN, R. L., MCINROY, J. F., MOORE, R. H. and DIETERT, S. E., 1989, Uranium in the tissues of an occupationally exposed individual. Health Physics, 57, 17-21. KATHREN, R. L. and MOORE, R. H., 1986, Acute accidental inhalation of U: a 38-year follow-up. Health Physics, 51, 609-619. KURTTIO, P., AUVINEN, A., SALONEN, L., SAHA, H., PEKKANEN, J., MDKELDINEN, I., VDISDNEN, S.B., PENTTILD, I.M., KOMULAINEN, H., in press, Renal effects of uranium in drinking water. Environmental Health Perspectives, in press. LEGGETT, R. W., 1989, The behavior and chemical toxicity of U in the kidney: a reassessment. Health Physics, 57, 365-383. LOOMIS, D. P. and WOLF, S. H., 1996, Mortality of workers at a nuclear materials production plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1947- 1990. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 29, 131-141. MCDIARMID, M. A., 2001, Depleted uranium and public health (editorial). British Medical Journal, 322, 123-124. MCGEOGHEGAN, D. and BINKS, K., 2000, The mortality and cancer morbidity experience of workers at the Springfields uranium production facility, 1946-95. Journal of Radiological Protection, 20, 111-137. MILLER, A. C., BLAKLEY, W. F., LIVENGOOD, D., WHITTAKER, T., XU, J., EJNIK, J. W., HAMILTON, M. M., PARLETTE, E., John, T. S., GERSTENBERG, H. M. and HSU, H., 1998, Transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by depleted uranium- uranyl chloride. Environmental Health Perspectives, 106, 465-471. MILLER, A. C., FUCIARELLI, A. F., JACKSON, W. E., EJNIK, E. J., EMOND, C., STROCKO, S., HOGAN, J., PAGE, N. and PELLMAR, T., 1998, Urinary and serum mutagenicity studies with rats implanted with depleted uranium or tantalum pellets. Mutagenesis, 13, 643-648. MOTHERSILL, C. and SEYMOUR, C., 2001, Review: Radiation-induced Bystander Effects: Past History and Future Directions. Radiation Research, 155, 759-767. RITZ, B., 1999, Cancer mortality among workers exposed to chemicals during uranium processing. Journal of Occupatioanl and Environmental Medicine, 41, 556-566. RITZ, B., 1999, Radiation exposure and cancer mortality in uranium processing workers. Epidemiology, 10, 531-538. RITZ, B., MORGENSTERN, H., CRAWFORD-BROWN, D. and YOUNG, B., 2000, The Effects of Internal Radiation Exposure on Cancer Mortality in Nuclear Workers at Rocketdyne/Atomics International. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108, 743-751. SHEPPARD, S. C., and EVENDEN, W. G. 1988, Critical compliation and review of plant/soil concentration ratios for uranium, thorium and lead. J. Env Radioact. 8 255 - 285 RS, 2001, The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions, Part I, The Royal Society, London, UK. UNEP, 2001, Depleted Uranium in Kosovo, Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, Switzerland. VAN KAICK, G., MUTH, H., KAUL, A., WESCH, H., IMMICH, H., LIEBERMANN, D., LORENZ, D., LORENZ, W., L\HRS, H., SCHEER, K. E., WAGNER, G. and WEGNENER, K., 1986, Report on the German Thorotrast Study.The Radiobiology of Radium and Thorotrast, Munich, Urban und Schwarzenberg. WHO, 2001, Depleted Uranium, Sources, Exposure and Health Effects, World Health Organisation, Protection of the Human Environment, Geneva, Switzerland. To send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click here The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org Please see our Fair Use Notice ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 51 [du-list] DU - The stuff of nightmares Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:56:54 -0700 DU - The stuff of nightmares By Julie Flint Special to The Lebanon Daily Star Tuesday, September 14, 2004 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=8333 Two years before the invasion of Iraq, a report commissioned by the World Health Organization warned that the long-term health of Iraq's civilian population would be damaged by the use of depleted uranium (DU) - radioactive waste from the nuclear industry which is used to harden missiles, shells and bullets and which slices through tank armor like a knife through butter. The WHO did not make the report public. Odd, that. DU has been called the "Trojan Horse" of the wars in Iraq - and Afghanistan and Kosovo and Bosnia - a weapon that keeps on killing. On detonation, DU armaments release a spray of radioactive dust that can be carried in the air over long distances and which, when inhaled, goes into the body and stays there. The dust remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years. The WHO report was written by three of Europe's top radiation scientists, including Dr. Keith Baverstock, for more than a decade the WHO's leading expert on radiation and health. After retiring from the WHO, Baverstock leaked the report to the media earlier this year. It concluded that microscopic particles of DU would be blown around and inhaled by Iraqi civilians for years to come, and could trigger the growth of malignant tumors. Baverstock believes the WHO deliberately suppressed the report - probably under pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a more powerful UN body that promotes nuclear power. In response, WHO claims the IAEA's role was "very minor" and says the report was not approved for publication because "parts of it did not reflect accurately what a WHO-convened group of international experts considered the best science in the area of depleted uranium." In other words, its own chosen experts got it wrong. Odd, again. Had the study had been published in November 2001, Baverstock believes there would have been more pressure on the Allies to limit their use of DU during the invasion of Iraq - and to clean up afterward. But it wasn't published. As a result, Iraq is now playing host to some 350 tons of DU fired in 1991, but also to more than 1,000 tons reportedly fired in 2003. The "reportedly" is needed here because the armed forces are playing coy with figures. No wonder: handlers of DU in the US and Britain are required to wear masks and protective clothing. Imagine Iraqis having to dress like that for 4.5 billion years. Nuha al-Radi, the much-loved Iraqi artist and diarist who died in Beirut on August 31, believed her leukemia could have been caused by DU. And if not DU, then something else to which Iraqis were knowingly exposed in the wars since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. For DU is not the only concern in the "toxic wasteland" that many scientists say Iraq has become. There are also the chemical weapons the Baath regime used against its own people, and in its war with Iran, and, most recently, the chemical and biological materials released into the atmosphere by Allied bombing of Iraqi stockpiles in the first Gulf war of 1991. Nuha, who didn't believe the first war would take place, was devastated by the second. "The carnage takes place in apocalyptic proportions," she wrote at her lowest point. "Sometimes I want to cry, but I resist. I am totally withered, and feel so useless." We talked of working together on a film that would investigate the pollution of Iraq and its people. Nuha was convinced that DU was entering the water table and flowing into every corner of the country, poisoning everything. But she fell ill, and we did nothing. Looking at the DU debate now, one thing is crystal-clear: there are two very district bodies of opinion - and both claim to be informed. The question is, by what? On one side, there are the governments that use DU weapons, the IAEA, NATO and WHO, who maintain (publicly, at least) that DU is not particularly dangerous and has no long-term effects. On the other side, united by varying degrees of concern, are the European Parliament, which has called for an immediate moratorium on the use of DU weapons, Belgium, Portugal, France, Spain and Italy, who don't use them and want an inquiry into them; the United Nations Environmental Program; and many independent scientists, several of whom have first-hand experience of the legacy of DU. After the first Gulf war, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a colonel in the US Army Medical Corps, was put in charge of Nuclear Medicine Service at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He discovered unusual radiation levels in veterans and became convinced not only that DU was killing them, but also that it was causing changes in the human gene pool that would damage future generations. He found "considerable resistance" from the government to his work on DU and was asked to stop. He refused. Two months after writing to President Bill Clinton to request an inquiry into DU contamination, he was fired - and went on to become Clinical Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington. A nutter? Hardly. Yet Durakovic says soil samples from Iraq show radiation levels 17 times higher than is acceptable - threatening, he says, environmental "catastrophe." He believes that DU contamination from the 1991 war may have exposed the entire Gulf population. When the 1991 war started, Dr. Doug Rokke, a Vietnam veteran, forensic scientist and retired army major, was recalled from academia and sent to the Gulf as part of the army's Depleted Uranium Assessment team. "The US Army made me their expert," he says. "I went into the project with the total intent to ensure they could use uranium munitions in war, because I'm a warrior. What I saw as director of the project led me to one conclusion: uranium munitions must be banned from the planet, for eternity, and medical care must be provided for everyone" - those on the firing end and those on the receiving end. Many in Rokke's Gulf team are now dead. He himself suffers from serious health problems including brain lesions and lung and kidney damage. When government doctors finally agreed to test him in November 1994, three-and-a-half years after he fell ill, while he was director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, he was found to have 5,000 times the permissible level of radiation in his body - enough to light up a small village. DU, he says, is the stuff of nightmares. Julie Flint is a veteran journalist based in Beirut and London. This is the first of two articles on depleted uranium, which she wrote for THE DAILY STAR -- Posted for educational and research purposes only, ~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~ NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Need a home for your web domain? We recommend our provider, Hosting Direct https://support.hostingdirect.net/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=nucnews ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/ ***************************************************************** 52 Censored: High Uranium Levels Found in Troops and Civilians Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:00:26 -0500 (CDT) (#4) High Uranium Levels Found in Troops and Civilians URANIUM MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTER, January 2003 Title: UMRCs Preliminary Findings from Afghanistan & Operation Enduring Freedom and Afghan Field Trip #2 Report: Precision Destruction- Indiscriminate Effects Author: Tedd Weyman, UMRC Research Team AWAKENED WOMAN, January 2004 Title: Scientists Uncover Radioactive Trail in Afghanistan Author: Stephanie Hiller DISSIDENT VOICE, March 2004 Title: There Are No WordsRadiation in Iraq Equals 250,000 Nagasaki Bombs Author: Bob Nichols NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, April 5,2004 Title: Poisoned? Author: Juan Gonzalez INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE, March 2004 Title: International Criminal Tribune For Afghanistan At Tokyo, The People vs. George Bush Author: Professor Ms Niloufer Bhagwat J. Evaluator: Jennifer Lillig, Ph.D. Student Researcher: Kenny Crosbie Civilian populations in Afghanistan and Iraq and occupying troops have been contaminated with astounding levels of radioactive depleted and non-depleted uranium as a result of post-9/11 United States use of tons of uranium munitions. Researchers say surrounding countries are bound to feel the effects as well. In 2003 scientists from the Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC) studied urine samples of Afghan civilians and found that 100% of the samples taken had levels of non-depleted uranium (NDU) 400% to 2000% higher than normal levels. The UMRC research team studied six sites, two in Kabul and others in the Jalalabad area. The civilians were tested four months after the attacks in Afghanistan by the United States and its allies. NDU is more radioactive than depleted uranium (DU), which itself is charged with causing many cancers and severe birth defects in the Iraqi populationespecially childrenover the past ten years. Four million pounds of radioactive uranium was dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone. Uranium dust will be in the bodies of our returning armed forces. Nine soldiers from the 442nd Military Police serving in Iraq were tested for DU contamination in December 2003. Conducted at the request of The News, as the U.S. government considers the cost of $1,000 per affected soldier prohibitive, the test found that four of the nine men were contaminated with high levels of DU, likely caused by inhaling dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops. Several of the men had traces of another uranium isotope, U-236, that are produced only in a nuclear reaction process. Most American weapons (missiles, smart bombs, dumb bombs, bullets, tank shells, cruise missiles, etc.) contain high amounts of radioactive uranium. Depleted or non-depleted, these types of weapons, on detonation, release a radioactive dust which, when inhaled, goes into the body and stays there. It has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Basically, its a permanently available contaminant, distributed in the environment, where dust storms or any water nearby can disperse it. Once ingested, it releases subatomic particles that slice through DNA. UMRCs Field Team found several hundred Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination, including congenital problems in newborns. Local civilians reported large, dense dust clouds and smoke plumes rising from the point of impact, an acrid smell, followed by burning of the nasal passages, throat and upper respiratory tract. Subjects in all locations presented identical symptom profiles and chronologies. The victims reported symptoms including pain in the cervical column, upper shoulders and basal area of the skull, lower back/kidney pain, joint and muscle weakness, sleeping difficulties, headaches, memory problems and disorientation. At the Uranium Weapons Conference held October 2003 in Hamburg, Germany, independent scientists from around the world testified to a huge increase in birth deformities and cancers wherever NDU and DU had been used. Professor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. At the Uranium Weapons Conference, a demonstration by British-trained oncologist Dr. Jawad Al-Ali showed photographs of the kinds of birth deformities and tumors he had observed at the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra just before the 2003 war. Cancer rates had increased dramatically over the previous fifteen years. In 1989 there were 11 abnormalities per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000an increase of over a thousand percent. In 1989 34 people died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths. The 2003 war has increased these figures exponentially. At a meeting of the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan held December 2003 in Tokyo, the U.S. was indicted for multiple war crimes in Afghanistan, among them the use of DU. Leuren Moret, President of Scientists for Indigenous People and Environmental Commissioner for the City of Berkeley, testified that because radioactive contaminants from uranium weapons travel through air, water, and food sources, the effects of U.S. deployment in Afghanistan will be felt in Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China and India. Countries affected by the use of uranium weapons in Iraq include Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Turkey, and Iran. UPDATE BY BOB NICHOLS: (Oklahoma City) Throughout the world people are familiar with the "smoking gun" solution so prized by murder mystery writers. Many think that once the smoking gun in any mystery is discovered, it is time for the "bad guys" to give up. Wish it were only so. The smoking guns are Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and Cpl. Anthony Yonnone from New York's 442nd Guard Unitthey are the first confirmed cases of inhaled uranium oxide exposure from the current Iraq conflict. Dr. Asaf Durokovic, professor of Nuclear Medicine at the Uranium Medical Research Centre http://www.umrc.net/ conducted the diagnostic tests. The story was released April 3, 2004 in the New York Daily News. There is no treatment and there is no cure. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/180333p-156685c.html Leuren Moret reports, "In my research on depleted uranium during the past 5 years, the most disturbing information concerns the impact on the unborn children and future generations for both soldiers serving in the depleted uranium wars, and for the civilians who must live in the permanently radioactive contaminated regions. Today, more than 240,000 Gulf War veterans are on permanent medical disability and more than 11,000 are dead. They have been denied testing, medical care, and compensation for depleted uranium exposure and related illnesses since 1991." Moret continues "Even worse, they brought it home in their bodies. In some families, the children born before the Gulf War are the only healthy members. Wives and female partners of Gulf War veterans have reported a condition known as burning semen syndrome, and are now internally contaminated from depleted uranium carried in the semen of exposed veterans. Many are reporting reproductive illnesses such as endometriosis. In a U.S. government study, conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs on post-Gulf War babies, 67% were found to have serious birth defects or serious illnesses. They were born without eyes (anophthalmos), ears, had missing organs, missing legs and arms, fused fingers, thyroid or other organ malformations." "LIFE Photoessay:" http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html Moret concludes, "In Iraq it is even worse where babies are born without brains, organs are outside the body, or women give birth to pieces of flesh. In babies born in Iraq in 2002, the incidence of anophthalmos was 250,000 times greater (20 cases in 4,000 births) than the natural occurrence, one in 50 million births. Takashi MORIZUMI's photos: in http://www.savewarchildren.org/ record the tragedy in Iraq." For more information on the American President's continuing campaign of contaminating the land, check the World Uranium Weapons Conference, http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/ , Check the Uranium Medical Research Center and Dr. Asaf Durakovic at http://www.umrc.net/ , and for updates on the related Nuclear Power Plants see Russell Hoffman's website at: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/index.htm ***************************************************************** 53 Buffalo News: Processing claims tied to N-arms work are criticized www.buffalo.com News Washington Bureau 9/14/2004 While the federal government is processing claims from many former nuclear weapons workers who say their jobs made them sick, it has not yet dealt with claims involving several Western New York facilities where 380 such workers or their survivors have filed for compensation. The U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a report that claims processing "has essentially stopped" at facilities where the government has not yet done a study profiling the risks workers faced. An official involved in the program said Monday that work on such "site profiles" only recently began at four Western New York locations: Linde Air Products and Linde Ceramics of the Town of Tonawanda and Hooker Electrochemical and Simonds Saw of Niagara Falls. Meanwhile, the government doesn't plan to do profiles of five other local former nuclear sites. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said the GAO report shows that the compensation program is in trouble. "This report confirms what we have been saying for years, that we have New Yorkers literally dying off as they wait for these payments that were promised to them," he said. Meanwhile, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport, said the report did not go far enough. "The people who are seeking help under this program must be treated with respect and have their claims evaluated in a timely, consistent manner," she said. "The GAO report provides no road map to get us there." The program, which provides $150,000 payments and medical coverage to eligible workers, has long been criticized as a quagmire. And the report from Congress' watchdog agency did little to change that impression. "Some claimants could wait a considerable period to have their claims fully processed," the GAO said. That's especially true for former workers whose claims are sent to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for "dose reconstructions" - tests that determine their exposure to nuclear materials. At former nuclear sites where more than 40 formers workers have filed claims, that federal agency develops site profiles. But if those site profiles remain undone, applications for compensation tend to languish, the GAO said. Overall, the government has processed only 9 percent of the claims requiring dose reconstructions. The GAO suggested that the agency responsible for dose reconstructions set up a timetable for completing the site evaluations. And Larry Elliott, director of the agency's Office of Compliance Analysis and Support, said he's doing just that. He also said that because of limited resources, profiles would not be done at most facilities where fewer than 40 people had filed claims. By far the greatest number of claims locally - 560 - came from former Bethlehem Steel Corp. workers. A site profile has been done for that site, and NIOSH reported that dose reconstructions had been completed for 500 of those cases. e-mail: jzremski@buffnews.com ***************************************************************** 54 Spectrum: Experts refute exposure link thespectrum.com Friday, September 10, 2004 By PATRICE ST. GERMAIN patrices@thespectrum.com [Photo] Jud Burkett/The Spectrum Scientist Bruce Church explains the levels of radiation that were released following different nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site as he addresses the crowd gathered at a public education program on radiation issues Thursday at Dixie State College. ST. GEORGE -- Despite studies, compensation and debates over what the government calls downwinders, two scientists who grew up locally refute the idea that atomic testing at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s and 1960s is a contributing factor to cancer. Bruce Church and Antone Brooks presented a program Thursday night at Dixie State College, which hosted the event. Church said the program was not sponsored by anyone but was organized because of concerns he and Brooks shared. At the conclusion of the program, Brooks said Washington County does not have high cancer rates or shortened life expectancies due to radioactive fallout. In his summary, Brooks said high radiation is a serious danger and radiation is a very good cell killer but a poor cancer producing agent. Local resident Michelle Thomas made a comment about Brooks' theory and the difference between the radiation she received during cancer treatment and the radiation she received growing up in the area during the testing. Brooks said radiation is radiation. "So a bomb a day keeps the cancer away," Thomas remarked. Church, who was raised in LaVerkin, has a bachelor's degree in molecular/radiobiology from the University of Utah and a master's degree in Radiological Health from Colorado State University. He was affiliated with the Nevada Test Site for 31 years and has conducted studies on the distribution of fallout from the test site and specialized radioactivity in the environment. During his presentation, Church said most Utah residents received relatively modest exposure from fallout. "Risk is proportional to the size of the dose," he said. Brooks, with bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Utah in Radiation Ecology, has conducted 20 years of research on the health effects of internally deposited radioactive materials. Brooks said that radiation is in everything, on everything, but his question as a scientist was "is it doing anything." "We live in a sea of radiation," he said. Radiation is found in the environment, the human body, rocks and soil and cosmic rays. Brooks said cancer is a frequent event in our society and the World Health Organization has done studies on what causes cancer. Cigarette smoking is at the top of the list followed by diet/nutrition, chronic infection. Environmental pollution is at the bottom of the list. Brooks said Utah has a low cancer rate and said there are other things in the environment besides radiation that cause cancer. As far as the government spending money in the form of RECA (Radiation Exposure Compensation Act) payments, grant money for downwinder testing at Dixie Regional Medical Center and more studies by the National Academies of Science to look at broadening the area and types of cancers covered by RECA, Brooks said "it's cheaper to pay off than fight them." After the program, Brooks said the government was looking at a lot of lawsuits and the solution, political and legal, was to pay some people off who claimed they got cancer by radiation exposure. He said what Dixie Regional Medical Center was doing was responding to an important concern but said there was no strong scientific basis for it. "Stress is a big cause of cancer and these people are under a lot of stress," Brooks said. Brooks said 25 percent of the population would develop some form of cancer. People exposed to 10 rads -- a unit of absorbed dose of ionizing radiation -- or more would show increased chances of developing cancer yet in Washington County, people only were exposed to 3 to 4 rads. Originally published Friday, September 10, 2004 Copyright ©2004 The Spectrum. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 55 UPI: U.S. eyes missing nuclear bomb off Georgia - (United Press International) September 14, 2004 Washington, DC, Sep. 14 (UPI) -- U.S. officials are weighing the safety of recovering a nuclear bomb dropped in the Atlantic off the Georgia coast in 1958, CNN reported Tuesday. Air Force officials said in July they suspected they had located the 7,600-pound, 12-foot-long thermonuclear bomb containing 400 pounds of high explosives and uranium near Tybee Island using radiation detection gear. Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Frank Smolinsky said experts from the Air Force, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy were examining the information and may decide soon to conduct their own tests with more sophisticated equipment on the scene. The Air Force has said the bomb was being used for practice and did not contain the plutonium trigger needed for a nuclear explosion, and is probably harmless if left where it is. The United States lost 11 nuclear bombs in accidents during the Cold War that were never recovered, according to the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. [UPI Perspectives] Copyright 2004 United Press International ***************************************************************** 56 Aljazeera.Net: Washington's secret nuclear war Tuesday 14 September 2004, 22:17 Makka The US has dropped tonnes of depleted uranium on Iraq US secretly removed Iraqi uranium Illegal weapons of mass destruction have not only been found in Iraq but have been used against Iraqis and have even killed US troops. But Washington and its allies have tried to cover up this outrage because the chief culprit is the US itself, argue American and other experts trying to expose what they say is a war crime. The WMD in question is depleted uranium (DU). A radioactive by-product of uranium enrichment, DU is used to coat ammunition such as tank shells and "bunker busting" missiles because its density makes it ideal for piercing armour. Thousands of DU shells and bombs have been used in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and - both during the 1990-91 Gulf war and the ongoing conflict - in Iraq. "They're using it in Falluja, Baghdad is chock-a-block with DU - it's all over the place" Major Doug Rokke, ex-head of US army DU project "They're using it now, they're using it in Falluja, Baghdad is chock-a-block with DU - it's all over the place," says Major Doug Rokke, director of the US army's DU project in 1994-95. Scientists say even a tiny particle can have disastrous results once ingested, including various cancers and degenerative diseases, paralysis, birth deformities and death. And as tiny DU particles are blown across the Middle East and beyond like a radioactive poison gas, the long-term implications for the world - DU has a shelf-life of 4.5 billion years - are deeply disturbing. Sick soldiers Only 467 US soldiers were officially wounded during the 1990-91 Gulf war. But according to Terry Jemison at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), of the more than 592,560 discharged personnel who served there, at least 179,310 - one third - are receiving disability compensation and over 24,760 cases were pending by in September 2004. A sixth of the Iraq war veterans have already sought treatment This does not include personnel still active and receiving care from the military, or those who have died. And among 168,528 veterans of the current conflict in Iraq who have left active duty, 16% (27,571) had already sought treatment from the VA by July 2004. "That's astronomical," says Rokke, whose team studied how to provide medical care for victims, how to clean contaminated sites, and how to train those using DU weapons. Rokke admits the exact cause for these casualties cannot be confirmed. But he insists the evidence pointing to DU is compelling. "There were no chemical or biological weapons there, no big oil well fires," he says. "So what's left?" Cradle to grave Dr Jenan Ali, a senior Iraqi doctor at Basra hospital's College of Medicine, says her studies show a 100% rise in child leukaemia in the region in the decade after the first Gulf war, with a 242% increase in all types of malignancies. The director of the Afghan DU and Recovery Fund, Dr Daud Miraki, says his field researchers found evidence of DU's effect on civilians in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan in 2003 although local conditions make rigorous statistical analysis difficult. Iraqi and Afghan doctors have seen a rise in deformed foetuses "Many children are born with no eyes, no limbs, or tumours protruding from their mouths and eyes," Miraki told Aljazeera.net. Some newborns are barely recognisable as human, he says. Many do not survive. Afghan and Iraqi children continue to play amid radioactive debris. But the US army will not even label contaminated equipment or sites because doing so would be an admission that DU is hazardous. This "deceitful failure", says Rokke, contradicts the US army's own rules, such as regulation AR 700-48, which stipulates its responsibilities to isolate, label and decontaminate radioactive equipment and sites as well as to render prompt and effective medical care for all exposed individuals. "This is a war crime," Rokke says. "The president is obliged to ensure the army complies with these regulations but they're deliberately violating the law. It's that simple." No remedy But these blatant violations are practically irrelevant because Rokke's Iraq mission found that DU cannot be cleaned up and there is no known medical remedy. US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair used Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of illegal weapons to justify invading Iraq. But several prominent jurists hold Bush and Blair guilty of war crimes for waging DU warfare. The vice-president of the Indian Lawyers Association, Niloufer Bhagwat, sat on an international panel of judges for the unofficial International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan. Bhagwat and her fellow judges ruled that the US had used "weapons of extermination of present and future generations, genocidal in properties". Friendly fire And not just against defenceless Afghan civilians. Critics say George Bush (R) and Tony Blair are 'war criminals' "Bush was guilty of knowingly using DU weaponry against his own troops," Bhagwat told Aljazeera.net, "because the president knew the effects of DU could not be controlled". A prominent US international human-rights lawyer, Karen Parker, says there are four rules derived from humanitarian laws and conventions regarding weapons: + weapons may only be used against legal enemy military targets and must not have an adverse effect elsewhere (the territorial rule) + weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict and must not be used or continue to act afterwards (the temporal rule) + weapons may not be unduly inhumane (the "humaneness" rule). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 speak of "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" in this regard + weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment (the "environmental" rule). Illegal weapons "DU weaponry fails all four tests," Parker told Aljazeera.net. First, DU cannot be limited to legal military targets. Second, it cannot be "turned off" when the war is over but keeps killing. Third, DU can kill through painful conditions such as cancers and organ damage and can also cause birth defects such as facial deformities and missing limbs. "Use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions" Karen Parker, human rights lawyer Lastly, DU cannot be used without unduly damaging the natural environment. "In my view, use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions," says Parker. "And so its use constitutes a war crime, or crime against humanity." Parker and others took the DU issue before the UN in 1995, and in 1996, the UN Human Rights Commission described DU munitions as weapons of mass destruction that should be banned. Deceit Despite the evidence, Rokke says Pentagon and Energy Department officials have campaigned against him and others trying to expose the horrors of DU. That charge is echoed by Leuren Moret, a geoscientist who has worked at the Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons research laboratories in California. White House denials are part of a long-standing cover-up policy that has been exposed before, she says. President Bush insists warnings about DU are merely propaganda "For example, the US denied using DU bombs and missiles against Yugoslavia in 1999," she told Aljazeera.net. "But scientists in Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria measured elevated levels of gamma radiation in the first three days of grid and carpet bombing by the US." Moret said: "A missile landed in Bulgaria that didn't explode and scientists identified a DU warhead. Then, Lord [George] Robertson, the head of NATO, admitted in public that DU had been used." Even the US army expressed concern about the use of DU in July 1990, some six months before the outbreak of the first Gulf war. Those concerns were later echoed by Iraqi officials. Denial But brushing his own army's report aside - now said to be "outdated" - US President George Bush has dismissed such warnings as "propaganda". "In recent years, the Iraqi regime made false claim that the depleted uranium rounds fired by coalition forces have caused cancers and birth defects in Iraq," says Bush on his White House website. "But scientists working for the World Health Organisation, the UN Environmental Programme and the European Union could find no health effects linked to exposure to depleted uranium," he said. Bush can point to a World Health Organisation (WHO) report in 2001 that said there was no significant risk of inhaling radioactive particles where DU weapons had been used. It said the level of radiation associated with DU debris was not particularly hazardous, but it accepted that high exposure could pose a health risk. Scientific studies WHO also commissioned a scientific study shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that warned of the dangers of US and British use of DU - but refused to publish its findings. The study's main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, told Aljazeera.net that "the report was deliberately suppressed" because WHO was pressed by a more powerful, pro-nuclear UN body - the International Atomic Energy Agency. WHO has rejected his claims as "totally unfounded". "[WHO's] report was deliberately suppressed" Dr Keith Baverstock, co-author of WHO report on DU The study found DU particles were likely to be blown around and inhaled by Iraqi civilians for years to come. Once inside a human body, the radioactive particles can trigger the growth of malignant tumours. Bush's claim that the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) gives DU pollution a clean bill of health is also disingenuous. UNEP experts have yet to be allowed into Iraq, its spokesman in Geneva Michael Williams told Aljazeera.net, citing security concerns. And a scientific body set up in 1997 by Green EU parliamentarians - the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) - found that DU posed serious health risks. An eminent Canadian scientist involved with the ECRR, Dr Rosalie Bertell, says the deadliness of DU derived not just from its radioactivity but from the durability of particles formed in the 3000-6000C heat produced when a DU weapon is fired. "The particles produced are like ceramic: not soluble in body fluid, non-biodegradable and highly toxic," she told Aljazeera.net. "They tend to concentrate in the lymph nodes, which is the source of lymphomas and leukaemia". Known killer The US military and political establishment cannot plead ignorance. As early as October 1943, Manhattan Project scientists Arthur Compton, James Connant and Harold Urey sent a memo to their director, General Leslie Groves, saying DU could be used to create a "radioactive gas". DU targets human DNA and may thus affect future generations In 1961, two nuclear experts, Briton HE Huxley and American Geoffrey Zubay, informed the scientific community that DU targeted human DNA and "the Master Code, which controls the expression of DNA", Moret said. In September 2000, Dr Asaf Durakovic, professor of nuclear medicine at Washington's Georgetown University, told a Paris conference of prominent scientists that "tens of thousands" of US and UK troops were dying of DU. Death sentence "There has to be a moratorium on the manufacture, sales, use and storage of DU," geoscientist Moret says, warning that this will not happen unless more Americans realise what is happening. The Middle East has been severely contaminated, warns Moret. "That region is radioactive forever," she says, but worse is yet to come. Moret says the air carrying DU particles takes about a year to mix with the rest of the earth's atmosphere. Radioactive sites continue to kill and contaminate Iraqi children The radiation released by DU nuclear warfare is believed to be more than 10 times the amount dispersed by atmospheric testing. As a result, DU particles have engulfed the world in a radioactive poison gas that promises illness and death for millions. Rokke went to Iraq a fit and healthy soldier, but the major is now beset with a variety of illnesses and each day is a struggle. He suffers from respiratory problems and cataracts while his teeth - weakened by DU radiation - are crumbling. At least 20 of the 100 primary personnel he worked with on the US army's DU project have died. Most of the rest are ill. Meanwhile, WHO says cancer rates worldwide are set to rise by 50% by 2020, although it does not link this publicly to DU. "They would never say that - they offered various strange explanations," said Moret. "But DU is the key factor. People will slowly die." Aljazeera ***************************************************************** 57 Daily Times: Global nuclear safety regime needed - Admiral (r) Ramdas Wednesday, September 15, 2004 * Kashmir issue should be resolved according to Kashmiris’ will * High defence expenditures an element of political instability By Waqar Gillani Former Indian naval chief Admiral (r) Laxminarayan Ramdas, now a prominent peace activist, speaks to Daily Times about his work as president emeritus of the Indian chapter of the Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD), the importance of nuclear safety measures, and how to promote peace Daily Times: Why did you decide to become a peace activist after retiring? Laxminarayan Ramdas: Peace is a pro-people cause and I believe that the armed forces are as much a tool of peace as they are of war, since they consist of people who would prefer peace. In fact the military has never gone to war itself, such decisions have always been made by the government. I believe that war does not solve any issue and that there is need for alternative strategies and solutions. DT: When and under what circumstances did you join the PIPFPD? LR: I joined the forum after my retirement in 1993 in the preliminary stages of the formation of the PIPFPD, which was created on September 4, 1994 in Lahore. My late friend and one of the founding members of the forum, Nirmal Mukhar, who had served as cabinet secretary, encouraged me to work for this cause. I think it was a blessing for me that the forum was formed at the time when I retired. I was initially supposed to become a founding member of the forum, however I could not come to Lahore when the PIPFPD was formally inducted. I joined the forum immediately after it was inaugurated and actively participated in its first convention, which was held in New Delhi in 1995. The convention addressed issues of economic and social democracy. DT: How has the PIPFDP progressed in the last 10 years and how was the ‘people to people contact’ objective achieved? LR: In my view, the forum has developed as a catalyst for social and economic development in the South Asian region, particularly India and Pakistan. It was formed at a crucial time and in the last 10 years the objective of people to people contact was significantly achieved. In fact this objective could be regarded as a basic foundation to improve the relationship and understanding between the people of the two countries. People are no longer captive audiences ready to be used as propaganda machines by the governments and are slowly eliminating self-created biases, which has helped our cause. We have made many friends while exchanging visits, which have spread across the two countries in the shape of people to people contact. Now we have chapters in every state, major districts and cities. We now have an amalgamated membership of people representing the PIPFPD. DT: What other significant progress has the PIPFPD made? LR: The forum has gained momentum in the sense that the governments have started realising the need for peace in the subcontinent and have started cooperating with one another. As part of people to people contact, Kashmiris from both sides of the Line of Control have been incorporated into the membership of the PIPFPD. We feel that the future of Kashmir must be decided according to the wishes of its people and this should be the governments’ top priority, besides denuclearisation. DT: Do you think the PIPFPD should become a political platform for the people of India and Pakistan? LR: We have no motive whatsoever to create a political platform for ourselves nor do we respresent any political party. Our only motive is to help people within the forum’s prescribed agenda of peace and democracy. DT: How do you view the recent series of dialogues between India and Pakistan in light of the declaration of January 2004? LR: I think the January 2004 declaration between the two countries has significant value. The dialogue under the declaration was a step in the right direction and must continue so as to achieve peace. Although there have been efforts for the last 57 years to improve Indo-Pak relations, I expect some significant breakthrough in the coming five to 10 years. This development might only take place at a small scale but some issues between the two countries, hopefully, will be resolved. DT: What is your assessment of the Kashmir issue? LR: I cannot say anything on this issue, save that it should be resolved according to the will of the Kashmiris without either government imposing any decision upon them. DT: Do you see Kashmir as an independent state in the near future? LR: Again, I cannot forecast anything. However, the issue must be settled by keeping in view that Jammu and Kashmir includes a geographical horizon that extends to either side of the Line of Control, including the Northern Areas in Pakistan and some regions held by China. Kashmir has three claimants to its land, Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris themselves, which has actually hindered the chances of Jammu and Kashmir as an independent state. The governments should encourage participation by people and stakeholders including minority groups in the process of the independence of Kashmir. This is the democratic way and the only way to solve this issue. However, only time will tell whether we see an independent Kashmir or not. DT: Is there any chance for an amicable solution to the Kashmir issue? LR: The only solution to this issue would be for the Pakistani and Indian governments to re-evaluate their take by meeting the aspirations and the expectations of the people of Kashmir. The Kashmiris would then be able to decide their own fate. DT: Do you feel that other countries, such as the US, should send troops to Kashmir to initiate and upkeep the peace process? LR: There is no role for international forces in Kashmir. It is not viable. These forces could have their own vested interests in Kashmir, which would only complicate the problem. They could end up exploiting Kashmir in the name of peace. Only the countries concerned, India and Pakistan, should resolve the problem in light of what the Kashmiris want. DT: Do you see a breakthroughs in the near future? LR: Personally speaking, no one, especially the media, should expect breakthroughs and developments as miracles. Setbacks are part of the negotiation process as negotiations are seldom made in black and white. DT: What do you think will be the outcome of the present efforts to improve ties between India and Pakistan? Will this process take a bottom-up approach or could agreement between the countries start at the leadership level? LR: Ideally, there must be agreement amongst all levels of society and hierarchy. However, it is not necessary that it should be at the leadership level in particular, it could be at any level. This is necessary to develop a foundation through which we can pave the path for a better future. More importantly, Pakistan has a different government system to India. We have a fully empowered prime minister, whereas in Pakistan executive power lies with the president and not with the prime minister, which divides the role of leadership and decsion making. DT: Do you think Dr Manmahon Singh is an empowered prime minister, given that Sonia Gandhi is the president of the Congress party? LR: Absolutely, people should not underestimate Mr Singh, who is not only fully empowered but also competent enough to lead the nation. He played a major role in introducing economic reforms when he was the finance minister in the early 90s, which proves that he is a man of vision. He is fully independent as Mrs Gandhi already has two responsibilities, one as president of the National Congress Party and the other as covener of the coalition. DT: Do you think the fact that both prime ministers have also served as finance ministers have a bearing on their relationship? LR: I think, it is a coincidence that both the Indian prime minister and Pakistani prime miniser have also served as finance ministers. However, I hope that this coincidence can help them formulate similar policies that facilitate a better understanding between the governments and the people of the two countries. DT: Is it possible to ignore Kashmir and still improve Indo-Pak ties? Or can the two governments take unilateral decisions to resolve other issues before Kashmir? LR: Yes, unilateral decisions can be taken by either of the two governments to improve ties. Dialogue does not mean you assign priorities to issues. Even if the Kashmir issue is not resolved, the governments can make decisions on other matters. Different matters can be taken differently and unilateral decision can also be taken. DT: What role should the Pakistani and Indian military play in promoting peace? LR: The military should adopt a more flexible role and act in the best interests of the nation, which is to promote peace. In this regard the military should be more liberal towards the interests of the people it represents. They are the people’s army and they are for people, not people for them. They are not an imperial army. Our armies need to be compassionate and tolerant. DT: The defence bugdet continues to increase in Pakistan and India. Should it be cut? If yes, would you have still agreed had you been serving in the Indian Navy? LR: I think military spending is a huge burden on our national resources. Higher defence expenditure implies a trade-off where less is spent on socio-economic development. The popular reason for increased defence spending has always been the external threat to national security due to which Pakistan and India have engaged in an arms race. Yes, I have always believed that the defence budget should be cut. I will be the first to stop criticising the government if it pays more attention to development and peace concerns and manages external issues politically. DT: What has led to increases in the defence budgets? LR: Increases in the defence budget of any country stem from a couple of factors. Firstly, it becomes a convenient excuse to counter threats to national security on the pretext that other countries are purchasing weapons as well. This normally results in an arms race that perpetuates further increases in the defence budget. Secondly, we are exploited by militray industrialist companies from countries like the US, France, Russia, Israel and China that sell us weapons of war. In doing so these companies dictate increases in our defence budgets. However, if we can resolve political issues with our advesaries through diplomatic means and manage our neighbourhood politically, we will not need to spend as much on the military. DT: What would you suggest to promote peace, especially in this era of nuclear weaponisation? LR: Firstly, I think the most important thing is to build a global nuclear safety regime that is backed by states with nuclear-weapon capability, ie, the five major nuclear weapon powers (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France) India, Pakistan and possibly Israel. These states should initiate a dialogue concerning nuclear disarmament and restrictions that should be aimed at making the world safe from nuclear weapons. These states should devise an integrated approach towards total nuclear disarmament that should start with the immediate de-alerting of all nuclear weapons. We should not emulate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), instead we should fashion our own forum according to the needs of the world such that it contributes towards the stability of humanity. DT: Would the six major nuclear-waepon powers be interested in joining or be willing to discuss nuclear issues with Pakistan and India? LR: The initiative has to be taken by India and Pakistan. If other nuclear powers including Israel decide to join the forum then well and good. However, dialogue between Pakistan and India should start regardless, to discuss the possibility of a nuclear safety regime with the ultimate goal of total nuclear disarmament. This would particularly be in the interest of states that do not have nuclear capability. We are inviting the other powers to discuss matters transparently. If they want to join, well and good, however we should not stop this dialogue if they do not join the forum. Out of them, perhaps China may join, perhaps Russia may join, I am not certain. But it is something that we have to try. DT: Is it possible to have this forum at the South Asian level? LR: I do not want to regionalise it, for the simple reason that nuclear weapons cannot be regionalised. Nuclear weapons reflect political unstability, thus, it is in the interest of all nations to join the dialogue on nuclear disarmament. DT: Any other recommendations? LR: The second but again the most important recommendation or rather demand is that Indo-Pak dialogues and the people-to-people contact objective should not be derailed at any cost, under any circumstances. No force should deter us from finding a democratic solution to the problems we face. We should not fall victim to extremists on either side. The process should function as smoothly as possible. And thirdly, if possible, the governments of India and Pakistan should sign at least some agreements and concessions, so as to build confidence in the eyes of the public and show that they (governments) are genuinely interested in improving bilateral ties. These agreements may well be related to relaxing visa restrictions and promoting tourism. Born on September 5, 1933, Mr Ramdas joined the Indian Navy in January 1949 and retired as Naval Chief in 1993. Since his retirement he has written many articles for newspapers and magazines promoting the cause of peace in the subcontinent. He is currently compiling a book that addresses peace issues and narrates his own life experiences. Mr Ramdas received the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay award for peace and international understanding in 2004. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions [http://www.wcis.com.pk] ***************************************************************** 58 Boston.com: Not enough focus on nuclear threats The Boston Globe By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Columnist | September 14, 2004 WASHINGTON -- As the International Atomic Energy Agency's board met yesterday in Vienna to receive an update on the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, the US presidential candidates went about their usual business. President Bush derided challenger John F. Kerry's health plan as socialized medicine. And Kerry attacked Bush for failing to renew the ban on assault weapons. But the sheer magnitude of the threat posed by North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs seemed likely to sweep those domestic issues off the stage. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, stated that North Korea "continues to pose a serious challenge to the nuclear nonproliferation regime," given that it has barred broad-based inspections since 1993 and verification efforts since 2002. Meanwhile, US officials said this week that they took seriously the possibility that North Korea is preparing to test a nuclear bomb, though an explosion over the weekend was a false alarm. z On Iran, ElBaradei was more measured. Iran claims it is only enriching uranium up to levels sufficient to produce electricity, not weapons, but the IAEA is suspicious: As the Globe reported last February, inspectors found "high enriched uranium" at two sites. ElBaradei reported that the IAEA has made "some progress" toward forcing Iran to account for the high enriched uranium and that "it appears plausible that this HEU contamination may not have resulted from enrichment of uranium by Iran at these locations." However, Iran recently reneged on agreements to stop certain other enrichment activities, and ElBaradei stressed that there were "serious international concerns" about Iran's noncompliance. Given the assumption that Osama bin Laden is looking to acquire a nuclear weapon, one would expect the threat of nuclear terrorism to be front and center in the presidential campaign, and it has been. But instead of discussing real, identifiable issues, such as how to respond to Iran and North Korea, the candidates have dwelled on abstractions like "toughness," military credentials, and the legacy of the Vietnam War. Neither party's convention provided anything but generalities on the subject. The Republican convention celebrated Bush's doctrine of preemptive war, but never defined it beyond Iraq. "We saw threat," Bush proclaimed in his acceptance speech, and had to decide "whether to take the word of a madman" in Saddam Hussein. "Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time." In declaring that he would have invaded Iraq even knowing it had no weapons of mass destruction, Bush has pushed his doctrine of preemption farther than ever before, to cover anyone seen as "a threat," not just those harboring illicit weapons. But most Republican delegates took this as a statement of character ("I will defend America.") rather than policy. If so, it blurs the biggest question of the next four years -- Under what terms should the US take military action against Iran or North Korea? -- even further. Kerry, for his part, has been busy trying to expose the flimsiness of Bush's position, arguing that the president presents the appearance of tough action without having taken sufficient action against North Korea and Iran. In his harshest-worded statement to date, Kerry declared on Sunday, "North Korea's nuclear program is well ahead of what Saddam Hussein was even suspected of doing, yet the president took his eye off the ball, wrongly ignoring this growing danger." In fact, Bush hasn't ignored it, but his six-nation talks have shown little progress. With Iran, the administration is pushing for a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Iran scale back its nuclear ambitions. But Bush is having a hard time herding European allies into line: Russia, which has veto power, announced over the weekend that it wasn't comfortable moving against Iran just yet. Anyone trying to predict the path of the administration on North Korea and Iran could find support for almost any position from appeasement to war. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice has stressed the importance of diplomacy. But administration hawks are taking a much harder line. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, speaking at the Hudson Institute last month, accused Iran of repeatedly lying to the IAEA and said flatly, "If we let all this go on . . . Iran will have nuclear weapons." Kerry's positions have been consistent, but they don't necessarily comport with his description of North Korea as an impending "disaster": Kerry has proposed direct talks with North Korea, which Bush has said would encourage more nuclear activity. On Iran, Kerry has suggested having other nations give Iran the fuel it needs to make electricity but taking back the rods so they can't be enriched. But rather than discuss the proposals, Kerry's campaign has put the emphasis on Bush's failures: On North Korea, "Senator Kerry has said it doesn't do any good to simply trade insults, and that's essentially all this administration has done," Kerry's foreign-affairs spokesman, Mark Kitchens, said yesterday. People have said the same thing about both candidates and the presidential campaign. Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond. c Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 59 Pocatello Idaho State Journal: Bomb test fallout didn't stop at state borders There is little doubt that nuclear weapons testing in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s caused health problems for at least some people living downwind of the tests. The federal government has authorized payments of $50,000 to persons with certain kinds of cancers who lived in 21 counties in southern Utah, Nevada and Arizona during the Cold War. There is evidence that several Idaho counties experienced elevated numbers of cancer as well, but Gem State residents so far have been shut out of the compensation program. That needs to change. Thyroid cancer appears to be the most evident health effect of the Nevada bomb tests because iodine-131 fallout can cause thyroid cancer. The National Cancer Institute released a study in 1997 that concluded between 11,300 and 212,000 additional thyroid cancers could develop over a 70-year span because of the exposure. Even so, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne points out a scientific link between the testing and Idaho's elevated thyroid cancer rates has not been made to date, and pinpointing a specific cause for heightened cancer rates is difficult. In 40-plus years, people die, people move, medical records disappear. Four Idaho counties - Blaine, Custer, Gem and Lemhi - are rated among the top five in the United States for receiving estimated exposure rates to radioactive iodine as a direct result of nuclear testing. If you know of anyone who experienced thyroid cancer or 19 related cancers, especially in the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, you or the victim should write to the National Board of Radiation, 500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. The telephone number is (202) 334-2671, fax number is (202) 334-1639, and e-mail is ialnabul@nas.edu [ialnabul@nas.edu] . So far, the board has received about 150 comments from Idaho residents, according to Dr. Isaf Al-Nabulsi, the radiation scientist heading the study. She said comments will continue to be accepted until the report is finalized next spring. If it can be found that Idahoans did indeed suffer above-normal rates of cancer as a result of the fallout, at least some counties will be included among those qualifying for compensation. It is encouraging that the federal government is at least willing to examine the circumstances, considering that the U.S. Army for years steadfastly refused to acknowledge any responsibility for the deaths of thousands of sheep in Utah which perished in the wake of fallout from the Nevada tests. Just a coincidence, the military insisted with a straight face. The Idaho congressional delegation, for whatever reason, has been slow to make the case for including Idaho in the compensation program, with some perhaps holding the belief that it could jeopardize funding for the INEEL in the pending energy bill. It's not too late to take up the cause, however. U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, for one, says "if the federal government is to blame . . .it ought to step forward and include (Idahoans) in the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act." It's not as if adding Idahoans to the victims list would be all that expensive. But to victims, it could mean a lot. Bomb test fallout didn't stop at state borders There is little doubt that nuclear weapons testing in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s caused health problems for at least some people living downwind of the tests. The federal government has authorized payments of $50,000 to persons with certain kinds of cancers who lived in 21 counties in southern Utah, Nevada and Arizona during the Cold War."> September 14, 2004 Copyright © 2004 Pocatello Idaho State Journal P O Box 431 Pocatello, ID 83204-0431 ***************************************************************** 60 Vladivostok News: Radiation level stable in Vladivostok VLADIVOSTOK NEWS ONLINE :: VN.VLADNEWS.RU [http://vn.vladnews.ru] September 14, 2004 The radiation level in southern Primorye is within normal index of 11 to 13 micro roentgens per hour, civil defense and emergency situations officials reported, saying they carry out daily checks to monitor the situation after two powerful explosions blasted in North Korean northern province, about 400 kilometers away from Vladivostok. Primorye's Meteorological Center is carrying out the analyses of atmosphere and precipitation, as of Tuesday no alarm information was reported. Media sources worldwide reported a huge explosion that rocked North Korea's northern inland province of Ryanggang on September 9, triggering a mushroom-shaped cloud spreading about four kilometers. American and South Korean officials said the blasts are not likely linked to a nuclear test. North Korean authorities in their official statement on Monday revealed the blasts were performed to demolish a mountainside at a construction site of a new electricity station. The country's authorities allowed western diplomats to inspect the site, Russian television channel Rossiya reported. a letter [ engl@vladnews.ru] Copyright © 2003 "Vladivostok Novosti" This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in any form. 13 Narodny Prospect Vladivostok, 690014 Russia Phone: 7 (4232) 415-590, Fax: 7 (4232) 415-615 Published by Vladivostok Novosti, Ltd. ***************************************************************** 61 IAEA: Removal of Fissile Nuclear Material in Uzbekistan IAEA, United States, Russia Help Remove HEU Fuel Staff Report 14 September 2004 + Story Resources + ">IAEA &Research Reactors + Technical Cooperation Projects [http://www-tc.iaea.org/tcweb/tcprogramme/selectdatagroup/default .asp] + Research Reactor Database [http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/rrdb/] + US Department of Energy (DOE) [http://www.energy.gov/] + Global Threat Reduction Initiative + Fuel Returned to Secure Facility in Russia [http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=16642&BT_CODE= PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE=PRESSRELEASE] , Press Release, DOE On 9 September 2004, the IAEA helped Uzbekistan authorities remove weapons-usable highly enriched uranium (HEU) stored at the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, near the country’s capital, Tashkent. About 10kg of fresh reactor fuel - of which only 1.75 kg was fissile uranium-235 - was transported by truck and air from the Institute to the Russian Federation. IAEA inspectors monitored and verified the packing of the fuel for transport. HEU is used to fuel nuclear reactors for research. It is also a key ingredient to make a nuclear weapon. Russia was the original supplier of the fuel which powered Uzbekistan’s 10-megawatt VVR-SM reactor, often described as the largest facility of its kind in Central Asia. The Russian Federation will convert the fuel to low-enriched uranium (LEU) making it unsuitable for use in a nuclear weapon. The shipment was arranged by the IAEA, as part of its technical cooperation activities, under a US-Russia-IAEA programme called the Tripartite Initiative, to address safety and proliferation risks. The Tripartite Initiative returns fresh and spent fuel from Russian designed reactors abroad. The US funded the Uzbekistan fuel-removal, and has recently expanded its assistance to countries willing to convert their research reactors to LEU and return their fresh or spent HEU fuel back to its country of origin. (For details, see the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) link under story resources). In the past two years the IAEA has assisted Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Libya to transfer fresh HEU reactor fuel back to its country of origin. About 130 research reactors around the world still run on weapons-grade HEU. The Agency is working with its Member States to convert their research reactors from HEU to using proliferation-resistant LEU fuel. In conjunction with the US-initiated programme, the Agency is helping to reduce and eventually eliminate international commerce in HEU for research reactors. As part of its efforts, the IAEA assists Member States to upgrade physical security and improve overall safety at research reactors. A particular focus is on ageing or shut down reactors and their spent fuel storage facilities. Copyright 2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: Official.Mail@iaea.org [Official.Mail@iaea.org] Disclaimer ***************************************************************** 62 The Australian: Ranger mine 'passes first audit' [September 14, 2004] [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/mm] ENERGY Resources of Australia (ERA) had passed the first audit of its controversial Ranger uranium mine in Kakadu National Park the company said today. The audit was carried out to ensure the mining company had complied with conditions imposed following an investigation into a water contamination incident in March. About 28 workers fell ill after the Ranger site's water supply became contaminated with uranium. After the contamination, the investigation by the Office of the Supervising Scientist Arthur Johnston found the mine's radiation clearance measures and water systems were inadequate, with leaky pipes and broken valves common around the mill. Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane ordered that ERA be audited to ensure it complied with the recommendations of the report. The first audit was conducted yesterday. "The auditors yesterday advised ERA and the minister that they were satisfied that the conditions to be met by 10 September have been fulfilled," ERA said. privacy terms © The Australian ***************************************************************** 63 Las Vegas RJ: STEVE SEBELIUS: A dissenting opinion Tuesday, September 14, 2004 On Sunday, with two months to go before Election Day, my esteemed colleagues at the Review-Journal threw the newspaper's support to President George W. Bush. This is most unfortunate. Bush's record in the four years since winning a majority of votes on the U.S. Supreme Court -- if not the country -- has been an abysmal failure, especially in the prosecution of the war on terror, which many cite in polls as his strongest credential. And especially in Nevada -- victim of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump -- the reasons to vote against the president are more plentiful than consultants working the campaign of Bush rival U.S. Sen. John Kerry. The Review-Journal would have you believe that Kerry's anti-Yucca stance is an eleventh-hour conversion for the purposes of winning the battleground Silver State. But even if that's true (and prior Kerry votes on the matter suggest it's not) Kerry still surpasses Bush. If the newspaper really believes that a non-burial cure for nuclear waste is just 50 years away, then Kerry's the clear winner, as only Kerry has suggested chucking the idea of Yucca in favor of researching ways to dispose of the waste more safely. Bush, by contrast, has uttered a string of non-sequiturs and pushed the dump with unusual vigor. If he's re-elected, the dump is on for sure. If Kerry is elected, there's at least a chance it will be stopped. The Review-Journal worries about regulations affecting the environment, land use and the workplace, and a foreign policy "designed to please no one but the Spaniards and the French." (No knock on Kerry is complete without comparing him to the French, the ultimate attack on manliness.) But Kerry would be a welcome relief to an administration that has let polluting, logging and power-generating industries write their own regulations. (I'm guessing, of course, because Vice President Dick Cheney still refuses to release the list of people who helped him craft the administration's energy policy.) Kerry at least would pursue clean air, clean water and healthy forests initiatives, programs that would evoke more John Muir than George Orwell. As for foreign policy, Kerry understands something that Bush clearly doesn't: America is not alone in the world. It's better to work with as many allies as possible toward a common goal rather than pursue a belligerent, go-it-alone foreign policy that makes more enemies than friends. There are times when America might have to go it alone, but Bush hasn't encountered a single legitimate instance. For him, going it alone is the rule, rather than the exception, and that is a dangerous thing. The Review-Journal tells us that Kerry gave comfort to the enemy by speaking out against the war when he returned from fighting it. But Kerry did the right thing by trying to end a war birthed on a lie, carried on by ignorance and ended only after far too many died. Would that he deigned to speak out against the Iraq war in the same way, because the parallels are striking. We're asked to believe that having Bush, Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the job after 9-11 was a comfort. In fact, it should be anything but. Bush and Cheney consistently linked the Sept. 11 attacks to Iraq, when no one has ever produced evidence to prove it. (The editorial curiously omits a single mention of Iraq.) Bush, Cheney and Powell all used suspect intelligence to lead the nation into war, and all have engaged in pathetic justifications of their actions since. Rumsfeld, who has been heard to say that attacking Iraq post-Sept. 11 was better because "there are better targets in Iraq," has been tarnished by prison abuse scandals that at least one report traces to his office suite. It's highly unlikely a Kerry team could do any worse; at the very least, they'd try to fight the right war and not a sidestep into imperialistic nation-building. And let's dispense right now with the fiction that Bush's leadership has stayed the hand of al-Qaida since 9-11. "There's a reason there has been no second attack here -- he has the enemy scurrying from hole to hole," the editors write. Well, then, was it former President Bill Clinton's leadership that prevented another domestic attack from the first World Trade Center bombing until Sept. 11? And does anybody believe that any U.S. president -- Bush, Kerry or anyone else -- will ever go soft on terrorists "and give the gibbering mullahs time to rebuild their strength"? "A great man is not a perfect man, but rather a man who finds the strength to overcome his own flaws, and then to lead others to unlikely triumph over great adversity and great odds," the newspaper concludes. But the problem is, Bush hasn't overcome his flaws; he's indulged them. And the world is a more dangerous place for it. Bush for president? The Review-Journal has never been more wrong, and heeding its advice has never been more dangerous. Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. His column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at 383-0283 or by e-mail at ssebelius@reviewjournal.com. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 64 Las Vegas RJ: Sandoval may act on Yucca dust issue Tuesday, September 14, 2004 By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Nevada might pursue allegations that Energy Department contractors failed to protect Yucca Mountain workers from toxic dusts and covered it up afterward, state Attorney General Brian Sandoval said Monday. Sandoval said he is troubled by issues raised in an amended lawsuit filed Sept. 1 on behalf of former workers who have contracted silicosis and other lung diseases they blame on their work in the tunnels bored into the mountain ridge from 1992 to 1997. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, seeks consideration for class-action status on behalf of "thousands" who worked in and visited the tunnels dug as part of the government's nuclear waste repository effort. "I have reviewed the lawsuit and believe it raises grave issues of possible corruption, malfeasance and deliberate violations of law by Department of Energy contractors," Sandoval said in a letter to Gregory Friedman, the Energy Department's inspector general. The workers blame their lung ailments on inhaling dust laced with silica, including erionite, a cancer-causing fibrous mineral. The lawsuit alleges that Yucca contractors disregarded early warnings about possible worker overexposure to harmful dust. "Thousands of people working or visiting in the tunnels apparently were exposed to potentially life-threatening levels of silica and other carcinogenic dusts," Sandoval said. "Some of the workers have already contracted silicosis." Sandoval said the lawsuit is detailed and extensive, mostly drawn from DOE and contractor records. He said the state will determine whether the matter "warrants action by state authorities." Bob Loux of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects said state authorities might start criminal investigations of the firms involved. "If their actions were willful and knowledgeable, I suspect there would be violations of state law," Loux said. Sandoval told Friedman the allegations "clearly warrant a thorough investigation by your office, which I assume is already under way." Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 65 Bellona: UK taken to court over nuclear waste dispute The European Union (EU) is bringing the Government of the United Kingdom (UK) to court over a dispute involving nuclear waste at the Sellafield reprocessing site. The European Court of Justice will hear the case on an as yet undetermined date, the EU Commission said in a statement released late last week. Today B30 plant and its pool are shut. Still, the derelict storage pond is said to contain approximately 1,300 kilograms of plutonium. Of those, 400 kilograms are likely corroded. Photo. Richart Hauglin Erik Martiniussen, 2004-09-14 10:57 In the statement made by the EU Commission (EC), the UK is accused of not providing a credible plan for how to deal with spent plutonium and uranium, which lies at the bottom of a storage pond that is more than 40 years old, at the Sellafield nuclear site in the north-west of England. UK delivered just a draft “We are taking this action to demand that British authorities comply with their responsibilities,” EU energy commissioner, Loyola de Palacio, told Reuters last week. The conflict centres on the aging and derelict storage pond located at the Sellafield site. The storage pond, which was built in the late 1950’s, was originally used to hold spent nuclear fuel, or SNF, for reprocessing, and eventual production of weapons-grade plutonium. The pond—and B-30, the plant that houses it— is now closed, but the pond still contains between 300 and 450 tonnes of SNF. But what is more disturbing perhaps is that no one knows the exact contents of the pond. Some of the waste within the pond has corroded or disintegrated, making the fuel removal of the spent plutonium and uranium fuel especially tricky. It also complicates the request filed last spring by the EU that the pond be cleansed, difficult to fulfil. In March, the EU requested Britain to develop a comprehensive plan for removing the waste in the pond by June 1st 2004. The Directive adopted by the EC asked the UK to take all legal and administrative action necessary to put an end to the infringements detected at the Sellafield site. In particular, the Directive mandated that by June 1st the UK present the EC with a complete plan that would guarantee that all the material stored in the pool would be properly accounted for. The same plan, as stipulated by the directive, was to guarantee the part of the site were B-30 is located would be fully accessible for the purposes of physical verification by Euratom safety inspectors. The UK sent an official response on the request, but the EC obviously found the response inadequate. In its statement last week, the EC wrote that: “The proposed action plan is to be regarded as no more than a preliminary draft […] nor does the UK’s formal response contain either an investment project or an adequate financing plan.” Decision welcomed by Ireland Commenting on the statement energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio said: “We have to ensure that EU citizens are appropriately protected, that they are informed, that they have a guarantee that all nuclear power stations within the EU are functioning appropriately,” the de Palacio said. Irish environmental minister, Martin Cullen has welcomed the decision of the European Commission. “The announcement that the UK in being brought to court reinforces our determination to ensure the safe closure of Sellafield,” Cullen told News &Star Friday. “The issue of access to information at Sellafield has been central to Ireland’s two legal challenges to the UN Court of Arbitration. The decision is further evidence that the UK Government is struggling to cope with the legacy of 50 years of nuclear power,” A spokeswoman at the UK’s EU representative office in Brussels said the EC’s concerns were related to accounting for what is done with the ageing Sellafield the pond—not environmental risks. Facts about B-30 B-30, nicknamed “dirty 30” by workers at Sellafield, is a former storage and de-canning facility located at the Sellafield reprocessing plant built in close proximity to the coast of the Irish Sea. The plant was commissioned in 1959-1960 as part of the expanding British nuclear programme. Its role was to receive and store spent nuclear fuel from British Magnox-reactors, and to remove the fuel cladding prior to the fuel’s reprocessing. After an accident at the Magnox reprocessing plant in 1974, a long reprocessing shutdown caused fuel to be stored underwater at B-30 for longer than is generally accepted normal. This resulted in corrosion to the Magnox fuel cans in the storage pond, giving the rise to increased radiation levels and poor underwater visibility. This slowed the rate of de-canning, increasing residence times, thus creating a vicious circle. A number of steps were taken to counterbalance the problems, but none were successful, and B-30 continued to operate under difficult conditions until its replacement facility, the Fuel Handling plant, was commissioned in 1986. Today B-30 plant and its pool are shut. Still, the derelict storage pond is said to contain approximately 1,300 kilograms of plutonium. Of those, 400 kilograms are likely corroded and lying at the bottom of the pond with other radioactive waste and sediment. Because of radiation levels near B-30, workers at the plant can only spend one hour at a day near the pond. 2004-06-29 Sellafield British Nuclear reactors to close down 2004-06-20 Sellafield Notice served after radioactive gaskets found on Sellafield beach 2004-06-11 Sellafield British nuclear losses continue to rise 2004-05-21 Sellafield £480m nuclear plant does not deliver 2004-04-21 Sellafield Final decision today: Radioactive Technetium-99 to be cleansed from Sellafield discharges 2004-04-15 Sellafield EC: Sellafield must clean up nuclear waste pond Publisher: [bellona@bellona.no] , President: [frederic@bellona.no] Information: [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, ***************************************************************** 66 Las Vegas SUN: State threatens criminal action over Yucca's safety problems Today: September 14, 2004 at 9:45:05 PDT SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU Attorney General Brian Sandoval on Monday put the Energy Department on notice that Nevada may pursue criminal charges against department contractors at Yucca Mountain for not protecting workers. Nine contractors are named in an amended class-action lawsuit filed Sept. 1, originally filed earlier this year, on behalf of workers who have, or may soon have, diseases such as silicosis brought on by breathing toxic air in Yucca tunnels. The lawsuit alleges the contractors did not protect workers even though they knew the work was dangerous, in an effort to save time and money. The lawsuit was filed by the firm Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch &Cynkar, the same firm hired by Nevada to lead the state's legal effort to halt the Yucca project. In a letter to the department's Office of Inspector General, Sandoval signalled that the matter may also be the subject of a future criminal investigation by the state. "The state of Nevada will also be closely following this matter to determine if it warrants action by state authorities," Sandoval wrote. Sandoval said the class-action suit "raises grave issues of possible corruption, malfeasance, and deliberate violations of law by Department of Energy contractors." The class-action suit said the department had estimated that 1,200 to 1,500 workers may have been exposed to significant amounts of silica and carcinogenic dusts that cause lung diseases. The companies are vigorously defending themselves against the lawsuit, Bea Reilley, spokeswoman for Bechtel SAIC Co., LLC., and the contractors named in the lawsuit, has said. She could not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit. But she said the Yucca silica case would not prove to be one of the nation's worst such cases, as lawyers for the workers have described it. ***************************************************************** 67 Las Vegas SUN: Kerry to follow today's visit to LV by Bush By Jace Radke LAS VEGAS SUN In a week of campaign visits to Nevada, President Bush was scheduled to make a campaign stop in Las Vegas today to speak with National Guard soldiers. Bush's visit will be followed by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, who will also speak at the National Guard Association Conference at the Las Vegas Convention Center after he arrives Thursday. Vice President Dick Cheney was expected to make a speech in Reno on Thursday, and Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, delivered a 25-minute speech to about 4,000 at the University of Nevada, Reno Monday. Their visits are just the latest in a string of high-profile campaign events in the state. Nevada has been named a battleground state -- one of 20 states considered a tossup -- and the campaigns are spending a significant amount of time and energy in the state. Campaign officials say more visits and events will be planned in Nevada. On Monday, Edwards criticized the Bush administration's economic and foreign policies and repeated a pledge that Nevada Democrats believe will help the Kerry-Bush ticket carry the state that Bush won in 2000 after Bill Clinton claimed it twice before. "When John Kerry is president, there will be no nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain," Edwards said to loud applause. Edwards said President Bush should apologize for Cheney's comments suggesting a Kerry-Edwards administration would leave the country vulnerable to new terrorist attacks. "The vice president actually said if you don't vote for Dick Cheney and George Bush, if there's another terrorist attack, basically it is your fault," Edwards said from an outdoor stage at UNR. "This statement was intended to divide us. It was calculated to divide us. And to divide us on an issue of safety and security for the American people -- here's the truth -- it is un-American," he said. "The president of the United States should be willing to say it's wrong." The Associated Press reported that before Edwards' speech, police stepped between about 30 Bush-Cheney backers and a dozen Kerry-Edwards supporters who waved signs, chanted and shouted back and forth at each other at a protest organized by the National College Republicans on the edge of the quad . Gregory Green, 24, a UNR student, wore a large yellow flip-flop sandal around his neck to ridicule what he said was Kerry's frequent change of positions on important issues. "I don't know how people can know what policies Kerry stands for because he's changed his position so many times on so many issues, like war," said Green, who said he served five years in the Air Force in Iraq. On Monday the Army's first female three-star general, retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, stopped in Las Vegas to campaign for Kerry and talk about Bush's military record. "John Kerry decided to come speak to the National Guard in Las Vegas, and Bush then said, 'It sounds like a good idea to me too,' and now he's coming as well," Kennedy said at a rally at a downtown chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "We're going to hear a lot about how President Bush will claim success in Iraq, but more than 1,000 soldiers losing their lives is not a success." The National Guard Association represents about 45,000 current and former Guard officers, and the group's convention runs through Thursday, when Kerry is scheduled to speak. Jon Summers, spokesman for the Democratic Party in Nevada said protesters would be in front of the convention center by 11:30 a.m. today for Bush's arrival in Las Vegas. Also today the Democratic National Committee was scheduled to begin airing television ads in Nevada questioning the Bush administration's commitment to National Guard soldiers. The ads feature narration stating that National Guard members have answered the call to serve the nation, but Republicans in Washington have let the soldiers down. The ad states that the Bush administration has been "sending troops into battle without protective equipment," enacting involuntary extensions of duty, and "even pushing a veto on health care benefits for National Guard families." Also scheduled to speak at the National Guard Association Conference are Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., and various military officials. ***************************************************************** 68 TheNewMexicoChannel.com: WIPP Containers Could Have Put Public At Risk [TheNewMexicoChannel.com] [News] POSTED: 11:16 am MDT September 14, 2004 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Scheduling and cost were put before nuclear safety by the contractor that runs the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carslbad, according to a recent Department of Energy report. Officials said problems with improperly built equipment were repaired before it was ready to use and public safety was never at risk. But, according to the DOE report, had the problems not been caught, they could have resulted in radiological harm. The problems involved four steel containers the size of semitrailers that were to be used to provide the outer containment for the mobile labs. The report said checks were not completed to make sure the mobile labs welds had been made correctly before delivery of them was accepted, according to an article printed Tuesday in the Albuquerque Journal. Copyright 2004 by TheNewMexicoChannel.com [http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/feedback/] . All rights ***************************************************************** 69 Carlsbad Current-Argus: WIPP contractor fined for violation September 14, 2004 - 01:51:53 By Victoria Parker-Stevens/Current-Argus Staff Writer CARLSBAD — The federal Energy Department has assessed an $82,500 penalty against Washington TRU Solutions, the management and operations contractor at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The Energy Department issued a preliminary notice of violation regarding nuclear safety rules and procedures. The Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 allows the DOE to take regulatory actions against contractors. The violations involve “transportainers” destined for the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Glove boxes inside isolate waste from workers as they remove drum contents not allowed at WIPP before the waste is shipped. The problems were with the exterior portions of the units, which were constructed in Idaho, said David Reber, WTS deputy general manager. WTS agrees with the Energy Department’s findings and has made changes in procedure and management structure to prevent a reoccurrence, he said. WTS reported the violations on a national tracking system last fall. WTS had approved shipment of the transportainers to Carlsbad without ensuring a few areas of concern had been addressed. Those included surface finishing and labeling, Reber said. WTS planned to address the issues in Carlsbad before the shipment of two of the four transportainers to Savannah River last month, which it did, he said. The violations did not result in harm to workers or the public, but if not corrected, could have resulted in harm, according to a DOE press release. The Energy Department had given WTS the job of completing the 45-by-14 foot, stainless steel modular units. The DOE also was concerned because WTS had “failed to adequately correct known deficiencies of a similar nature.” Those deficiencies occurred a couple of years ago and involved equipment received from Los Alamos National Laboratory. In that instance, WTS didn’t establish quality requirements, Reber said. No fine was assessed. Top of Page Copyright © 2004 Carlsbad Current-Argus, a Gannett Co., Inc. ***************************************************************** 70 Morgan Hill Times: City about to turn on well Tuesday, September 14, 2004 www.morganhilltimes.com[ By Carol Holzgrafe [carolh@morganhilltimes.com] Just in the nick of time, Morgan Hill may press the Tennant well back in service. The well was shut down in April 2002 when unacceptable levels of perchlorate were found, the first hint of a much wider problem confirmed in January 2003. Jim Ashcraft, public works director, told the City Council on Aug. 18 that the city had just received a letter from the regional water board - the lead agency in the perchlorate cleanup - saying they no longer would object if the Tennant well were reopened. “The letter gave us new hope of being able to run the Tennant well,” Ashcraft said. Ashcraft has been struggling with lowering water reserves, a worry during fire season though, he said, the Tennant well probably wouldn’t be up and running before fall and after the period of highest water use. The news changed over the past week, however, and Ashcraft said Thursday that he may be able to switch on the well this week to help the city weather the remaining weeks of hot weather and high fire danger. Recently, the Santa Clara Valley Water District board approved paying for another year’s lease for a perchlorate treatment system on the Tennant well. Ashcraft said the water district will pay about $3,200 a month to October 2005. During the past year, when the leased equipment was just sitting there, the SCVWD paid more than $16,000 a month but that included a one-time cost of custom stainless steel plumbing. If the well is not turned on for any reason, Ashcraft said the city would have to shoulder the $3,200 a month costs. The water district is also willing to help underwrite the city’s new plan to encourage water conservation. One of six proposals given to council Wednesday by city environmental program administrator Anthony Eulo involves offering loans to residents for replacing water-hungry landscaping with water-wise plants and irrigation. Others included a tiered rate scale for large water accounts, individual water meters on new multi-family units, retrofitting houses with low-flow toilets and faucet attachments at resale, water efficient rules for new developments and turning the lawn at City Hall into a drought tolerant demonstration garden. Olin Corp., whose 40 years of safety flare manufacturing at Tennant and Railroad avenues put the chemical in the groundwater, has objected to the city operating the well. The company said pumping at Tennant would likely draw perchlorate deeper into the aquifer and interfere with Olin’s cleanup of groundwater under its former site at 425 Tennant Ave. “In our opinion, Olin’s technical justification does not support Olin’s position ...,” said Roger Briggs, the regional board’s executive officer in a letter dated Aug. 17. The board did ask the city to notify them 10 working days before turning the well back on, to give Olin time to monitor its groundwater containment and treatment system during the start up and operation period. The regional board requires Olin to perform the monitoring during any Tennant well operation and to tell the board if Olin’s existing system is unable to contain its onsite contaminated groundwater. It also requires the company to change its system if containment is compromised. Briggs’s letter said the board does not expect Tennant pumping to interfere but, if Olin adequately shows that containment can’t be maintained, the board could require the city to shut down the well. Olin’s Rick McClure did not return calls for comment. While Tennant and two other perchlorate-contaminated wells are offline, the city has found its water supply stressed, especially during summer hot spells. Carol Holzgrafe covers City Hall for The Times. She can be reached by e-mail at cholzgrafe@morganhilltimes.com or phoning (408) 779-4106 Ext. 201. Carol Holzgrafe is a reporter at the Morgan Hill Times. She covers all local news, including City Hall. ***************************************************************** 71 LANL: Laboratory grows world record length carbon nanotube [http://www.lanl.gov/] *****************************************************************