***************************************************************** 10/03/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.236 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: [NYTr] Bush Gang Rushes to Deny Times Report on pre-War Intel 2 US: New York Times: How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intel 3 Las Vegas SUN: Rice Defends Comments on Iraq Nuke Threat 4 MediaGuardian.co.uk: BBC governor under fire for Iraq contracts 5 Straits Times: Pyongyang says 'no' to nuke talks with South Korea - 6 Straits Times: IAEA head in Seoul to discuss nuclear activities - 7 Las Vegas SUN: IAEA Cautions S. Korea on Nuclear Plans 8 Korea Herald: IAEA: Seoul not singled out for experiment 9 Channelnewsasia.com: UN nuclear watchdog chief ElBaradei arrives in 10 US: New York Times: Congress Moves to Protect Federal Whistleblowers 11 US: Star Tribune: environments Kerry's record outshines even Gore's 12 US: AP Wire: Bush, Kerry hitting on local issues in swing states 13 US: SF Chronicle: Bush tempers argument for pre-emptive strikes 14 US: WorldNetDaily: Kerry's No. 1 priority for keeping U.S. safe 15 US: DenverPost.com: Attorneys argue anti-nuke activists' intent was 16 US: Physics Today: Presidential Candidates Speak Out on Science Poli 17 US: Naples Daily News: Ben Bova: Where Bush, Kerry stand on science 18 Guardian Unlimited: Paradise cleansed 19 Bellona: Putin’s cabinet gives Kyoto the green light 20 Haaretz: Kharrazi: Iran ready if Israel hits our nuclear facilities 21 IAEA: China Hosting Global Experts at IAEA Nuclear Safety Conference 22 UK Independent: out 'within two years' 23 Japan Times: Nuclear arsenal deemed infeasible in '81 24 Straits Times: Tokyo 'considered use of N-arms' - NUCLEAR REACTORS 25 UK Times Online: Expert sets five-year deadline for nuclear decision 26 Sunday Observer: Need for nuclear power emphasised 27 US: WCAX: Nuclear regulators to hear why there should be hearing 28 NATIONAL POST: Pt Lepreau suffers unscheduled shutdown 29 ThisisLondon: BE bosses lay down the law 30 Sofia Morning News: Russia Eyes Bulgaria's Energy Sector 31 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria's Belene N-plant - Not at Any Cost NUCLEAR SAFETY 32 Straits Times: 136k plutonium shipment open to terrorist attacks - 33 Bellona: 220 pounds of uranium stolen in Russia during recent 25 yea 34 US: Lexington Herald-Leader: Congress torn over nuclear-workers prog 35 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear weapons research necessary to maintai 36 Japan Times: Recommitting to nuclear safety 37 US: CNN: Lost nuclear bomb is legend in beach community 38 UK Independent: material for 'dirty bomb' attacks 39 UK Independent: At large, material to make 15,000 nuclear bombs NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 40 [progchat_action] BREAKING: Greenpeace Lies in Wait for 41 Straits Times: Dalai Lama says nuclear waste dumped in Tibet - 42 BBC: Greenpeace targets nuclear cargo 43 US: Bradenton Herald: Delays test patience in Tallevast 44 US: CBC: Uranium industry enjoys rebound as prices nearly triple 45 Nevada Appeal: Decision on nuke dump funding to come after election 46 US: Morgan Hill Times: $25 million for perchlorate 47 US: TheStar.com: Haulers vow `clean' waste 48 Scotsman.com: Irish Demand Action to Halt Plutonium Shipments 49 US: The Enquirer: Fernald waste still needs home 50 AU ABC: Councils seek nuclear dump veto » 51 AU ABC: CLP moves to strengthen anti-nuclear dump laws » 52 UK Independent: Japanese lifeline for BNFL's 'white elephant' 53 NEWS.com.au: WA `likely' nuclear dump site NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 54 Tri-City Herald: Hanford dams up K East Basin 55 Tri-City Herald: Company cleaning up FFTF in hot water 56 AP Wire: NNSA promises Los Alamos Lab employees jobs, benefits 57 Tri-Valley Herald: Nuclear fuel's location unknown 58 amarillo.com: Cold War Casualties: Waiting for word 59 amarillo.com: Scientists look for pieces to radiation puzzle 60 Paducah Sun: Honeywell reports advances since shutdown by toxic gas 61 PE.com: Group remembers fight against 'the pits' OTHER NUCLEAR ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Bush Gang Rushes to Deny Times Report on pre-War Intel Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:50:29 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit AFP via Yahoo - Oct 3, 2004 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=4&u=/afp/20041003/pl_afp/us_vote_041003214544 Bush camp denies new report on prewar Iraq intelligence WASHINGTON (AFP) - Already scrambling to make up ground lost after last week's debate, US President George W. Bush's campaign was forced further on the defensive by a report that the White House knew before invading Iraq that key intelligence on the country's alleged nuclear weapons program was questionable. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Sunday she knew of a debate within the US government about the purpose of aluminum tubes found in Iraq, which she and other officials had brandished before the war as proof of Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions. In a series of television interviews Sunday, Rice insisted, however, that she only later learned that the Energy Department believed the aluminum tubes were actually meant for conventional weapons, denying a New York Times report that she knew of those concerns before wielding the tubes as evidence in her argument for war. "At that time we understood there were some debates within the intelligence community. I later learned that the Energy Department believed that these tubes might be for something else," she told NBC television's "Today" show. Speaking on the campaign trail in the town of Austintown, Ohio, Sunday, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry called the Times report a stinging indictment of the Bush administration's prewar intelligence and foreign policy judgment. "There are very serious questions about whether the administration was open and honest in making the case for war in Iraq," Kerry said on a campaign sweep taking him through several rust-belt communities. "These are questions that the president must face. These are questions that the president has to answer fully to the American people and the troops," he said. Kerry tried to wrench the focus of the US election campaign from Iraq to the economy Sunday, as he consoled job hunters and roasted Republican fiscal policy. Bush's policies have culled tens of thousands of jobs from the US industrial heartland, Democrats claim. They said the president's tax policies have rewarded the rich at the expense of the poor, exploded the deficit and ripped the heart out of public services. "There is nothing conservative about these people, they are radical, extreme, they have no regard for fiscal responsibility," Kerry told a town hall-style meeting in Austintown. "Stop and think about 270,000 lost jobs in Ohio ... stop and think about schools that have after-school programs are being cut so that the most powerful people have been taken care of," Kerry said. Kerry's strong performance in Thursday's debate with Bush on international affairs, combined with weekend polls showing Kerry with a slim advantage over Bush after trailing him for weeks, have reinvigorated the Democrat's bid for office. On Tuesday, Kerry's running mate, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, faces Vice President Dick Cheney in a 90-minute debate on the campus of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. The charismatic Edwards, a former trial lawyer, will sit across a table from Cheney, a serious, often dour conservative with a quick wit and sharp tongue. A television journalist will moderate the event. Kerry and Bush in the meantime are preparing for two more debates. The rivals meet Friday in the midwestern city of St. Louis, Missouri in a town hall format to discuss all topics, and on October 13 at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona to discuss domestic and economic issues. Speaking on CBS television on Sunday, White House communications director Dan Bartlett emphasized that Kerry "has been somebody who has debated all his life and is a good debater. But there's a difference between having style and having rhetorical points." He then dismissed the Democrat as "a walking contradiction when it comes to the issue of Iraq." Kerry voted in favor of authorizing Bush to go to war, then opposing the way the war is being waged. Lockhart, a former spokesman for president Bill Clinton and now a senior Kerry adviser, said on CBS that Bush's mistake was expecting to debate a caricature that "100 million dollars in negative advertising had created." But Bush "didn't know how to handle" the real John Kerry. "It was a guy who was clear, who was consistent, and the president didn't have an answer." * Search the NYTr Archives at: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 2 New York Times: How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence NYTimes: Home [http://www.nytimes.com/] - Site Index The International Atomic Energy Agency Inspectors at the Nasser metal-working plant in Baghdad were shown in early 2003 how Iraq used the tubes for rockets. THE NUCLEAR CARD Intelligence, Politics and Iraq RELATED SITE [.] Intelink Central Demonstration Site [http://www.topsecretnet.com/intelink/index.html] By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH Published: October 3, 2004 [I] n 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States. Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets. The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government. Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public. One result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Today, 18 months after the invasion of Iraq, investigators there have found no evidence of hidden centrifuges or a revived nuclear weapons program. The absence of unconventional weapons in Iraq is now widely seen as evidence of a profound intelligence failure, of an intelligence community blinded by "group think," false assumptions and unreliable human sources. Yet the tale of the tubes, pieced together through records and interviews with senior intelligence officers, nuclear experts, administration officials and Congressional investigators, reveals a different failure. Far from "group think," American nuclear and intelligence experts argued bitterly over the tubes. A "holy war" is how one Congressional investigator described it. But if the opinions of the nuclear experts were seemingly disregarded at every turn, an overwhelming momentum gathered behind the C.I.A. assessment. It was a momentum built on a pattern of haste, secrecy, ambiguity, bureaucratic maneuver and a persistent failure in the Bush administration and among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to ask hard questions. Precisely how knowledge of the intelligence dispute traveled through the upper reaches of the administration is unclear. Ms. Rice knew about the debate before her Sept. 2002 CNN appearance, but only learned of the alternative rocket theory of the tubes soon afterward, according to two senior administration officials. President Bush learned of the debate at roughly the same time, a senior administration official said. Last week, when asked about the tubes, administration officials said they relied on repeated assurances by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the tubes were in fact for centrifuges. They also noted that the intelligence community, including the Energy Department, largely agreed that Mr. Hussein had revived his nuclear program. "These judgments sometimes require members of the intelligence community to make tough assessments about competing interpretations of facts," said Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the president. Mr. Tenet declined to be interviewed. But in a statement, he said he "made it clear" to the White House "that the case for a possible nuclear program in Iraq was weaker than that for chemical and biological weapons." Regarding the tubes, Mr. Tenet said "alternative views were shared" with the administration after the intelligence community drafted a new National Intelligence Estimate in late September 2002. The tubes episode is a case study of the intersection between the politics of pre-emption and the inherent ambiguity of intelligence. The tubes represented a scientific puzzle and rival camps of experts clashed over the tiniest technical details in secure rooms in Washington, London and Vienna. The stakes were high, and they knew it. So did a powerful vice president who saw in 9/11 horrifying confirmation of his long-held belief that the United States too often naďvely underestimates the cunning and ruthlessness of its foes. "We have a tendency - I don't know if it's part of the American character - to say, 'Well, we'll sit down and we'll evaluate the evidence, we'll draw a conclusion,' " Mr. Cheney said as he discussed the tubes in September 2002 on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "But we always think in terms that we've got all the evidence,'' he said. "Here, we don't have all the evidence. We have 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent. We don't know how much. We know we have a part of the picture. And that part of the picture tells us that he is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons." Joe Raises the Tube Issue Throughout the 1990's, United States intelligence agencies were deeply preoccupied with the status of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, and with good reason. After the Persian Gulf war in 1991, arms inspectors discovered that Iraq had been far closer to building an atomic bomb than even the worst-case estimates had envisioned. And no one believed that Saddam Hussein had abandoned his nuclear ambitions. To the contrary, in one secret assessment after another, the agencies concluded that Iraq was conducting low-level theoretical research and quietly plotting to resume work on nuclear weapons. But at the start of the Bush administration, the intelligence agencies also agreed that Iraq had not in fact resumed its nuclear weapons program. Iraq's nuclear infrastructure, they concluded, had been dismantled by sanctions and inspections. In short, Mr. Hussein's nuclear ambitions appeared to have been contained. Then Iraq started shopping for tubes. According to a 511-page report on flawed prewar intelligence by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the agencies learned in early 2001 of a plan by Iraq to buy 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes from Hong Kong. The tubes were made from 7075-T6 aluminum, an extremely hard alloy that made them potentially suitable as rotors in a uranium centrifuge. Properly designed, such tubes are strong enough to spin at the terrific speeds needed to convert uranium gas into enriched uranium, an essential ingredient of an atomic bomb. For this reason, international rules prohibited Iraq from importing certain sizes of 7075-T6 aluminum tubes; it was also why a new C.I.A. analyst named Joe quickly sounded the alarm. At the C.I.A.'s request, The Times agreed to use only Joe's first name; the agency said publishing his full name could hinder his ability to operate overseas. Joe graduated from the University of Kentucky in the late 1970's with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, then joined the Goodyear Atomic Corporation, which dispatched him to Oak Ridge, Tenn., a federal complex that specializes in uranium and national security research. Joe went to work on a new generation of centrifuges. Many European models stood no more than 10 feet tall. The American centrifuges loomed 40 feet high, and Joe's job was to learn how to test and operate them. But when the project was canceled in 1985, Joe spent the next decade performing hazard analyses for nuclear reactors, gaseous diffusion plants and oil refineries. In 1997, Joe transferred to a national security complex at Oak Ridge known as Y-12, his entry into intelligence work. His assignment was to track global sales of material used in nuclear arms. He retired after two years, taking a buyout with hundreds of others at Oak Ridge, and moved to the C.I.A. The agency's ability to assess nuclear intelligence had markedly declined after the cold war, and Joe's appointment was part of an effort to regain lost expertise. He was assigned to a division eventually known as Winpac, for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control. Winpac had hundreds of employees, but only a dozen or so with a technical background in nuclear arms and fuel production. None had Joe's hands-on experience operating centrifuges. Suddenly, Joe's work was ending up in classified intelligence reports being read in the White House. Indeed, his analysis was the primary basis for one of the agency's first reports on the tubes, which went to senior members of the Bush administration on April 10, 2001. The tubes, the report asserted, "have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program." This alarming assessment was immediately challenged by the Energy Department, which builds centrifuges and runs the government's nuclear weapons complex. The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges. Simply put, the analysis concluded that the tubes were the wrong size - too narrow, too heavy, too long - to be of much practical use in a centrifuge. What was more, the analysis reasoned, if the tubes were part of a secret, high-risk venture to build a nuclear bomb, why were the Iraqis haggling over prices with suppliers all around the world? And why weren't they shopping for all the other sensitive equipment needed for centrifuges? All fine questions. But if the tubes were not for a centrifuge, what were they for? Within weeks, the Energy Department experts had an answer. It turned out, they reported, that Iraq had for years used high-strength aluminum tubes to make combustion chambers for slim rockets fired from launcher pods. Back in 1996, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had even examined some of those tubes, also made of 7075-T6 aluminum, at a military complex, the Nasser metal fabrication plant in Baghdad, where the Iraqis acknowledged making rockets. According to the international agency, the rocket tubes, some 66,000 of them, were 900 millimeters in length, with a diameter of 81 millimeters and walls 3.3 millimeters thick. The tubes now sought by Iraq had precisely the same dimensions - a perfect match. That finding was published May 9, 2001, in the Daily Intelligence Highlight, a secret Energy Department newsletter published on Intelink, a Web site for the intelligence community and the White House. Joe and his Winpac colleagues at the C.I.A. were not persuaded. Yes, they conceded, the tubes could be used as rocket casings. But that made no sense, they argued in a new report, because Iraq wanted tubes made at tolerances that "far exceed any known conventional weapons." In other words, Iraq was demanding a level of precision craftsmanship unnecessary for ordinary mass-produced rockets. More to the point, those analysts had hit on a competing theory: that the tubes' dimensions matched those used in an early uranium centrifuge developed in the 1950's by a German scientist, Gernot Zippe. Most centrifuge designs are highly classified; this one, though, was readily available in science reports. Thus, well before Sept. 11, 2001, the debate within the intelligence community was already neatly framed: Were the tubes for rockets or centrifuges? Experts Attack Joe's Case It was a simple question with enormous implications. If Mr. Hussein acquired nuclear weapons, American officials feared, he would wield them to menace the Middle East. So the tube question was critical, yet none too easy to answer. The United States had few spies in Iraq, and certainly none who knew Mr. Hussein's plans for the tubes. But the tubes themselves could yield many secrets. A centrifuge is an intricate device. Not any old tube would do. Careful inquiry might answer the question. The intelligence community embarked on an ambitious international operation to intercept the tubes before they could get to Iraq. The big break came in June 2001: a shipment was seized in Jordan. At the Energy Department, those examining the tubes included scientists who had spent decades designing and working on centrifuges, and intelligence officers steeped in the tricky business of tracking the nuclear ambitions of America's enemies. They included Dr. Jon A. Kreykes, head of Oak Ridge's national security advanced technology group; Dr. Duane F. Starr, an expert on nuclear proliferation threats; and Dr. Edward Von Halle, a retired Oak Ridge nuclear expert. Dr. Houston G. Wood III, a professor of engineering at the University of Virginia who had helped design the 40-foot American centrifuge, advised the team and consulted with Dr. Zippe. On questions about nuclear centrifuges, this was unambiguously the A-Team of the intelligence community, many experts say. On Aug. 17, 2001, weeks before the twin towers fell, the team published a secret Technical Intelligence Note, a detailed analysis that laid out its doubts about the tubes' suitability for centrifuges. First, in size and material, the tubes were very different from those Iraq had used in its centrifuge prototypes before the first gulf war. Those models used tubes that were nearly twice as wide and made of exotic materials that performed far better than aluminum. "Aluminum was a huge step backwards," Dr. Wood recalled. In fact, the team could find no centrifuge machines "deployed in a production environment" that used such narrow tubes. Their walls were three times too thick for "favorable use" in a centrifuge, the team wrote. They were also anodized, meaning they had a special coating to protect them from weather. Anodized tubes, the team pointed out, are "not consistent" with a uranium centrifuge because the coating can produce bad reactions with uranium gas. In other words, if Joe and his Winpac colleagues were right, it meant that Iraq had chosen to forsake years of promising centrifuge work and instead start from scratch, with inferior material built to less-than-optimal dimensions. The Energy Department experts did not think that made much sense. They concluded that using the tubes in centrifuges "is credible but unlikely, and a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes." Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain's intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body. Unlike Joe, experts at the international agency had worked with Zippe centrifuges, and they spent hours with him explaining why they believed his analysis was flawed. They pointed out errors in his calculations. They noted design discrepancies. They also sent reports challenging the centrifuge claim to American government experts through the embassy in Vienna, a senior official said. Likewise, Britain's experts believed the tubes would need "substantial re-engineering" to work in centrifuges, according to Britain's review of its prewar intelligence. Their experts found it "paradoxical" that Iraq would order such finely crafted tubes only to radically rebuild each one for a centrifuge. Yes, it was theoretically possible, but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to "turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac." In late 2001, intelligence analysts at the State Department also took issue with Joe's work in reports prepared for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Joe was "very convinced, but not very convincing," recalled Greg Thielmann, then director of strategic, proliferation and military affairs in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. By year's end, Energy Department analysts published a classified report that even more firmly rejected the theory that the tubes could work as rotors in a 1950's Zippe centrifuge. These particular Zippe centrifuges, they noted, were especially ill suited for bomb making. The machines were a prototype designed for laboratory experiments and meant to be operated as single units. To produce enough enriched uranium to make just one bomb a year, Iraq would need up to 16,000 of them working in concert, a challenge for even the most sophisticated centrifuge plants. Iraq had never made more than a dozen centrifuge prototypes. Half failed when rotors broke. Of the rest, one actually worked to enrich uranium, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who once ran Iraq's centrifuge program, said in an interview last week. The Energy Department team concluded it was "unlikely that anyone" could build a centrifuge site capable of producing significant amounts of enriched uranium "based on these tubes." One analyst summed it up this way: the tubes were so poorly suited for centrifuges, he told Senate investigators, that if Iraq truly wanted to use them this way, "we should just give them the tubes." Enter Cheney In the months after Sept. 11, 2001, as the Bush administration devised a strategy to fight Al Qaeda, Vice President Cheney immersed himself in the world of top-secret threat assessments. Bob Woodward, in his book "Plan of Attack," described Mr. Cheney as the administration's new "self-appointed special examiner of worst-case scenarios," and it was a role that fit. Mr. Cheney had grappled with national security threats for three decades, first as President Gerald R. Ford's chief of staff, later as secretary of defense for the first President Bush. He was on intimate terms with the intelligence community, 15 spy agencies that frequently feuded over the significance of raw intelligence. He knew well their record of getting it wrong (the Bay of Pigs) and underestimating threats (Mr. Hussein's pre-1991 nuclear program) and failing to connect the dots (Sept. 11). As a result, the vice president was not simply a passive recipient of intelligence analysis. He was known as a man who asked hard, skeptical questions, a man who paid attention to detail. "In my office I have a picture of John Adams, the first vice president," Mr. Cheney said in one of his first speeches as vice president. "Adams liked to say, 'The facts are stubborn things.' Whatever the issue, we are going to deal with facts and show a decent regard for other points of view." With the Taliban routed in Afghanistan after Sept. 11, Mr. Cheney and his aides began to focus on intelligence assessments of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Cheney had long argued for more forceful action to topple Mr. Hussein. But in January 2002, according to Mr. Woodward's book, the C.I.A. told Mr. Cheney that Mr. Hussein could not be removed with covert action alone. His ouster, the agency said, would take an invasion, which would require persuading the public that Iraq posed a threat to the United States. The evidence for that case was buried in classified intelligence files. Mr. Cheney and his aides began to meet repeatedly with analysts who specialized in Iraq and unconventional weapons. They wanted to know about any Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda and Baghdad's ability to make unconventional weapons. "There's no question they had a point of view, but there was no attempt to get us to hew to a particular point of view ourselves, or to come to a certain conclusion," the deputy director of analysis at Winpac told the Senate Intelligence Committee. "It was trying to figure out, why do we come to this conclusion, what was the evidence. A lot of questions were asked, probing questions." Of all the worst-case possibilities, the most terrifying was the idea that Mr. Hussein might slip a nuclear weapon to terrorists, and Mr. Cheney and his staff zeroed in on Mr. Hussein's nuclear ambitions. Mr. Cheney, for example, read a Feb. 12, 2002, report from the Defense Intelligence Agency about Iraq's reported attempts to buy 500 tons of yellowcake, a uranium concentrate, from Niger, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report. Many American intelligence analysts did not put much stock in the Niger report. Mr. Cheney pressed for more information. At the same time, a senior intelligence official said, the agency was fielding repeated requests from Mr. Cheney's office for intelligence about the tubes, including updates on Iraq's continuing efforts to procure thousands more after the seizure in Jordan. "Remember," Dr. David A. Kay, the chief American arms inspector after the war, said in an interview, "the tubes were the only piece of physical evidence about the Iraqi weapons programs that they had." In March 2002, Mr. Cheney traveled to Europe and the Middle East to build support for a confrontation with Iraq. It is not known whether he mentioned Niger or the tubes in his meetings. But on his return, he made it clear that he had repeatedly discussed Mr. Hussein and the nuclear threat. "He is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time," Mr. Cheney asserted on CNN. At the time, the C.I.A. had not reached so firm a conclusion. But on March 12, the day Mr. Cheney landed in the Middle East, he and other senior administration officials had been sent two C.I.A. reports about the tubes. Each cited the tubes as evidence that "Iraq currently may be trying to reconstitute its gas centrifuge program." Neither report, however, mentioned that leading centrifuge experts at the Energy Department strongly disagreed, according to Congressional officials who have read the reports. What White House Is Told As the Senate Intelligence Committee report made clear, the American intelligence community "is not a level playing field when it comes to the competition of ideas in intelligence analysis." The C.I.A. has a distinct edge: "unique access to policy makers and unique control of intelligence reporting," the report found. The Presidential Daily Briefs, for example, are prepared and presented by agency analysts; the agency's director is the president's principal intelligence adviser. This allows agency analysts to control the presentation of information to policy makers "without having to explain dissenting views or defend their analysis from potential challenges," the committee's report said. This problem, the report said, was "particularly evident" with the C.I.A.'s analysis of the tubes, when agency analysts "lost objectivity and in several cases took action that improperly excluded useful expertise from the intelligence debate." In interviews, Senate investigators said the agency's written assessments did a poor job of describing the debate over the intelligence. From April 2001 to September 2002, the agency wrote at least 15 reports on the tubes. Many were sent only to high-level policy makers, including President Bush, and did not circulate to other intelligence agencies. None have been released, though some were described in the Senate's report. Several senior C.I.A. officials insisted that those reports did describe at least in general terms the intelligence debate. "You don't go into all that detail but you do try to evince it when you write your current product," one agency official said. But several Congressional and intelligence officials with access to the 15 assessments said not one of them informed senior policy makers of the Energy Department's dissent. They described a series of reports, some with ominous titles, that failed to convey either the existence or the substance of the intensifying debate. Over and over, the reports restated Joe's main conclusions for the C.I.A. - that the tubes matched the 1950's Zippe centrifuge design and were built to specifications that "exceeded any known conventional weapons application." They did not state what Energy Department experts had noted - that many common industrial items, even aluminum cans, were made to specifications as good or better than the tubes sought by Iraq. Nor did the reports acknowledge a significant error in Joe's claim - that the tubes "matched" those used in a Zippe centrifuge. The tubes sought by Iraq had a wall thickness of 3.3 millimeters. When Energy Department experts checked with Dr. Zippe, a step Joe did not take, they learned that the walls of Zippe tubes did not exceed 1.1 millimeters, a substantial difference. "They never lay out the other case," one Congressional official said of those C.I.A. assessments. The Senate report provides only a partial picture of the agency's communications with the White House. In an arrangement endorsed by both parties, the Intelligence Committee agreed to delay an examination of whether White House descriptions of Iraq's military capabilities were "substantiated by intelligence information." As a result, Senate investigators were not permitted to interview White House officials about what they knew of the tubes debate and when they knew it. But in interviews, C.I.A. and administration officials disclosed that the dissenting views were repeatedly discussed in meetings and telephone calls. One senior official at the agency said its "fundamental approach" was to tell policy makers about dissenting views. Another senior official acknowledged that some of their agency's reports "weren't as well caveated as, in retrospect, they should have been." But he added, "There was certainly nothing that was hidden." Four agency officials insisted that Winpac analysts repeatedly explained the contrasting assessments during briefings with senior National Security Council officials who dealt with nuclear proliferation issues. "We think we were reasonably clear about this," a senior C.I.A. official said. A senior administration official confirmed that Winpac was indeed candid about the differing views. The official, who recalled at least a half dozen C.I.A. briefings on tubes, said he knew by late 2001 that there were differing views on the tubes. "To the best of my knowledge, he never hid anything from me," the official said of his counterpart at Winpac. This official said he also spoke to senior officials at the Department of Energy about the tubes, and a spokeswoman for the department said in a written statement that the agency "strongly conveyed its viewpoint to senior policy makers." But if senior White House officials understood the department's main arguments against the tubes, they also took into account its caveats. "As far as I know," the senior administration official said, "D.O.E. never concluded that these tubes could not be used for centrifuges." A Referee Is Ignored Over the summer of 2002, the White House secretly refined plans to invade Iraq and debated whether to seek more United Nations inspections. At the same time, in response to a White House request in May, C.I.A. officials were quietly working on a report that would lay out for the public declassified evidence of Iraq's reported unconventional weapons and ties to terror groups. That same summer the tubes debate continued to rage. The primary antagonists were the C.I.A. and the Energy Department, with other intelligence agencies drawn in on either side. Much of the strife centered on Joe. At first glance, he seemed an unlikely target. He held a relatively junior position, and according to the C.I.A. he did not write the vast majority of the agency's reports on the tubes. He has never met Mr. Cheney. His one trip to the White House was to take his family on the public tour. But he was, as one staff member on the Senate Intelligence Committee put it, "the ringleader" of a small group of Winpac analysts who were convinced that the tubes were destined for centrifuges. His views carried special force within the agency because he was the only Winpac analyst with experience operating uranium centrifuges. In meetings with other intelligence agencies, he often took the lead in arguing the technical basis for the agency's conclusions. "Very few people have the technical knowledge to independently arrive at the conclusion he did," said Dr. Kay, the weapons inspector, when asked to explain Joe's influence. Without identifying him, the Senate Intelligence Committee's report repeatedly questioned Joe's competence and integrity. It portrayed him as so determined to prove his theory that he twisted test results, ignored factual discrepancies and excluded dissenting views. The Senate report, for example, challenged his decision not to consult the Energy Department on tests designed to see if the tubes were strong enough for centrifuges. Asked why he did not seek their help, Joe told the committee: "Because we funded it. It was our testing. We were trying to prove some things that we wanted to prove with the testing." The Senate report singled out that comment for special criticism, saying, "The committee believes that such an effort should never have been intended to prove what the C.I.A. wanted to prove." Joe's superiors strongly defend his work and say his words were taken out of context. They describe him as diligent and professional, an open-minded analyst willing to go the extra mile to test his theories. "Part of the job of being an analyst is to evaluate alternative hypotheses and possibilities, to build a case, think of alternatives," a senior agency official said. "That's what Joe did in this case. If he turned out to be wrong, that's not an offense. He was expected to be wrong occasionally." Still, the bureaucratic infighting was by then so widely known that even the Australian government was aware of it. "U.S. agencies differ on whether aluminum tubes, a dual-use item sought by Iraq, were meant for gas centrifuges," Australia's intelligence services wrote in a July 2002 assessment. The same report said the tubes evidence was "patchy and inconclusive." There was a mechanism, however, to resolve the dispute. It was called the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee, a secret body of experts drawn from across the federal government. For a half century, Jaeic (pronounced jake) has been called on to resolve disputes and give authoritative assessments about nuclear intelligence. The committee had specifically assessed the Iraqi nuclear threat in 1989, 1997 and 1999. An Energy Department expert was the committee's chairman in 2002, and some department officials say the C.I.A. opposed calling in Jaeic to mediate the tubes fight. Not so, agency officials said. In July 2002, they insist, they were the first intelligence agency to seek Jaeic's intervention. "I personally was concerned about the extent of the community's disagreement on this and the fact that we weren't getting very far," a senior agency official recalled. The committee held a formal session in early August to discuss the debate, with more than a dozen experts on both sides in attendance. A second meeting was scheduled for later in August but was postponed. A third meeting was set for early September; it never happened either. "We were O.B.E. - overcome by events," an official involved in the proceedings recalled. White House Makes a Move "The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts," Mr. Cheney said on Aug. 26, 2002, at the outset of an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Nashville. Warning against "wishful thinking or willful blindness," Mr. Cheney used the speech to lay out a rationale for pre-emptive action against Iraq. Simply resuming United Nations inspections, he argued, could give "false comfort" that Mr. Hussein was contained. "We now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he declared, words that quickly made headlines worldwide. "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances." But the world, Mr. Cheney warned, could ill afford to once again underestimate Iraq's progress. "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." A week later President Bush announced that he would ask Congress for authorization to oust Mr. Hussein. He also met that day with senior members of the House and Senate, some of whom expressed concern that the administration had yet to show the American people tangible evidence of an imminent threat. The fact that Mr. Hussein gassed his own people in the 1980's, they argued, was not sufficient evidence of a threat to the United States in 2002. President Bush got the message. He directed Mr. Cheney to give the public and Congress a more complete picture of the latest intelligence on Iraq. In his Nashville speech, Mr. Cheney had not mentioned the aluminum tubes or any other fresh intelligence when he said, "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." The one specific source he did cite was Hussein Kamel al-Majid, a son-in-law of Mr. Hussein's who defected in 1994 after running Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. But Mr. Majid told American intelligence officials in 1995 that Iraq's nuclear program had been dismantled. What's more, Mr. Majid could not have had any insight into Mr. Hussein's current nuclear activities: he was assassinated in 1996 on his return to Iraq. The day after President Bush announced he was seeking Congressional authorization, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, traveled to Capitol Hill to brief the four top Congressional leaders. After the 90-minute session, J. Dennis Hastert, the House speaker, told Fox News that Mr. Cheney had provided new information about unconventional weapons, and Fox went on to report that one source said the new intelligence described "just how dangerously close Saddam Hussein has come to developing a nuclear bomb." Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat and Senate majority leader, was more cautious. "What has changed over the course of the last 10 years, that brings this country to the belief that it has to act in a pre-emptive fashion in invading Iraq?" he asked. A few days later, on Sept. 8., the lead article on Page 1 of The New York Times gave the first detailed account of the aluminum tubes. The article cited unidentified senior administration officials who insisted that the dimensions, specifications and numbers of tubes sought showed that they were intended for a nuclear weapons program. "The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical and biological weapons," a senior administration official was quoted as saying. "Nuclear weapons are his hole card." The article gave no hint of a debate over the tubes. The White House did much to increase the impact of The Times' article. The morning it was published, Mr. Cheney went on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" and confirmed when asked that the tubes were the most alarming evidence behind the administration's view that Iraq had resumed its nuclear weapons program. The tubes, he said, had "raised our level of concern." Ms. Rice, the national security adviser, went on CNN and said the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." Neither official mentioned that the nation's top nuclear design experts believed overwhelmingly that the tubes were poorly suited for centrifuges. Mr. Cheney, who has a history of criticizing officials who disclose sensitive information, typically refuses to comment when asked about secret intelligence. Yet on this day, with a Gallup poll showing that 58 percent of Americans did not believe President Bush had done enough to explain why the United States should act against Iraq, Mr. Cheney spoke openly about one of the closest held secrets regarding Iraq. Not only did Mr. Cheney draw attention to the tubes; he did so with a certitude that could not be found in even the C.I.A.'s assessments. On "Meet the Press," Mr. Cheney said he knew "for sure" and "in fact" and "with absolute certainty" that Mr. Hussein was buying equipment to build a nuclear weapon. "He has reconstituted his nuclear program," Mr. Cheney said flatly. But in the C.I.A. reports, evidence "suggested" or "could mean" or "indicates" - a word used in a report issued just weeks earlier. Little if anything was asserted with absolute certainty. The intelligence community had not yet concluded that Iraq had indeed reconstituted its nuclear program. "The vice president's public statements have reflected the evolving judgment of the intelligence community," Kevin Kellems, Mr. Cheney's spokesman, said in a written statement. The C.I.A. routinely checks presidential speeches that draw on intelligence reports. This is how intelligence professionals pull politicians back from factual errors. One such opportunity came soon after Mr. Cheney's appearance on "Meet the Press." On Sept. 11, 2002, the White House asked the agency to clear for possible presidential use a passage on Iraq's nuclear program. The passage included this sentence: "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." The agency did not ask speechwriters to make clear that centrifuges were but one possible use, that intelligence experts were divided and that the tubes also matched those used in Iraqi rockets. In fact, according to the Senate's investigation, the agency suggested no changes at all. The next day President Bush used virtually identical language when he cited the aluminum tubes in an address to the United Nations General Assembly. Dissent, but to Little Effect The administration's talk of clandestine centrifuges, nuclear blackmail and mushroom clouds had a powerful political effect, particularly on senators who were facing fall election campaigns. "When you hear about nuclear weapons, this is the national security knock-out punch," said Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon who sits on the Intelligence Committee and ultimately voted against authorizing war. Even so, it did not take long for questions to surface over the administration's claims about Mr. Hussein's nuclear capabilities. As it happened, Senator Dianne Feinstein, another Democratic member of the Intelligence Committee, had visited the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna in August 2002. Officials there, she later recalled, told her they saw no signs of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq. At that point, the tubes debate was in its 16th month. Yet Mr. Tenet, of the C.I.A., the man most responsible for briefing President Bush on intelligence, told the committee that he was unaware until that September of the profound disagreement over critical evidence that Mr. Bush was citing to world leaders as justification for war. Even now, committee members from both parties express baffled anger at this possibility. How could he not know? "I don't even understand it," Olympia Snowe, a Republican senator from Maine, said in an interview. "I cannot comprehend the failures in judgment or breakdowns in communication." Mr. Tenet told Senate investigators that he did not expect to learn of dissenting opinions "until the issue gets joined" at the highest levels of the intelligence community. But if Mr. Tenet's lack of knowledge meant the president was given incomplete information about the tubes, there was still plenty of time for the White House to become fully informed. Yet so far, Senate investigators say, they have found little evidence the White House tried to find out why so many experts disputed the C.I.A. tubes theory. If anything, administration officials minimized the divide. On Sept. 13, The Times made the first public mention of the tubes debate in the sixth paragraph of an article on Page A13. In it an unidentified senior administration official dismissed the debate as a "footnote, not a split." Citing another unidentified administration official, the story reported that the "best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the C.I.A. assessments." As a senior Oak Ridge official pointed out to the Intelligence Committee, "the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts" in the Energy Department's laboratories in fact disagreed with the agency. But on Sept. 13, the day the article appeared, the Energy Department sent a directive forbidding employees from discussing the subject with reporters. The Energy Department, in a written statement, said that it was "completely appropriate" to remind employees of the need to protect nuclear secrets and that it had made no effort "to quash dissent." In closed hearings that month, though, Congress began to hear testimony about the debate. Several Democrats said in interviews that secrecy rules had prevented them from speaking out about the gap between the administration's view of the tubes and the more benign explanations described in classified testimony. One senior C.I.A. official recalled cautioning members of Congress in a closed session not to speak publicly about the possibility that the tubes were for rockets. "If people start talking about that and the Iraqis see that people are saying rocket bodies, that will automatically become their explanation whenever anyone goes to Iraq," the official said in an interview. So while administration officials spoke freely about the agency's theory, the evidence that best challenged this view remained almost entirely off limits for public debate. In late September, the C.I.A. sent policymakers its most detailed classified report on the tubes. For the first time, an agency report acknowledged that "some in the intelligence community" believed rockets were "more likely end uses" for the tubes, according to officials who have seen the report. Meanwhile, at the Energy Department, scientists were startled to find senior White House officials embracing a view of the tubes they considered thoroughly discredited. "I was really shocked in 2002 when I saw it was still there," Dr. Wood, the Oak Ridge adviser, said of the centrifuge claim. "I thought it had been put to bed." Members of the Energy Department team took a highly unusual step: They began working quietly with a Washington arms-control group, the Institute for Science and International Security, to help the group inform the public about the debate, said one team member and the group's president, David Albright. On Sept. 23, the institute issued the first in series of lengthy reports that repeated some of the Energy Department's arguments against the C.I.A. analysis, though no classified ones. Still, after more than 16 months of secret debate, it was the first public airing of facts that undermined the most alarming suggestions about Iraq's nuclear threat. The reports got little attention, partly because reporters did not realize they had been done with the cooperation of top Energy Department experts. The Washington Post ran a brief article about the findings on Page A18. Many major newspapers, including The Times, ran nothing at all. Scrambling for an 'Estimate' Soon after Mr. Cheney's appearance on "Meet the Press," Democratic senators began pressing for a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, terrorism and unconventional weapons. A National Intelligence Estimate is a classified document that is supposed to reflect the combined judgment of the entire intelligence community. The last such estimate had been done in 2000. Most estimates take months to complete. But this one had to be done in days, in time for an October vote on a war resolution. There was little time for review or reflection, and no time for Jaeic, the joint committee, to reconcile deep analytical differences. This was a potentially thorny obstacle for those writing the nuclear section: What do you do when the nation's nuclear experts strongly doubt the linchpin evidence behind the C.I.A.'s claims that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program? The Energy Department helped solve the problem. In meetings on the estimate, senior department intelligence officials said that while they still did not believe the tubes were for centrifuges, they nonetheless could agree that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons capability. Several senior scientists inside the department said they were stunned by that stance; they saw no compelling evidence of a revived nuclear program. Some laboratory officials blamed time pressure and inexperience. Thomas S. Ryder, the department's representative at the meetings, had been acting director of the department's intelligence unit for only five months. "A heck of a nice guy but not savvy on technical issues," is the way one senior nuclear official described Mr. Ryder, who declined comment. Mr. Ryder's position was more alarming than prior assessments from the Energy Department. In an August 2001 intelligence paper, department analysts warned of suspicious activities in Iraq that "could be preliminary steps" toward reviving a centrifuge program. In July 2002 an Energy Department report, "Nuclear Reconstitution Efforts Underway?", noted that several developments, including Iraq's suspected bid to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger, suggested Baghdad was "seeking to reconstitute" a nuclear weapons program. According to intelligence officials who took part in the meetings, Mr. Ryder justified his department's now firm position on nuclear reconstitution in large part by citing the Niger reports. Many C.I.A. analysts considered that intelligence suspect, as did analysts at the State Department. Nevertheless, the estimate's authors seized on the Energy Department's position to avoid the entire tubes debate, with written dissents relegated to a 10-page annex. The estimate would instead emphasize that the C.I.A. and the Energy Department both agreed that Mr. Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Only the closest reader would see that each agency was basing its assessment in large measure on evidence the other considered suspect. On Oct. 2, nine days before the Senate vote on the war resolution, the new National Intelligence Estimate was delivered to the Intelligence Committee. The most significant change from past estimates dealt with nuclear weapons; the new one agreed with Mr. Cheney that Iraq was in aggressive pursuit of the atomic bomb. Asked when Mr. Cheney became aware of the disagreements over the tubes, Mr. Kellems, his spokesman, said, "The vice president knew about the debate at about the time of the National Intelligence Estimate." Today, the Intelligence Committee's report makes clear, that 93-page estimate stands as one of the most flawed documents in the history of American intelligence. The committee concluded unanimously that most of the major findings in the estimate were wrong, unfounded or overblown. This was especially true of the nuclear section. Estimates express their most important findings with high, moderate or low confidence levels. This one claimed "moderate confidence" on how fast Iraq could have a bomb, but "high confidence" that Baghdad was rebuilding its nuclear program. And the tubes were the leading and most detailed evidence cited in the body of the report. According to the committee, the passages on the tubes, which adopted much of the C.I.A. analysis, were misleading and riddled with factual errors. The estimate, for example, included a chart intended to show that the dimensions of the tubes closely matched a Zippe centrifuge. Yet the chart omitted the dimensions of Iraq's 81-millimeter rocket, which precisely matched the tubes. The estimate cited Iraq's alleged willingness to pay top dollar for the tubes, up to $17.50 each, as evidence they were for secret centrifuges. But Defense Department rocket engineers told Senate investigators that 7075-T6 aluminum is "the material of choice for low-cost rocket systems." The estimate also asserted that 7075-T6 tubes were "poor choices" for rockets. In fact, similar tubes were used in rockets from several countries, including the United States, and in an Italian rocket, the Medusa, which Iraq had copied. Beyond tubes, the estimate cited several other "key judgments" that supported its assessment. The committee found that intelligence just as flawed. The estimate, for example, pointed to Iraq's purchases of magnets, balancing machines and machine tools, all of which could be used in a nuclear program. But each item also had legitimate non-nuclear uses, and there was no credible intelligence whatsoever showing they were for a nuclear program. The estimate said Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission was building new production facilities for nuclear weapons. The Senate found that claim was based on a single operative's report, which described how the commission had constructed one headquarters building and planned "a new high-level polytechnic school." Finally, the estimate stated that many nuclear scientists had been reassigned to the A.E.C. The Senate found nothing to back that conclusion. It did, though, discover a 2001 report in which a commission employee complained that Iraq's nuclear program "had been stalled since the gulf war." Such "key judgments" are supposed to reflect the very best American intelligence. (The Niger intelligence, for example, was considered too shaky to be included as a key judgment.) Yet as they studied raw intelligence reports, those involved in the Senate investigation came to a sickening realization. "We kept looking at the intelligence and saying, 'My God, there's nothing here,' " one official recalled. The Vote for War Soon after the National Intelligence Estimate was completed, Mr. Bush delivered a speech in Cincinnati in which he described the "grave threat" that Iraq and its "arsenal of terror" posed to the United States. He dwelled longest on nuclear weapons, reviewing much of the evidence outlined in the estimate. The C.I.A. had warned him away from mentioning Niger. "Facing clear evidence of peril," the president concluded, "we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Four days later, on Oct. 11, the Senate voted 77-23 to give Mr. Bush broad authority to invade Iraq. The resolution stated that Iraq posed "a continuing threat" to the United States by, among other things, "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability." Many senators who voted for the resolution emphasized the nuclear threat. "The great danger is a nuclear one," Senator Feinstein, the California Democrat, said on the Senate floor. But Senator Bob Graham, then chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said he voted against the resolution in part because of doubts about the tubes. "It reinforced in my mind pre-existing questions I had about the unreliability of the intelligence community, especially the C.I.A.," Mr. Graham, a Florida Democrat, said in an interview. At the Democratic convention in Boston this summer, Senator John Kerry pledged that should he be elected president, "I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence." But in October 2002, when the Senate voted on Iraq, Mr. Kerry had not read the National Intelligence Estimate, but instead had relied on a briefing from Mr. Tenet, a spokeswoman said. "According to the C.I.A.'s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons," Mr. Kerry said then, explaining his vote. "There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." The report cited by Mr. Kerry, an unclassified white paper, said nothing about the tubes debate except that "some" analysts believed the tubes were "probably intended" for conventional arms. "It is common knowledge that Congress does not have the same access as the executive branch," Brooke Anderson, a Kerry spokeswoman, said yesterday. Mr. Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards, served on the Intelligence Committee, which gave him ample opportunity to ask hard questions. But in voting to authorize war, Mr. Edwards expressed no uncertainty about the principal evidence of Mr. Hussein's alleged nuclear program. "We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons," Mr. Edwards said then. On Dec. 7, 2002, Iraq submitted a 12,200-page declaration about unconventional arms to the United Nations that made no mention of the tubes. Soon after, Winpac analysts at the C.I.A. assessed the declaration for President Bush. The analysts criticized Iraq for failing to acknowledge or explain why it sought tubes "we believe suitable for use in a gas centrifuge uranium effort." Nor, they said, did it "acknowledge efforts to procure uranium from Niger." Neither Energy Department nor State Department intelligence experts were given a chance to review the Winpac assessment, prompting complaints that dissenting views were being withheld from policy makers. "It is most disturbing that Winpac is essentially directing foreign policy in this matter," one Energy Department official wrote in an e-mail message. "There are some very strong points to be made in respect to Iraq's arrogant noncompliance with U.N. sanctions. However, when individuals attempt to convert those 'strong statements' into the 'knock-out' punch, the administration will ultimately look foolish - i.e., the tubes and Niger!" The U.N. Inspectors Return For nearly two years Western intelligence analysts had been trying to divine from afar Iraq's plans for the tubes. At the end of 2002, with the resumption of United Nations arms inspections, it became possible to seek answers inside Iraq. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency immediately zeroed in on the tubes. The team quickly arranged a field trip to the Nasser metal fabrication factory, where they found 13,000 completed rockets, all produced from 7075-T6 aluminum tubes. The Iraqi rocket engineers explained that they had been shopping for more tubes because their supply was running low. Why order tubes with such tight tolerances? An Iraqi engineer said they wanted to improve the rocket's accuracy without making major design changes. Design documents and procurement records confirmed his account. The inspectors solved another mystery. The tubes intercepted in Jordan had been anodized, given a protective coating. The Iraqis had a simple explanation: they wanted the new tubes protected from the elements. Sure enough, the inspectors found that many thousands of the older tubes, which had no special coating, were corroded because they had been stored outside. The inspectors found no trace of a clandestine centrifuge program. On Jan. 10, 2003, The Times reported that the international agency was challenging "the key piece of evidence" behind "the primary rationale for going to war." The article, on Page A10, also reported that officials at the Energy Department and State Department had suggested the tubes might be for rockets. The C.I.A. theory was in trouble, and senior members of the Bush administration seemed to know it. Also that January, White House officials who were helping to draft what would become Secretary Powell's speech to the Security Council sent word to the intelligence community that they believed "the nuclear case was weak," the Senate report said. In an interview, a senior administration official said it was widely understood all along at the White House that the evidence of a nuclear threat was piecemeal and weaker than that for other unconventional arms. But rather than withdraw the nuclear card - a step that could have undermined United States credibility just as tens of thousands of troops were being airlifted to the region - the White House cast about for new arguments and evidence to support it. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked the intelligence agencies for more evidence beyond the tubes to bolster the nuclear case. Winpac analysts redoubled efforts to prove that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa. When rocket engineers at the Defense Department were approached by the C.I.A. and asked to compare the Iraqi tubes with American ones, the engineers said the tubes "were perfectly usable for rockets." The agency analysts did not appear pleased. One rocket engineer complained to Senate investigators that the analysts had "an agenda" and were trying "to bias us" into agreeing that the Iraqi tubes were not fit for rockets. In interviews, agency officials denied any such effort. According to the Intelligence Committee report, the agency also sought to undermine the I.A.E.A.'s work with secret intelligence assessments distributed only to senior policy makers. Nonetheless, on Jan. 22, in a meeting first reported by The Washington Post, the ubiquitous Joe flew to Vienna in a last-ditch attempt to bring the international experts around to his point of view. The session was a disaster. "Everybody was embarrassed when he came and made this presentation, embarrassed and disgusted," one participant said. "We were going insane, thinking, 'Where is he coming from?' " On Jan. 27, the international agency rendered its judgment: it told the Security Council that it had found no evidence of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq. "From our analysis to date," the agency reported, "it appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with the purpose stated by Iraq and, unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges." The Powell Presentation The next night, during his State of the Union address, President Bush cited I.A.E.A. findings from years past that confirmed that Mr. Hussein had had an "advanced" nuclear weapons program in the 1990's. He did not mention the agency's finding from the day before. He did, though, repeat the claim that Mr. Hussein was trying to buy tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." Mr. Bush also cited British intelligence that Mr. Hussein had recently sought "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa - a reference in 16 words that the White House later said should have been stricken, though the British government now insists the information was credible. "Saddam Hussein," Mr. Bush said that night, "has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. The dictator of Iraq is not disarming." A senior administration official involved in vetting the address said Mr. Bush did not cite the I.A.E.A. conclusion of Jan. 27 because the White House believed the agency was analyzing old Iraqi tubes, not the newer ones seized in Jordan. But senior officials in Vienna and Washington said the international group's analysis covered both types of tubes. The senior administration official also said the president's words were carefully chosen to reflect the doubts at the Energy Department. The crucial phrase was "suitable for nuclear weapons production." The phrase stopped short of asserting that the tubes were actually being used in centrifuges. And it was accurate in the sense that Energy Department officials always left open the possibility that the tubes could be modified for use in a centrifuge. "There were differences," the official said, "and we had to address those differences." In his address, the president announced that Mr. Powell would go before the Security Council on Feb. 5 and lay out the intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs. The purpose was to win international backing for an invasion, and so the administration spent weeks drafting and redrafting the presentation, with heavy input from the C.I.A., the National Security Council and I. Lewis Libby, Mr. Cheney's chief of staff. The Intelligence Committee said some drafts prepared for Mr. Powell contained language on the tubes that was patently incorrect. The C.I.A. wanted Mr. Powell to say, for example, that Iraq's specifications for roundness were so exacting "that the tubes would be rejected as defective if I rolled one under my hand on this table, because the mere pressure of my hand would deform it." Intelligence analysts at the State Department waged a quiet battle against much of the proposed language on tubes. A year before, they had sent Mr. Powell a report explaining why they believed the tubes were more likely for rockets. The National Intelligence Estimate included their dissent - that they saw no compelling evidence of a comprehensive effort to revive a nuclear weapons program. Now, in the days before the Security Council speech, they sent the secretary detailed memos warning him away from a long list of assertions in the drafts, the intelligence committee found. The language on the tubes, they said, contained "egregious errors" and "highly misleading" claims. Changes were made, language softened. The line about "the mere pressure of my hand" was removed. "My colleagues," Mr. Powell assured the Security Council, "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions." He made his way to the subject of Mr. Hussein's current nuclear capabilities. "By now," he said, "just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts and the Iraqis themselves argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher." But Mr. Powell did not acknowledge that those "other experts" included many of the nation's most authoritative nuclear experts, some of whom said in interviews that they were offended to find themselves now lumped in with a reviled government. In making the case that the tubes were for centrifuges, Mr. Powell made claims that his own intelligence experts had told him were not accurate. Mr. Powell, for example, asserted to the Security Council that the tubes were manufactured to a tolerance "that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets." Yet in a memo written two days earlier, Mr. Powell's intelligence experts had specifically cautioned him about those very same words. "In fact," they explained, "the most comparable U.S. system is a tactical rocket - the U.S. Mark 66 air-launched 70-millimeter rocket - that uses the same, high-grade (7075-T6) aluminum, and that has specifications with similar tolerances." In the end, Mr. Powell put his personal prestige and reputation behind the C.I.A.'s tube theory. "When we came to the aluminum tubes," Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said in an interview, "the secretary listened to the discussion of the various views among intelligence agencies, and reflected those issues in his presentation. Since his task at the U.N. was to present the views of the United States, he went with the overall judgment of the intelligence community as reflected by the director of central intelligence." As Mr. Powell summed it up for the United Nations, "People will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my mind these illicit procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program: the ability to produce fissile material." Six weeks later, the war began. This article was reported by David Barstow, William J. Broad and Jeff Gerth, and was written by Mr. Barstow. ***************************************************************** 3 Las Vegas SUN: Rice Defends Comments on Iraq Nuke Threat By JENNIFER C. KERR ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sunday defended her characterization of Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities in the months before the Iraq invasion, even as a published report said government experts had cast doubt at the time. In the run-up to the March 2003 war, Rice said in a television interview in 2002 that the Iraqi president was trying to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes to rebuild his nuclear weapons program. The tubes, she said, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." On Sunday, Rice acknowledged she was aware of a debate within the U.S. intelligence community about whether the tubes were intended for nuclear weapons. "I knew that there was a dispute. I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute," Rice told ABC's "This Week." "The intelligence community assessment as a whole was that these (tubes) were likely and certainly suitable for, and likely for, his nuclear weapons program," Rice said. She said the director of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, believed that the tubes were for centrifuge parts. "When you are faced with an assessment that Saddam Hussein is reconstituting his nuclear weapons program, that he has by the end of the decade the probability of having a nuclear weapon ... the tendency is always not to want to underestimate these programs," Rice said. But two years later, Rice insisted she has no regrets about how the administration portrayed what it believed was a dangerous threat posed by Saddam. "I stand by to this day the correctness of the decision to take seriously an intelligence assessment that Saddam Hussein would likely have a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade" if action wasn't taken. "We were all unhappy that the intelligence was not as good as we had thought that it was. But the essential judgment was absolutely right. Saddam Hussein was a threat," she said. Later, in an interview on CNN's "Late Edition," Rice said, "If you underestimate the nuclear threat of a tyrant, you make a really big mistake." A New York Times story Sunday quoted four CIA officials and a senior administration official as saying that Rice's staff had been told in 2001 that Energy Department experts believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets - and not nuclear weapons. Rice said she learned of objections by the Energy Department only after making her 2002 comments. During the CNN interview in 2002, Rice said the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." In bolstering the administration's argument of the threat the nation faced, she said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry seized on the latest debate over flawed prewar intelligence as more evidence that the Bush administration misled the country into invading Iraq. "These are questions the president must face, these are the questions that a president has to answer fully to the American people and to the troops," Kerry told a town hall meeting in Ohio on Sunday. Kerry foreign policy adviser and former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke told "This Week," "What the Times article is saying is that the top nuclear experts in the country said those aluminum tubes were not for nuclear weapons, and that this was suppressed by the administration, particularly Vice President Cheney." -- ***************************************************************** 4 MediaGuardian.co.uk: BBC governor under fire for Iraq contracts Antony Barnett, public affairs editor Sunday October 3, 2004 [http://www.observer.co.uk] The BBC chief who played a pivotal role in how the corporation covered the Iraq war and the David Kelly affair, stands to profit out of a firm with lucrative military contracts in Iraq. Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, a BBC governor, emerged as one of the main figures in the feud between the BBC and the government in the fallout of the Hutton inquiry into the death of weapons scientist Dr David Kelly, being blamed personally by former-director general Greg Dyke for his sacking. Neville-Jones, a former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, took an unusually active role in the Kelly affair, criticising Andrew Gilligan's reporting and also expressing unease about Kelly's expertise. Now it has emerged that Neville-Jones chairs a company providing military equipment for US Humvees and Black Hawk helicopters, both of which are used in Iraq, leading to calls for her to reconsider her position as a governor. Documents from Companies House reveal that Neville-Jones earned Ł133,000 last year as chairman of Qinetiq, the privatised research arm of the MoD. The company recently bought two US defence firms that have intimate ties to the Pentagon and multi-million-dollar contracts supplying the US forces in Iraq. The company's accounts also disclose that Neville-Jones owns Ł50,000 worth of shares in Qinetiq which are held through the controversial US fund the Carlyle Group. The fund is known as the 'Ex-Presidents Club' because of the number of former world leaders it has employed, including President Bush's father and former Tory Prime Minister John Major. Following Qinetiq's move into the US defence market, the company hopes to float on the stock market, a move that would probably see the value of Neville-Jones's shares rise. Neville-Jones, who sits on the BBC's programme complaint committee, has always declared her chairmanship of Qinetiq, but backbench MPs are now calling on her to consider her position as governor. Former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle said: 'The fact that she has such a financial interest in the armaments industry and firms involved in Iraq appears to be a real conflict of interest. She should have stepped aside when it came to discussing military issues.' Labour MP Llew Smith, Labour MP said: 'It is completely inappropriate that someone so senior in the BBC should be leading a firm making huge profits from the misery caused by the invasion of Iraq.' Neville-Jones was personally blamed by Dyke for leading the boardroom revolt against him after Hutton criticised the corporation for failing to correct its reporting over the WMD dossier. It emerged in the Hutton inquiry that Neville-Jones sent BBC chairman Gavin Davies a note expressing her unease that Gilligan may have exaggerated the status of Kelly, who killed himself over the scandal. Qinetiq was formed out of the part-privatisation of the MoD's military research arm. The MoD still owns 51 per cent of the company, which announced last month that it paid Ł160 million to buy US firms Foster-Miller and Westar. Foster-Miller makes bomb-disposal equipment and armour for military vehicles and aircraft. This year it boasted record profits, thanks to a $7m contract with the US Marines to provide armour for Marine Humvees in Iraq . Westar works closely with the Pentagon on many US military operations. It made components for US Black Hawk and Apache military helicopter that allowed them to fly through sandstorms in Iraq and Afghanistan. Qinetiq admits its success in buying the US firms was helped by the British decision to stand by Bush. Qinetiq's chief executive Sir John Chisholm said: 'It is an undeniable fact the US and UK find themselves shoulder to shoulder in Iraq which creates a halo effect that is beneficial to UK companies seeking to enter the US market.' It is not the first time that Neville-Jones has faced criticism over her commercial interests. After leaving the Foreign Office, she joined former Tory Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd at National Westminster. The bank's investment arm worked with Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic to privatise the country's telecoms industry. Both had meetings with Milosevic in Belgrade in 1996 on Serbia 's foreign debt and the privatisation of state assets. Although there is no suggestion of wrongdoing in the deal, it was attacked for presenting Milosevic with a Ł625m windfall a year before his campaign to drive Kosovan Albanians from their homes. At the time, the Serbian leader was facing down huge protest demonstrations in Belgrade. A spokeswoman for the BBC said: 'The board of governors is responsible for ensuring the BBC acts only in the public interest and is impartial in its news coverage. The board operates a well-established conflicts of interests process. It is a matter of public record that Pauline Neville-Jones is chairman of Qinetiq.' She said governors only have to declare shareholdings in firms with which the BBC trades. · Additional reporting: Solomon Hughes [antony.barnett@observer.co.uk] [UP] MediaGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 5 Straits Times: Pyongyang says 'no' to nuke talks with South Korea - OCT 4, 2004 North Korea rejects bipartisan curtain- raiser for six-way talks and calls for a probe of the South's nuclear activities SEOUL - North Korea has dashed the South's hope of quickly resuming talks between the two old Cold War enemies, saying there is no hope for progress unless South Korea's nuclear experiments are fully investigated. North Korea has already broken off slow-moving six-country talks aimed at ending its own nuclear-weapons programmes in return for compensation. It has also boycotted scheduled talks with the South since July, when Seoul angered the North by successfully airlifting more than 460 North-Korean refugees from Vietnam. 'It will be impossible to expect any development of inter-Korean relations unless the truth about South Korea's secret nuclear experiments is probed,' the North's KCNA news agency quoted a spokesman for the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland as saying on Saturday. The committee is North Korea's official channel of communication with the South, the counterpart to Seoul's Unification Ministry. The statement refers to recent disclosures about experiments conducted in the South by government scientists to enrich uranium in 2000 and to separate plutonium in 1982. South Korea Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon said last month that there had never been and would not be a government programme to develop nuclear weapons. But North Korea described the experiments as the tip of an iceberg of serious nuclear development that the South had so far conducted in a premeditated manner. 'The clandestine nuclear development pursued for over 20 years helped South Korea acquire basic criteria for nuclear armament such as extraction of nuclear substance, production of nukes, access to means for nuclear delivery and preparations for a nuclear war and put all this under a perfect system,' it said. z North Korea has also said it was impossible to return to six-party talks - hosted three times by Pyongyang's ally, China, and attended by South Korea, the United States, Japan and Russia - because Washington was seeking to disarm it and then launch a preemptive nuclear attack. The US denies the claim and said North Korea would benefit from dismantling its nuclear programmes, including a uranium-enrichment programme. North Korea's Rodong Sinmun said the claim it had such a programme was fabrication. China blamed the 'mutual lack of trust' between Washington and Pyongyang for the impasse in six-party talks. South Korea had hoped to use bilateral talks with the North to try to encourage Pyongyang to return to six-way talks. But Vice-Unification Minister Rhee Bong Jo said on Friday it had been making no progress with the North to resume dialogue. -- Reuters The Straits Times ***************************************************************** 6 Straits Times: IAEA head in Seoul to discuss nuclear activities - OCT 4, 2004 SEOUL - The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, Mr Mohamed El-Baradei, arrived in Seoul yesterday to discuss South Korea's nuclear experiments. Mr El-Baradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is here to attend a conference but IAEA officials said he would also have talks on Seoul's nuclear activities. He was scheduled to meet Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon yesterday, Prime Minister Lee Hae Chan today and Unification Minister Chung Dong Young tomorrow, Seoul officials said. IAEA inspectors visited the country last month to investigate Seoul's shock revelations of past secret tests with plutonium and enriched uranium, which can be used for nuclear bombs. South Korea said the laboratory experiments were not linked to nuclear weapons programmes. Yesterday, Mr El-Baradei said he wanted South Korea to come clean about the experiments and not to repeat its mistake. The clandestine activities has embarrassed the United States and South Korea while they are trying, through six-party talks, to pressure North Korea to end its nuclear weapons drive. -- Reuters, AFP The Straits Times ***************************************************************** 7 Las Vegas SUN: IAEA Cautions S. Korea on Nuclear Plans By SOO-JEONG LEE ASSOCIATED PRESS SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The U.N. nuclear chief, acknowledging that South Korea's nuclear experiments appear to have been small, said Sunday that his agency nonetheless needs to ensure they are not repeated. Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is in South Korea to take part in the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs. But he also plans to meet with several top officials during his trip. His visit follows Seoul's recent admissions that it conducted a plutonium-based nuclear experiment more than 20 years ago and a uranium-enrichment experiment in 2000. South Korea says the experiments were purely research but has acknowledged it should have informed the IAEA. "Any undeclared activities is a matter of serious concern for me," ElBaradei told reporters upon arrival. "However, as far as I know now, these have been small experiments. We just wanted to make sure these were experiments and that there were nothing more than these experiments... (and that) these experiments will not be repeated again without being declared to the organization." ElBaradei said he believed a report on Seoul's nuclear activities would be ready for submission to the IAEA's board of governors by November. Asked about the possibility of the issue being reported to the Security Council, which can impose punitive measures, he said such a decision "is far down the road." "This is something for the board of governors members to decide," he said. "You cannot speculate on the issue before we have a comprehensive report on these experiments." The IAEA has already sent inspectors here twice, and South Korean officials expect several more such visits. Plutonium and enriched uranium are two key ingredients of nuclear weapons. 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. A fourth round of the six-country talks on the North's nuclear programs failed to take place last month, as had been planned by the United States, North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. -- ***************************************************************** 8 Korea Herald: IAEA: Seoul not singled out for experiment 2004.10.04 By Choi Soung-ah The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency said any activities that have not been reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the nonproliferation treaty, are a "matter of serious concern," and that the recently disclosed South Korean cases have not been singled out. "As I've said, any undeclared activity is a matter of serious concern for me. However, as far as I know now these have been small experiments," Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA told reporters upon arrival at Incheon International Airport to attend a disarmanent conference in Korea. "We just wanted to make sure that these were experiments and that there was nothing more than experiments, and we want to make sure that these experiments will not be repeated again without being declared to the organization," he said. ***************************************************************** 9 Channelnewsasia.com: UN nuclear watchdog chief ElBaradei arrives in South Korea Posted: 03 October 2004 1352 hrs SEOUL : UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei arrived in South Korea, where his agency is investigating unauthorised nuclear research. ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is in South Korea to attend a conference but IAEA officials said discussions on Seoul's nuclear activities would follow. He will meet Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon Sunday, Prime Minister Lee Hae-Chan on Monday and Unification Minister Chung Dong-Young on Tuesday, Seoul officials said. IAEA inspectors last month visited the country to investigate Seoul's shock revelations of past secret experiments with potential ingredients for nuclear bombs. South Korea disclosed in September that its scientists secretly enriched a tiny amount of plutonium in 1982 and uranium in 2000. It said the laboratory experiments were not linked to nuclear weapons programmes but ElBaradei has expressed "serious concern". The clandestine activity has embarrassed the United States and South Korea at a time when they are trying, through six-party talks, to pressure Stalinist North Korea to end its nuclear weapons drive. The North has refused to take part in a fourth round of the multilateral talks, blaming "hostile" US policy and the secret nuclear experiments. ElBaradei, who is being tipped as a possible Nobel Peace Prize winner, travels Wednesday to Japan. The prizewinner is to be announced on Friday in Oslo. Observers have said they expect the Nobel committee this year to hail efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. - AFP Copyright © 2004 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 New York Times: Congress Moves to Protect Federal Whistleblowers By ROBERT PEAR Published: October 3, 2004 [W] ASHINGTON, Oct. 2 - Over strenuous objections from the Bush administration, Congress is moving to increase protections for federal employees who expose fraud, waste and wrongdoing inside the government. Lawmakers of both parties say the measures are needed to prevent retaliation against such whistleblowers, who reveal threats to public health, safety and security. But the administration says the bill unconstitutionally interferes with the president's ability to control and manage the government. On Wednesday, a House committee approved a whistleblower protection bill. In July, a Senate committee approved a similar measure offering more extensive protections to whistleblowers. Representative Todd R. Platts, Republican of Pennsylvania, the sponsor of the House bill, said: "We need to protect public servants who expose fraud and intentional misconduct. Court decisions in the last 10 years have eroded whistleblower protections, so that if you're a federal employee, you're often risking your job - and the wrath of your superiors - if you come forward with evidence of wrongdoing.'' The Senate bill gained momentum when Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, chairwoman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, joined Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Democrat of Hawaii, in pushing it. "The campaign for this legislation went from dormant to active when Senator Collins embraced the bill a few months ago,'' said Thomas M. Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, a watchdog group that works with whistleblowers. "That was the turning point.'' While the legislation has broad support and a compromise appears to be within reach, it is impossible to know whether the measure will become law. As evidence of a need for legislation, lawmakers cited dozens of cases, including these: ¶Federal investigators found that two Border Patrol agents, Mark Hall and Robert Lindemann, were disciplined after they disclosed weaknesses in security along the Canadian border. ¶Teresa C. Chambers was dismissed from her job as chief of the United States Park Police after she said the agency did not have enough money or personnel to protect parks and monuments in the Washington area. ¶The nation's top Medicare official threatened to fire Richard S. Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, if he provided data to Congress showing the cost of the new Medicare law, which exceeded White House estimates. Airport baggage screeners say they have been penalized for raising concerns about aviation security. But in August, an independent federal agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board, ruled that they had none of the whistleblower rights available to other federal employees. The government, it said, can "hire, discipline and terminate screeners without regard to any other law.'' The United States Office of Special Counsel, which investigates complaints of reprisal before they go to the board, has a large backlog of whistleblower cases, including many pending more than a year. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have made the government more secretive, but have also prompted whistleblowers to come forward in greater numbers. "They feel they can no longer stand by knowing that people's lives are at risk,'' said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, another watchdog group. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he knew of several instances in which federal agencies had retaliated against whistleblowers by revoking their security clearances. Because they can no longer do their jobs, Mr. Grassley said, "the pulling of a security clearance effectively fires employees.'' Administration officials gave several reasons for opposing the bills. Peter D. Keisler, an assistant attorney general, said the legislation would encourage frivolous complaints by disgruntled employees, crippling the ability of senior officials to manage the federal work force. "The bill would convert every federal employee into a potential whistleblower and every minor workplace dispute with a supervisor into a potential whistleblower case,'' Mr. Keisler said. Mr. Akaka said the objections came as no surprise. "The Justice Department has an institutional conflict of interest'' because it is responsible for defending agencies accused of retaliating against whistleblowers, he said. Congress has repeatedly tried to protect conscientious civil servants, under laws adopted in 1978, 1989 and 1994. But lawmakers said these efforts had been frustrated by the court that hears appeals from aggrieved federal employees, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court often assumes that a federal agency acted properly unless an employee offers "irrefragable proof to the contrary.'' The Senate committee cited this as one of many issues on which the court had misinterpreted the law and the intent of Congress. "By definition,'' it said, "irrefragable means impossible to refute. This imposes an impossible burden on whistleblowers.'' By contrast, the House and Senate bills would protect the disclosure of any information that a whistleblower "reasonably believes'' to be evidence of government illegality or misconduct. The legislation would also clarify the right of federal employees, like Mr. Foster, the Medicare actuary, to provide information to Congress, free of threats or reprisals. ***************************************************************** 11 Star Tribune: environments Kerry's record outshines even Gore's [http://www.startribune.com] Robert Braile October 3, 2004 BRAILE1003 When John Kerry is asked about his environmental record, he often refers to lessons his mother taught him about "responsibility to this world," to a speech he gave in Massachusetts on the first Earth Day in 1970, to an acid rain commission he led as that state's lieutenant governor, and to victories he claims as a U.S. senator on marquee issues from coral reefs to climate change. It is a telling response. While Kerry has a glittering environmental record by most accounts, it reflects a distinct taste for Brussels over Boston -- for the more glamorous international and national issues of the day, over the more provincial issues that might normally preoccupy a senator. Or, at least, a senator not eyeing the Oval Office. Not that Kerry has neglected the Bay State in what he calls his "commitment of a lifetime." Supporters say he has helped over the years in cleaning up Boston Harbor, the Massachusetts Military Reservation and the Housatonic River, showing political courage in the latter two cases, especially, by standing up to powerful players in the Pentagon and General Electric Corp., respectively. Also, the national causes he has championed were as relevant in Massachusetts and New England as anywhere else. His efforts to reduce air and water pollution, toughen drinking-water standards, strengthen the federal Superfund program, reduce national forest logging and road construction, increase motor vehicle fuel economy, protect fisheries, conserve land, develop green transportation options and enhance renewable energy programs have served environmental interests from coast to coast. From the start of his political career, Kerry has garnered his grandest headlines and most enthusiastic support from the national environmental community on high-profile issues that have about as much to do with Massachusetts as manatees. He has opposed opening a nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain and drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has participated in international climate change talks everywhere from Rio to Kyoto to The Hague. Even on international and national issues that have affected Massachusetts, Kerry has sought the larger stage. In 1987, three years into his first Senate term, he criticized the Reagan administration for its lack of leadership on acid raid and called for Senate hearings on global impacts of the problem. At the time, acid rain was as acute a concern domestically and abroad as climate change is now, although perhaps more a concern for Germany's Black Forest than for the Berkshires. Kerry has critics among environmental activists in Massachusetts, who see his support as driven by careerism and bravado more than purpose and passion. He could be counted on to vote the right way, they say, but has not delivered as much as some of his colleagues in the New England congressional delegations, among America's greenest -- nor as much as Kerry himself claims. Nevertheless, his record has earned him very high marks from environmental groups. His lifetime League of Conservation Voters rating, based on Senate votes, is 92 out of 100 -- so high that the group endorsed him on Jan. 24, three days before the New Hampshire primary, the earliest in a campaign season it has endorsed any candidate in its 34-year history. (In 2000, it did not endorse former Vice President Al Gore until May 30 -- and Gore, one of the greenest politicians in recent memory, had a League rating of only 64.) It remains to be seen whether such support will tip the scales for Kerry in what polls have long indicated is a very close race with President Bush. So far he has chosen -- as Gore did four years ago -- not to make his environmental commitment a highlight of his campaign. Instead, he has cast his environmental platform in terms of how he would resolve local bread-and-butter issues, shying away from showcasing the positions that represent the greatest difference between himself and the president. Strategically smart or not, that may be Kerry's most telling position of all. A choice of Robert Braile reported on the environment for the Boston Globe from 1987 to 2001. He is writing a book about race, culture and the environment in America. Return to top Story tools Email this story +http://www.startribune.com/stories/ 562/ 5011374" class=iconlink>AIM this story Print this story Make us your homepage Search News Classifieds Ads Web More options [Star Tribune] © 2004 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 AP Wire: Bush, Kerry hitting on local issues in swing states | 10/03/2004 | MALIA RULON Associated Press WASHINGTON - Going after voters in southern Ohio, Democrat John Kerry promised to continue paying for cleanup work at a major employer and help workers made sick by exposure to toxic chemicals. In Michigan, Bush got cheers when he pledged never to permit water to be taken from the Great Lakes, a promise the Kerry campaign quickly echoed. Bush also promised voters in Oregon that he would get them $15 million to deepen 104 miles of the Columbia River. Meanwhile, both campaigns have guaranteed money for clean coal technology to residents of West Virginia and told audiences in the West why they support or oppose drilling in Otero Mesa, N.M., or the disposal of nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Polls show that the top issues for voters are terrorism, the war in Iraq and the economy. But with the race hinging on only a handful of swing states, the candidate's positions on local issues could end up making the biggest difference. "Some of these states are shaping up to be real close, so whatever they can do to motivate people and influence their vote might pay off," said Charles Funderburk, a political science professor at Wright State University in Dayton. In Ohio, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which enriched uranium, was closed in 2001. USEC Inc., which runs the plant, chose the site this year for a new facility that will use more modern technology. Workers there say Bush's promise - in writing - to support funding for the plant in Piketon made a big difference in how they voted in 2000. Now they are comparing the president's record over the last four years to Kerry's pledge. In a letter to Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, Kerry said he would make sure ill workers get speedy compensation and would continue to support funding for cleanup and the development of new technology. The government has a compensation program for such workers but both Democrats and Republicans say it should be improved. "There are maybe multiple other issues that you can go on and on about, but this is definitely one of the major ones for employees," said Bob Givens, a Republican from Lucasville who has worked as a uranium material handler at the plant for 27 years. Dan Minter, president of the workers' union, said he has met with Bush and Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards about the plant's future. "It certainly has been a primary issue. I have received invitations to events that I never would have expected," Minter said. Both candidates have been campaigning hard in Ohio, a state Democrat Al Gore lost by just 3.6 percentage points after pulling his campaign in the last weeks of the 2000 campaign. No Republican has won the White House without Ohio. In West Virginia, state Delegate Mike Caputo, a Democrat from Marion, says coal is the issue that can turn the race around for Kerry. The Bush administration has budgeted $447 million for clean coal technology this year and proposes spending $2 billion on it over the next decade. Kerry has proposed investing $10 billion over 10 years to develop clean-burning alternatives for coal-fired plants. As the state's political action coordinator for the United Mine Workers of America, Caputo recalls how West Virginia voters reacted to Gore's campaign, choosing Bush by a surprising 6 percentage points. Bush was just the fourth Republican, and the first who wasn't an incumbent president, to win West Virginia since 1932. "Al Gore did not talk about coal enough in West Virginia," Caputo said of the environmentally friendly candidate. "Coal is a big concern to all West Virginians, regardless of what you do for a living." Drilling for oil and gas in wilderness areas is a big deal to many residents out West, and especially to sportsmen, said Stephen Capra, executive director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. Bush recently announced a plan that would allow expanded oil and gas drilling on Otero Mesa in southern New Mexico. Kerry opposes all oil and gas development in the publicly owned grassland, which is home to more than 250 species of songbirds. Capra says that while most environmentalists will probably vote for Kerry anyway, this issue could keep the state Democratic if it draws enough hunters, which traditionally vote Republican. Gore won New Mexico by just 366 votes. Kerry spokeswoman Debra DeShong said hitting on local issues is an important part of the Democrat's strategy because it helps make a personal connection with voters. On a visit to Newark, Ohio, Kerry mentioned earlier job losses at Toledo-based Owens Corning, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2000, and Kaiser Aluminum Corp. in nearby Heath. He mixed in comments about a local pizza joint and that night's high school football game against Zanesville. "Voters want to hear from us where we will take the country, but they also want to hear from us where will we take their community," DeShong said. The Bush campaign does the same thing. The president announced in Portland, Ore., that he was supporting funding to deepen a shipping canal that runs to the Pacific Ocean. Merchant carriers, farmers and ranchers say the channel is too shallow to accommodate newer ships. "This is an important new step to enhance the vitality of this river," Bush told about 300 guests at Terminal 6 of the Port of Portland on Aug. 13. "We essentially tailor the president's economic message to local concerns," Bush campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said. "It shows that the president is somebody who is actively engaged in local issues and how they affect people." ON THE NET Bush campaign: http://www.georgewbush.com [http://www.georgewbush.com] Kerry campaign: http://www.johnkerry.com [http://www.johnkerry.com] ***************************************************************** 13 SF Chronicle: Bush tempers argument for pre-emptive strikes / Experts say Iraq war precludes similar future engagements James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, October 2, 2004 [San Francisco Chronicle] George Bush has insisted repeatedly on the campaign trail that his presidency has been characterized by unwavering policies based on core convictions. But a key component of his security and military strategy -- a willingness to wage war "pre-emptively" against perceived enemies -- lies largely in tatters, say experts and policy-makers. These experts, from both sides of the political spectrum, say the brutal experience in Iraq has eroded many elements of what has come to be called the "Bush doctrine," leaving the United States with less flexibility in the war on terror. President Bush himself appeared to dial back on the doctrine during Thursday night's debate when asked whether he would launch future pre-emptive strikes in the wake of the Iraq war. Bush replied, somewhat unenthusiastically, that "a president must always be willing to use troops," but only "as a last resort." That is a far cry from the bold policy the president articulated in 2002, which rejected the traditional focus on containing threats or responding only after an enemy had staged a clear act of aggression. In fact, say policy experts, the violent insurgency in Iraq, which has tied down 140,000 U.S. troops, has all but removed Americans' stomach for a similar pre-emptive engagement against an enemy who has not actually launched or prepared an imminent attack on the United States. Iraq "will leave a long and damaging legacy," said Fred Ikle, a senior government arms control expert for decades who has argued that the United States must be more willing to use military might to achieve its goals. "It will inhibit us more than is good for our future. We fumbled." Ikle was one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative group that has long pressed for a more muscular American military posture, and includes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz -- key architects of the Iraq war -- among its members. Ikle's views are echoed by other prominent neoconservative thinkers. "The appetite for this kind of action in the country is pretty low at the moment," said Max Boot, a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Boot, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said that the United States is likely to launch small-scale pre-emptive strikes as needed in the future, much as Israel does against its enemies, but not the kind of large-scale attacks that were at the center of the Bush doctrine's aim of pressuring enemies to change or risk being destroyed. "If, by some miracle, Iraq looks better in a few years, maybe there will be greater interest in the idea," said Boot. The Bush administration continues to insist that the doctrine remains U.S. policy. It has a number of elements, including an insistence that any state that supports terrorists will be considered an enemy, that the United States has the right to attack such countries pre-emptively -- even, as in the case of Iraq, before an enemy has mounted a challenge or the president feels there is an imminent threat of an attack. Under the doctrine, the United States would also act to prevent any country from even attempting to match American military might. Most of these elements were outlined in speeches in 2002 and then codified in September 2002, in a 33-page document called "The National Security Strategy of the United States." It stated that terrorism presented a new kind of danger and needed a new kind of response. "As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed," the document said. Bush went further and targeted three countries in his famous "axis of evil" State of the Union speech in 2002, hinting that Iran and North Korea, as well as Iraq, might be attacked pre-emptively if they were perceived as threatening the United States. But many experts say that the first broad pre-emptive invasion might be the last, at least for now, because of the expense of Iraq, the apparently poor planning for the occupation, the violent backlash and the lack of resources or troops for another such venture. Rather than be cowed by President Bush's earlier hints, or by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, both Iran and North Korea have defied international demands, and both appear to be developing nuclear weapons, without any indication that the president might seek to resort to a pre-emptive attack. In the presidential debate Thursday night, President Bush emphasized multilateral talks, involving China, to resolve the North Korea crisis, and Bush has looked primarily to European negotiators to deal with Iran. "Pre-emption is valid only if you have a situation where you are about to be attacked," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a critic of Bush's policies. "In my view, it is not useful in the war on terror." The administration said that its aim in invading Iraq was, in part, to send a message to other hostile governments, as well as removing Saddam Hussein from power. Officials suggested that it was intended to let countries like Syria, Iran and even North Korea know that the United States had the capability and the will to launch rapid pre-emptive attacks to eliminate any challenges. It was also said to be an effort to spread democratic reforms throughout the Middle East, creating a kind of bandwagon effect, beginning with the democratization of Iraq. John Mearsheimer, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," said the persuasive power behind Bush's policy depended on great U.S. military flexibility, which has since been lost. "The problem is that if you get bogged down in Iraq, you can't reload the shotgun quickly and put Iran or Syria in the crosshairs," said Mearsheimer. "So you can't influence their behavior the way you wanted to. The policy failed." He added that the administration has undermined its credibility with Americans by arguing that Iraq was an imminent threat and that it was armed with weapons of mass destruction. That has not been borne out, eliminating at least some of the potential for popular support of future pre-emptive strikes. "It's a failed doctrine now because it has failed militarily on the ground and because it caused the administration to be deceitful to the American people," said Mearsheimer. Historians point out that pre-emptive attacks have been tools of American policy from the nation's earliest years, and many presidents have launched or contemplated such strikes, from the early 19th century to the present. For instance, President John F. Kennedy threatened a pre-emptive attack during the Cuban missile crisis, and President Bill Clinton launched pre- emptive bombing strikes against suspected al Qaeda targets in Sudan. What is new is that, in response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration articulated a strategy in which the United States, anticipating possible future terrorist attacks, would strike long before they could be mounted. The era of containment and quiet diplomacy was over, the new strategy suggested. Vice President Dick Cheney was one of the first to call this the "Bush doctrine" and to repeat his support for its many elements in a number of speeches. Many experts say that they still support the idea of some kinds of pre- emptive strikes, but only if the threat is unequivocally clear and imminent. "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre- emptive strike," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said in the televised debate with President Bush on Thursday night. "It remains an important option," added Ashton Carter, a Defense Department official in the Clinton administration and now a senior Kerry campaign adviser. "It has to be an option." Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon official and national security adviser to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said pre-emption should be seen as one possible tool, not part of an overarching "doctrine." "When an administration reacts to something, it's always case-specific, not based on a doctrine," said Cordesman, now a national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Cordesman blamed the problems in Iraq on poor planning, not the basic concept of a pre-emptive strike. "What was wrong was all of our assumptions used to go in," he said. [graphical line] Page A - 10 ©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ ***************************************************************** 14 WorldNetDaily: Kerry's No. 1 priority for keeping U.S. safe SATURDAY OCTOBER 2 2004 © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com Hallelujah! In response to a specific question during Thursday's presidential debate, John Kerry declared that if elected president his No. 1 priority would be preventing nuke proliferation. How do we know Kerry really means it? After all, President Bush told you that the reason he had to invade Iraq was to keep Saddam Hussein's nukes out of the hands of terrorists. Of course, Bush knew Saddam didn't have nukes, didn't have the necessary fissile material to make nukes, and had made no attempt to reconstruct his Iraq-Iran War programs to produce nukes or the makings thereof. Mohammed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had made authoritative reports to that effect to the U.N. Security Council. As a consequence of an exhaustive decade-long search-and-destroy mission by the IAEA, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, if any country was certifiably nuke-free, it was Iraq. But Bush didn't refute the IAEA certification. He just totally ignored it. It was irrelevant whether Saddam had nukes or not. The real objective of the neo-crazies had always been to establish a puppet regime in Iraq. Operation Iraqi Freedom might better be called Operation Bait-&-Switch. So how do we know that keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists will really be Kerry's No. 1 priority as president? Well, for one thing, Kerry proceeded to list the disastrous consequences of its not being Bush's first priority. In particular, Kerry noted that when Bush became president, North Korea was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all nuclear facilities and nuclear materials were "frozen" – subject to a bilateral US-DPRK agreement and to continuous IAEA monitoring. Under the so-called Agreed Framework, we had promised to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea, with an end to normalizing relations between the two countries. The U.S. has officially been "at war" with North Korea since 1950. Kerry charged that – upon taking office – Bush made it clear to both Korean presidents that he had no intention of engaging in bilateral talks to "normalize" relations with North Korean. In his first State of the Union Address – after specifically naming Iran, Iraq and North Korea – Bush had this to say: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." Then, later that year, the Bush administration abrogated the Agreed Framework, charging that North Korea had been violating it by having a secret enriched-uranium nuke program – a charge that Bush made again in rebuttal to Kerry during the debate. But the North Koreans have vigorously and consistently denied having such a program. Despite repeated requests for him to do so, Bush has never provided anyone – including the Chinese – any convincing evidence that North Korea has such a program. No longer subject to the Agreed Framework, North Korea announced on the eve of Operation Bait-&-Switch it was withdrawing from the NPT, restarting its "frozen" plutonium-producing reactor and its plutonium-recovery facility and now – according to CIA estimates – probably has a half dozen nukes. If terrorists get their hands on a North Korean nuke, there is absolutely no question who should be held responsible. Bush refused to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea while they were still subject to the IAEA-NPT Safeguards regime. Then there was no peril. No longer subject to safeguards, Kerry believes the terrorist nuke peril is clear and present. And Bush's rhetoric and actions – including his launching a pre-emptive attack on Iraq to confiscate the nukes Saddam didn't have – are to blame. Now, Bush denigrates Kerry, who says he would immediately engage the North Koreans in bilateral talks. There are other reasons – such as his endorsement of the Brit-French-German-Russian "multilateralist" approach to dealing with the Iranian nuclear "crisis" – to believe Kerry's No. 1 priority is preventing nuke proliferation. But his commitment to do what Bush wouldn't do – engage the North Koreans – is reason enough. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. [gprather@worldnetdaily.com] | GO TO GORDON PRATHER'S ARCHIVE © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 DenverPost.com: Attorneys argue anti-nuke activists' intent was ignored Judges hear nuns' appeal Published: Saturday, October 02, 2004 By Alicia Caldwell Denver Post Staff Writer Post / Lyn Alweis Supporters of three Dominican nuns who entered a Weld County nuclear missile site in 2002 and were convicted of two felonies, hold paper “missiles” and signs at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver on Friday. The three nuns who cut a chain-link fence to get onto a Weld County nuclear missile site intended to send a message, not sabotage national defense. That's what their attorneys argued Friday before a three-judge panel at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As no-nuke protesters carried toy missiles outside the federal courthouse, attorneys inside asked that the nuns' sabotage convictions be reversed or their cases retried. "In this case, the only thing the sisters had the intent to do was to cut the fence and send a message to the world," argued Clifford J. Barnard, a Boulder lawyer representing one of the nuns. "Intending to harm the fence is not the same thing as harming national defense." However, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Murphy said the sisters carefully planned their 2002 trip to Colorado to stage the protest. Their intrusion onto the site, which housed a Minuteman III nuclear warhead, caused significant disruption as military personnel converged on the area, he said. "I cannot agree with you that it did not impair the national defense," Murphy said. "They (personnel) were diverted from their duties of guarding the other missile silos." The judges who heard the appeal will issue a decision at a later date. Nearly two years ago, Jackie Hudson, Carol Gilbert and Ardeth Platte slipped into the missile compound. They used bottles of their own blood to draw a cross on the silo lid and used ball-peen hammers to symbolically attempt to pound railroad tracks into plowshares. An hour later, military personnel arrived with weapons drawn and found the nuns singing and praying. The nuns, of the Dominican order, were tried and convicted of two felonies - obstructing national defense and damaging government property. Hudson, now 69, received a 30-month prison term; Platte, now 68, got 41 months; and Gilbert, now 58, got 33 months. The nuns, all originally from Michigan, previously had engaged in similar acts of civil disobedience. Their cases have become a celebrated cause for anti- nuclear-weapons activists, dozens of whom converged Friday in downtown Denver. Nikki Kayser, a Maine resident who previously had lived in Boulder, planned to hold a protest Saturday that was being called "Adopt-a-Silo." Kayser said 500 people planned to go to 49 missile sites across Colorado to peacefully - and lawfully - protest the existence of nuclear missiles. In the afternoon, they planned to rally in Greeley on the University of Northern Colorado campus. "We're going to continue the presence the nuns started," Kayser said. Staff writer Alicia Caldwell can be reached at 303-820-1930 or [acaldwell@denverpost.com] . --> All contents Copyright 2004 The Denver Post or other ***************************************************************** 16 Physics Today: Presidential Candidates Speak Out on Science Policies October 2004- Special Report: During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore's role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stemcell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. "Let scientists do science again," a headline on the Kerry election website says. Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration's FY 2005 R&D budget. "Kerry ignores President Bush's record science investments," reads a headline on the Bush reelection website. Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues. On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be "falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system." On global warming, Kerry talks of both near and longterm programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his "comprehensive climate change strategy." The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. Jim Dawson 1. Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the lowtech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? Bush Our policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies. The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America's missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago. Kerry A missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that's what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a singleminded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester. 2. Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? Bush Global climate change is a serious longterm issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most uptodate information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment. My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government's climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it "articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope." I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energyintensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energyefficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuelcell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogenpowered, noemission vehicles within a generation. Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. Kerry I recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions. My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energyefficient cars, trucks, and SUVs. 3. Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitiveness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF's budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for USborn students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? Bush Including my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an alltime high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF's broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively. As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a firstrate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to lowincome students who study math or science. This will ensure that America's graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century. I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation's scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 backlogged applications have already been cleared out. Kerry For three years, the Bush administration has squandered America's leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stemcell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America's critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America's scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century. 4. Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? Bush The Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation's nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. Kerry No, and a KerryEdwards administration will stop this administration's program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don't need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons. 5. Nuclear proliferation: There is serious concern among many experts that terrorists could release radioactive materials, or even detonate a nuclear device, in a US city. Do you believe the US is doing enough to secure and control existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and fissile material both in the US and elsewhere? Bush No administration in history has done more to secure and control nuclear weapons and fissile material than mine. US weapons and materials are exceptionally secure and both the Department of Defense and DOE are working to make them even more so. My administration has substantially increased funding to secure weapons and material in the former Soviet Union and has accelerated by two years the schedule the previous administration prepared for security upgrades in Russia. We are working with Russia to end the production of plutonium and to eliminate enough weapons plutonium for thousands of weapons. Outside the former Soviet Union, my administration established the Global Threat Reduction Initiative to eliminate or secure fissile and radiological material worldwide. We have already removed weapons material from several countries. Most recently, our policies resulted in Libya abandoning its longstanding quest for nuclear weapons. To guard against socalled dirty bombs, we led the international community in a global effort to account for, secure, and dispose of excess radiological sources that could be used in such devices. We initiated activities in over 40 countries on this effort, as well as with international organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency. Through the Proliferation Security Initiative, the Container Security Initiative, and the Second Line of Defense program, we have dramatically improved our ability to interdict materials that could be a threat to us and to our friends and allies. Finally, my administration launched the G8 Global Partnership a $20 billion initiative to support arms reduction, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and nuclear safety projects in the former Soviet Union. This extraordinary mobilization of the international community is leading to a safer, more secure world. Kerry Our nation's highest priority must be preventing terrorists from gaining access to nuclear weapons and the material to make them. We must work in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these deadly weapons. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policies have moved America in the opposite direction. They have alienated the allies we need to advance our security. Even after September 11th, they have not done nearly enough to secure existing stockpiles and bombmaking materials. They sat on the sidelines while the nuclear dangers from Iran and North Korea have increased. Our security requires an immediate change of course. I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to + safeguard existing stockpiles of dangerous weapons and materials, including an acceleration of programs to secure all nuclear weapons and materials within the former Soviet Union, and at research reactors in countries outside the former Soviet Union, within four years. + end production of new fissile material for nuclear weapons by negotiating a global ban on production of new material. + reduce existing stocks of nuclear weapons and materials by ending development of the new generation of nuclear weapons, accelerating reductions in US and Russian nuclear arsenals, and reducing stocks of dangerous highly enriched uranium in Russia. + end nuclear weapons programs in hostile states, including by prioritizing negotiations with North Korea to ensure the complete, irreversible, and verifiable elimination of its nuclear weapons program and leading a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons. + enhance international efforts to eliminate illegal trafficking networks by toughening export controls, stiffening penalties, and strengthening law enforcement and intelligence sharing as well as improving the proliferation security initiative. + appoint a presidential coordinator to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus exclusively on directing a topline effort to secure all nuclear weapons and materials around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist attack. 6. Energy policy: More than two decades of discussions and proposals still have not resulted in a comprehensive US energy policy. Looking 25 years into the future, what do you believe the US energy mix should be? How would you move the US in that direction? Bush Reliable and affordable energy is critical to America's economic, national, and homeland security. We will be more prosperous and more secure when we are less dependent on foreign sources of energy. The passage of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my top priorities. During my first six months in office, I proposed a national energy policy that would modernize our energy production and distribution systems, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, promote efficiency and conservation, increase domestic production from all forms of energy including renewable energy sources, and continue to strengthen our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to work with Congress on the energy legislation needed to carry out the remaining recommendations. My administration has implemented nearly all of the more than 100 recommendations in the comprehensive national energy policy that did not require legislation such as increasing electricity reliability R&D to help prevent electricity disruptions and filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its capacity of 700 million barrels to provide energy security in case of major supply disruptions. Kerry I have proposed an ambitious program of research, incentives, and standards that would sharply increase the efficiency of energy use and stimulate use of new energy sources that can ensure a prosperous and safe America while greatly reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in part by a $20 billion energy security and conservation trust fund, capitalized from existing federal offshore oil and gas royalty revenues. Unlike the BushCheney policy, developed in secret by special interests, I have reached out to innovators around the country and developed a diverse portfolio of technical opportunities that can meet US needs both in the short term and for decades in the future. Given the long time required to turn over energy investments such as fleets of cars and trucks, industrial equipment, and building equipment, we must move a broad set of new technologies as quickly as possible if we have any hope of influencing US energy use in 25 years. z In the near term, many of the most promising technical opportunities involve using advanced materials, control systems, biotechnology, and other technologies to greatly improve the energy productivity of transportation, buildings, and industrial production. It's essential that the US move quickly to reduce its dependence on oil imported from the Middle East, and I will set ambitious goals for alternative fuels such as ethanol. I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of electricity from wind and other renewable resources. And I will encourage development of advanced cleancoal technology and nuclear generation consistent with high standards for environmental stewardship and security. 7. Nuclear power/radioactive waste: A recent report by MIT suggested that nuclear power is the best "clean" energy source to meet the US demand while protecting the atmosphere until renewable energy can be deployed on a large scale. Do you favor increasing the use of nuclear power? If so, what would you do with the resulting radioactive waste? Bush I support the further development of nuclear power technologies as a clean, affordable, and realistic option to meet this nation's future energy needs. Nuclear power today accounts for 20% of our country's electricity. This power source, which causes no air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, can play an expanding role in our energy future while meeting the environmental challenges we face with energy production. My national energy policy contained several recommendations to encourage increased use of nuclear power and to handle the waste products that result. For example, through the Nuclear Power 2010 program, my administration is working with industry to pave the way for an order of a new US nuclear power plant within the next few years. Second, through the Generation IV International Forum, the United States is joining with countries around the globe to develop a next generation of safer, more economic, and more proliferationresistant nuclear reactors that can also produce hydrogen and electricity. Finally, my administration has made a strong commitment to resolving the nuclear waste challenge and making the construction of a longterm geologic repository at Yucca Mountain achievable. We are moving ahead with the submission of a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the end of this year. This administration is also committed to exploring and investing in advanced new technologies that will profoundly change the ways we generate electricity. For example, I committed the United States to join the international fusion energy experiment, known as ITER, early in 2003. ITER is a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen. Fusion holds the promise of a nearly limitless source of energy produced without the accompanying radioactive wastes that require longterm management. Kerry Nuclear power can play an essential role in providing affordable energy while reducing the risk of climate change; however, key challenges such as nuclear waste disposal, nuclear nonproliferation, and plant security must be met. John Edwards and I will ensure safety and sound science come first. We oppose George Bush's plan to open Yucca Mountain over the objections of independent scientists. Instead, a KerryEdwards administration will + proceed based on peerreviewed science. John Edwards and I do not support Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste disposal site and will insist that nuclear waste disposal and transportation proceed only on the basis of rigorous peerreviewed science and analysis that leads to public understanding and confidence. + reject the Yucca Mountain license. John Edwards and I will immediately call upon George Bush and DOE to cease from submitting a license application for Yucca Mountain. + initiate an NAS study to examine whether geologic disposal anywhere is still the best, safest option, as opposed to longterm storage and monitoring, or some other technology. + establish an international independent blueribbon panel to recommend worldclass, stateoftheart scientific methods for nuclear waste storage and disposal. + secure nuclear plants from terrorist attack. John Edwards and I will improve and strengthen security at nuclear plants. In addition, we will require nuclear plants to adopt adequate plans to improve security, including measures to reduce dangers to the public if an attack occurs. 8. National labs: Despite National Nuclear Security Administration oversight, the national weapons laboratories continue to be plagued with internal security problems, spending irregularities, and low morale. What steps would you take to improve conditions at the labs? Does the current plan of opening the labs' management contracts to competitive bids run the risk of disrupting the operations in the midst of the war on terrorism? Bush Our national laboratories are doing great work to deal with the threats of the 21st century. These laboratories are a tremendous asset in our efforts to improve homeland security, are the source of unparalleled technological progress, and are helping America win the war on terror. With their budgets at the highest level in years, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories are also on the cutting edge of 21stcentury defense research, like combating bioterrorism, protecting the nation's infrastructure from crippling terrorist attacks, and developing a laser that simulates the intense heat of a nuclear explosion. This is why we spent $6.5 billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and why I am asking for $6.8 billion for FY 2005. We must keep morale and security high. My administration has made every effort to improve the way the weapons labs do business, and one of those efforts is allowing competitive bids like those that exist in all areas of government including those central to the war on terror so we can use our resources more effectively and let everyone focus on his or her own expertise. Kerry Our national laboratories play a critical role in maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpile and assuring that our nation's nuclear weapons are safe, secure, and reliable. The national laboratories also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and in advancing science for our nation's security. The laboratories have a proud history of advancing our nation's security, but this record has been blemished recently by poor management and sloppy security practices. Morale at the labs has been badly damaged. John Edwards and I are committed to strengthening laboratory management and oversight and restoring the morale at these critical national assets. 9. Space policy: NASA is being reorganized to reflect the president's longterm vision of manned missions to the Moon and Mars. Many scientists believe the reorganization will drain money from NASA's unmanned science missions. How do you define the relative importance of unmanned science missions versus manned exploration flights? What is the appropriate funding balance between the two? Bush In January, I announced my vision for the future of America's space exploration program. Achieving this vision will require the combined strengths of both manned and unmanned science missions. Robotic missions will serve as trailblazers the advanced guard to the unknown. Probes, landers, and other vehicles continue to prove their worth, sending spectacular images and vast amounts of data back to Earth. Today, we have unmanned systems on and around Mars, a system orbiting Saturn, and one on its way to Mercury. Yet the human thirst for knowledge cannot be completely satisfied by even the most vivid pictures or the most detailed measurements. We need to see and examine and touch for ourselves. And only human beings are capable of adapting to the inevitable uncertainties posed by space travel. As we complete our work on the International Space Station, we are developing a new manned exploration vehicle to explore beyond our orbit. This vehicle will be tested by 2008 and conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. America will return to the Moon as early as 2015 and no later than 2020, and use it as a foundation for human missions beyond the Moon. We will begin with robotic missions to explore the lunar surface, researching and preparing for future human exploration. Manned lunar missions will follow, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods. Kerry John Edwards and I will continue America's long tradition of leadership in aeronautics, Earth sensing, and space exploration as part of a wellbalanced NASA program closely tied to broad payoff for this country. It will not tie NASA to programs such as the Bush administration's MoonMars Program that emerged from closely held meetings in the White House with no clear objectives or cost estimates. It will invest in bold new programs tied to priorities, set by scientific experts, in exploring weather, climate, oceans, astrophysics, and other areas. Our administration will rely on the advice of the scientific community to select the most appropriate goals for research and the most appropriate tools for achieving these goals including the question of whether manned or unmanned missions are most appropriate to the task. Letters and opinions are encouraged and should be sent to Letters, Physics Today, American Center for Physics, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 207403842 or by email to ptletter@aip.org [ptletter@aip.org] (using your surname as "Subject"). Please include your affiliation, mailing address, and daytime phone number. We reserve the right to edit submissions. © 2004 American Institute of Physics ***************************************************************** 17 Naples Daily News: Ben Bova: Where Bush, Kerry stand on science naplesnews.com By BEN BOVA, Special to the Daily News October 3, 2004 As we rapidly approach election day, very little has been said by either candidate about the crucially important subject of science. Or at least, very little has been reported by the news media. While we witness the teeth-gnashing furor over the candidates' Vietnam-era military service, issues such as stem-cell research, energy policy, space exploration, and environmental protection get little more than lip service from the media. Is this because of poor reporting or are both candidates largely ignoring issues of science policy? The prestigious British science journal Nature rose to the occasion and sent a science-related query both to Sen. John Kerry and President Bush: 15 questions that ranged from global warming to nuclear proliferation. And both candidates replied — or, at least, someone on their staffs replied. As you might expect, much of their responses is posturing and rhetoric. For example, Bush speaks about how swiftly and effectively his administration moved to contain mad cow disease after a single infected cow was found, while Kerry talks about "the Bush USDA mishandling of mad cow disease" and how "John Edwards and I will improve our food safety and inspection process." To me, the four most important science-related issues are energy policy, which heavily affects the environment, including global warming, stem cell research, space exploration, and missile defense. Energy policy means developing alternatives to fossil fuels that will allow us to lessen our dependence on OPEC petroleum and decrease the amount of greenhouse gases we pour into the atmosphere. Bush has proposed a program for developing hydrogen fuels. The president has also decided that radioactive wastes from our nuclear power plants will be stored at the federal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, although several states and environmental groups have threatened court suits to prevent this. Personally, I regard opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility to be based mainly on politics and hysterical ignorance. Nuclear wastes can be stored safely there and, within a few decades at most, physicists will have developed the technology for deactivating those radioactive materials and turning them into harmless inert elements. The Nature article did not mention the Yucca Mountain decision. Instead it asked the candidates about ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. This is a fusion reactor, in which nuclei of hydrogen atoms are fused together to form helium and release energy. Fusion is what powers the sun and stars, and when fusion power plants become practical here on Earth, we will have abundant clean energy whose fuel comes from water. Both candidates support the ITER program. Bush sees it as "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion" Kerry says he supports "a strategically balanced U.S. fusion program that includes participation in ITER to supplement a strong domestic fusion science and technology portfolio." On stem-cell research, Bush points out that he is the first president to permit federal funding for embryonic stem-cell studies. The media generally point out that the research allowed under Bush is quite limited, but the fact is that under Clinton and all previous presidents no federal funding was permitted for any work on embryonic stem cells. Religious conservatives condemn such research because it uses embryonic tissue, which they see as morally wrong. Although himself a conservative, Bush has gone farther than any of his predecessors in the White House on this issue. Kerry, of course, believes he has not gone far enough. "I will lift ideologically driven restrictions while ensuring rigorous ethical oversight." I have to agree with Kerry on this one. Religious dogma should not be allowed to inhibit scientific research, especially research that bears such promise of finding cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. On the issue of space exploration, Bush has already initiated a program that will return humans to the moon in 10 years and then send explorers to Mars by mid-century. This I support heartily. I firmly believe that the resources of energy and raw materials to be found in space can create an unprecedented era of prosperity for all the people of Earth. Kerry, though, says "there is little to be gained from a space initiative that throws out lofty goals but fails to support those goals with realistic funding." This is wrong, on two counts. First, Bush has already budgeted some $15 billion for his space initiative, much of it created by moving existing NASA funds within the agency. Secondly, funding depends on Congress. I hate to say it, but Congresses controlled by the Democratic Party have not been generous to NASA. It was Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale and other Democratic liberals who stood passively and allowed President Nixon to kill the Apollo program and gut NASA's plans for the future. On the issue of ballistic missile defense the candidates seem diametrically opposed. Bush has ordered the deployment of a first-generation defense system; Kerry believes it's a waste of money. Could the system now being built in Alaska and aboard Navy vessels stop a North Korean missile attack? We don't know, but I suspect that the existence of such a defense system — with the promise of its continual upgrading — makes our allies in South Korea and Japan breathe easier. Israel, Pakistan and India not only have missiles, they have nuclear weapons to put atop them. North Korea has been selling missiles to several Middle Eastern nations. Iran and North Korea are pursuing nuclear weapons programs. Diplomacy might work to defuse these situations, but diplomacy works best when it is backed by credible power. If Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden fired a nuclear-tipped missile today, nothing could prevent it from reaching its target and destroying it in a mushroom cloud. We need to be able to defend ourselves against ballistic missiles. To do less is to invite nuclear blackmail on a global scale or, worse, nuclear destruction. I believe President Bush is moving in the right direction on missile defense. Naples resident Ben Bova is the author of more than 100 futuristic books, including "The Silent War," his latest novel. Dr. Bova's Web site address is www.benbova.net [http://www.benbova.net] Published in Naples, Florida, USA. A Scripps newspaper. ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: Paradise cleansed Comment Our deportation of the people of Diego Garcia is a crime that cannot stand John Pilger Saturday October 2, 2004 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] There are times when one tragedy, one crime tells us how a whole system works behind its democratic facade and helps us to understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments lie. To understand the catastrophe of Iraq, and all the other Iraqs along imperial history's trail of blood and tears, one need look no further than Diego Garcia. The story of Diego Garcia is shocking, almost incredible. A British colony lying midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean, the island is one of 64 unique coral islands that form the Chagos Archipelago, a phenomenon of natural beauty, and once of peace. Newsreaders refer to it in passing: "American B-52 and Stealth bombers last night took off from the uninhabited British island of Diego Garcia to bomb Iraq (or Afghanistan)." It is the word "uninhabited" that turns the key on the horror of what was done there. In the 1970s, the Ministry of Defence in London produced this epic lie: "There is nothing in our files about a population and an evacuation." Diego Garcia was first settled in the late 18th century. At least 2,000 people lived there: a gentle creole nation with thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a prison, a railway, docks, a copra plantation. Watching a film shot by missionaries in the 1960s, I can understand why every Chagos islander I have met calls it paradise; there is a grainy sequence where the islanders' beloved dogs are swimming in the sheltered, palm-fringed lagoon, catching fish. All this began to end when an American rear-admiral stepped ashore in 1961 and Diego Garcia was marked as the site of what is today one of the biggest American bases in the world. There are now more than 2,000 troops, anchorage for 30 warships, a nuclear dump, a satellite spy station, shopping malls, bars and a golf course. "Camp Justice" the Americans call it. During the 1960s, in high secrecy, the Labour government of Harold Wilson conspired with two American administrations to "sweep" and "sanitise" the islands: the words used in American documents. Files found in the National Archives in Washington and the Public Record Office in London provide an astonishing narrative of official lying all too familiar to those who have chronicled the lies over Iraq. To get rid of the population, the Foreign Office invented the fiction that the islanders were merely transient contract workers who could be "returned" to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away. In fact, many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, as their cemeteries bore witness. The aim, wrote a Foreign Office official in January 1966, "is to convert all the existing residents ... into short-term, temporary residents." What the files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality. In August 1966, Sir Paul Gore-Booth, permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: "We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except seagulls." At the end of this is a handwritten note by DH Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill: "Along with the Birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays ..." Under the heading, "Maintaining the fiction", another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as "a floating population" and to "make up the rules as we go along". There is not a word of concern for their victims. Only one official appeared to worry about being caught, writing that it was "fairly unsatisfactory" that "we propose to certify the people, more or less fraudulently, as belonging somewhere else". The documents leave no doubt that the cover-up was approved by the prime minister and at least three cabinet ministers. At first, the islanders were tricked and intimidated into leaving; those who had gone to Mauritius for urgent medical treatment were prevented from returning. As the Americans began to arrive and build the base, Sir Bruce Greatbatch, the governor of the Seychelles, who had been put in charge of the "sanitising", ordered all the pet dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. Almost 1,000 pets were rounded up and gassed, using the exhaust fumes from American military vehicles. "They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked," says Lizette Tallatte, now in her 60s," ... and when their dogs were taken away in front of them, our children screamed and cried." The islanders took this as a warning; and the remaining population were loaded on to ships, allowed to take only one suitcase. They left behind their homes and furniture, and their lives. On one journey in rough seas, the copra company's horses occupied the deck, while women and children were forced to sleep on a cargo of bird fertiliser. Arriving in the Seychelles, they were marched up the hill to a prison where they were held until they were transported to Mauritius. There, they were dumped on the docks. In the first months of their exile, as they fought to survive, suicides and child deaths were common. Lizette lost two children. "The doctor said he cannot treat sadness," she recalls. Rita Bancoult, now 79, lost two daughters and a son; she told me that when her husband was told the family could never return home, he suffered a stroke and died. Unemployment, drugs and prostitution, all of which had been alien to their society, ravaged them. Only after more than a decade did they receive any compensation from the British government: less than Ł3,000 each, which did not cover their debts. The behaviour of the Blair government is, in many respects, the worst. In 2000, the islanders won a historic victory in the high court, which ruled their expulsion illegal. Within hours of the judgment, the Foreign Office announced that it would not be possible for them to return to Diego Garcia because of a "treaty" with Washington - in truth, a deal concealed from parliament and the US Congress. As for the other islands in the group, a "feasibility study" would determine whether these could be resettled. This has been described by Professor David Stoddart, a world authority on the Chagos, as "worthless" and "an elaborate charade". The "study" consulted not a single islander; it found that the islands were "sinking", which was news to the Americans who are building more and more base facilities; the US navy describes the living conditions as so outstanding that they are "unbelievable". In 2003, in a now notorious follow-up high court case, the islanders were denied compensation, with government counsel allowed by the judge to attack and humiliate them in the witness box, and with Justice Ousley referring to "we" as if the court and the Foreign Office were on the same side. Last June, the government invoked the archaic royal prerogative in order to crush the 2000 judgment. A decree was issued that the islanders were banned forever from returning home. These were the same totalitarian powers used to expel them in secret 40 years ago; Blair used them to authorise his illegal attack on Iraq. Led by a remarkable man, Olivier Bancoult, an electrician, and supported by a tenacious and valiant London lawyer, Richard Gifford, the islanders are going to the European court of human rights, and perhaps beyond. Article 7 of the statute of the international criminal court describes the "deportation or forcible transfer of population ... by expulsion or other coercive acts" as a crime against humanity. As Bush's bombers take off from their paradise, the Chagos islanders, says Bancoult, "will not let this great crime stand. The world is changing; we will win." · Stealing a Nation, John Pilger's documentary investigating the expulsion of the Chagos islanders will be shown on ITV on Wednesday at 11 pm; his new book, Tell Me No Lies: Investigative journalism and its triumphs, is published by Jonathan Cape [http://www.johnpilger.com] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 19 Bellona: Putin’s cabinet gives Kyoto the green light Russia's Cabinet, President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, approved the Kyoto Protocol on Thursday in a crucial step toward putting the long-delayed climate change treaty into effect, although without participation by the United States. The Karabash copper smelting plant in the southern Ural region of Russia seen here in 1999. The Russian cabinet approved the Kyoto Protocol, the cornerstone of efforts to combat man-made global warming. AFP Charles Digges, Kjetil Stake, 2004-10-01 12:26 Final approval by the Russian State Duma, which would push the treaty past its required ratification threshold, was not guaranteed, however, Duma officials told Bellona Web. They added they did not know when the government’s approval of the ratification would come to debate on the Duma floor. While the State Duma generally approves legislation backed by Putin, many Russian officials remain opposed to the pact, fearing its restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions could hinder economic growth. Russia Holds Key to Kyoto Ratification—But Will it Unlock the Door? Russia’s ambivalence toward the Kyoto Protocol was underscored at October's UN World Climate Change Conference held in Moscow when a tense exchange erupted between top scientists and the Kremlin’s Andrei Illarionov over the foundations of climate change science and the consequences for Russia of not ratifying the protocol.  Jump to analysis » [http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/31388.html] Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, on a trip to the Netherlands, said he expected "difficult debate" when the Duma meets to vote on ratification, possibly before the end of the year, the Associatred Press reported. Putin's economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, Putin’s chief economic advisor, deplored the Cabinet's approval, saying it was "a political decision that will damage national interests in many areas," the ITAR-Tass Russian state news agency reported. Nonetheless, Illarinov, says he will support the approval of the agreement as a political gesture towards the European Union. ”With Putin’s tight squeeze on democratic rights these days, the political atmosphere between Russia and the West is tense. Putin wants back in under the wing of the west and he is now using of one of the means he has to gain such international goodwill,” said Bellona Paal Frisvold, one of Norway’s leading experts on European politics. Knut Arild Hareide, Norway’s Environmental Minister, called the Putin cabinet’s go-ahead on Kyoto “a historical decision.” Russia’s support will save Kyoto The treaty, drafted in 1997 at a UN conference in Kyoto, Japan, seeks to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that are widely seen as a the driving force behind global warming. Without Russia's support, the pact — which has been rejected by the United States and Australia—cannot come into effect. It needs ratification by 55 industrialized nations accounting for at least 55 percent of global emissions at levels measured in 1990. The Russian Cabinet's action was cheered by United Nations officials, the governments of Germany, Italy, Britain and Japan and the European Union, which have been among the agreement's most fervent backers, international news agencies reported. "Russia's green light will allow the climate train to leave the station so we can really begin addressing the biggest threat to the planet and its people," Klaus Toepfer, head of the UN Environment Program, told AP. At the European Union headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, EU spokesman Reijo Kemppinen called the Russian approval "a very welcome event" in a telephone interview with Bellona Web, and said the EU hoped the US government would reconsider its position. What’s the Trade-off? Most analysts have suggested that yesterday’s decision by Putin’s cabinet—which flew in the face of earlier official opposition to signing the treaty—was the result of Russia’s desire for a coveted position within the World Trade Organisation, or WTO. In May, Putin indicated that if the WTO would embrace Russia as a full member, Russia would deliver its signature on the Kyoto protocol. For its part, the European Union, or EU, said it would lift its veto against Russia’s entrance into the organization if it signed of on Kyoto. “WTO membership is extremely important for Russia,” Frisvold said. “It means [Russia] can trade on better terms with other nations and with increased trade comes increased economic growth.” Additionally, because Russia’s emissions have fallen 32 percent since 1990 due to post-Soviet industrial breakdown, the country stands to reap enourmous revenues in the sales of emissions quotas. Under Kyoto companies that emit less carbon dioxide than allowed will be able to sell unused allotments to those who overshoot the target, offering a profit motive for manufacturers to cut emissions and for other businesses to develop improved emissions technology. Frisvold agreed that the quota trade was another important motivating factor for Putin’s cabinet to give the protocol the green light. “The 100 million dollars that Russia will make as soon as the trading of quotas is initiated also serves as a good incentive for Russia to sign the Treaty,” he said. Europe also to benefit from the emissions quota trade The task of reducing emission of greenhouse gases without staggering the European economy has created high tensions between EU’s energy and environmental commissioners. To buy quotas is essential for many companies to survive, and EU’s Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio has long worried that without Russian quotas for sale, the European economy may loose its competitiveness. Now with Russia apparently in on the agreement a much larger market for tradable quotas has opened. Quota trading could start in full as early as of January 2005 Disagreement between US and Europe still simmers Discord on how to tackle global warming has been a major source of European ill feeling toward the United States, which alone accounted for about 36 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. The US government says the pact would harm the US— economy and also argues it favors developing nations like China and India that are big polluters. In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher reaffirmed US opposition to the agreement in a statement to Bellona Web on Thursday. He noted that the United States is pushing ahead on its goal of reducing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent within the next eight years. Under the pact, which would take effect 90 days after Russian ratification, industrialized countries are supposed to cut their collective emissions of six key gases to 5.2 percent below the 1990 level by 2012. Environmentalists welcomed Russia's move, but said even bigger cuts are needed. "The Kyoto Protocol undoubtedly sets very low targets compared to what scientists say is necessary in order to keep climate change under control," said Germana Canzi, a climate policy expert with the World Wide Fund for Nature told AP. "However, it has always been considered a first step rather than the solution to the problem." A new round of climate talks is scheduled for December in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions after 2012 are due to start next year. Few think the United States will change its stance soon, although there are hopes that business interests will compel the US government to change its tune. Being outside the treaty will prevent the United States from participating in international emissions trade. Illarionov, Russia's most outspoken Kyoto opponent, and other officials have argued that joining the pact would put a damper on Russia's economic growth and make Putin's goal of doubling its gross domestic product in a decade unattainable. Russia has been under intense pressure from the European Union to sign on to the treaty, and Putin said in May that he would speed up approval in return for EU support of Russia's bid to join the WTO. "Ratification will remove many irritants in our relations with the EU," said Konstantin Kosachev, the powerful head of parliament's foreign affairs committee. "From the political viewpoint, I have always supported ratifying this pact." Resistance in Russian Federation Council The smooth path to finally get the treaty enforced internationally could however become bumpier than first expected as The Russian cabinet’s endorsement of the Kyoto agreement meets resistance in the upper chamber parliament. - There are a number of representatives of various business organisations, including aluminium, oil and energy ones among the senators. These people are opposed to ratifying the document, Oganes Oganian, head of the Federation Council’s committee for economic policy, told Interfax. Even though President Putin has full majority in the State Duma such resistancy could delay the process of getting the Kyoto agreement ratified. The battle to get the Duma’s approval as soon as possible has started, and the Euobserver reports that green groups are working hard to get the agreement passed through the parliament. Without Russia’s signature the entire agreement remains on a stand by modus internationally. Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 20 Haaretz: Kharrazi: Iran ready if Israel hits our nuclear facilities Homepage [http://www.haaretz.com] News Updates Mon., October 04, 2004 Tishrei 19, 5765 By Shlomo Shamir [secretary@haaretz.co.il] Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi considers Israel a threat to his nation's nuclear facilities. "When there is a threat, you have to take it into consideration and be prepared to react. We are prepared," Kharrazi told Newsweek in an interview. When asked if Iran will use its Shihab missiles, Kharrazi replied: "There are capabilities that we will use. Shihab missiles are well developed and made in Iran, and we are proud of having them." The magazine also asked Kharrazi whether Iran supports the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He replied that if that is what the Palestinians decide they want, then it will not upset Iran. However, he added, "we are for a one-state solution." Kharrazi also claimed that Iran's nuclear enrichment program "is solely for producing fuel needed in our power plants. It is not for producing nuclear weapons." [feedback@haaretz.co.il] © Copyright Haaretz. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 21 IAEA: China Hosting Global Experts at IAEA Nuclear Safety Conference Staff Report 30 September 2004 [China] Nuclear power plants help provide electricity to the world´s major cities. (Photo credit: P. Pavlicek/IAEA) + Story Resources + Nuclear Safety Conference Pages [http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/Announcements.asp?ConfID=1 20] + The New INSAG + Nuclear Safety Review [http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/ni/publications/nsr2003definiti ve.pdf] [pdf] + IAEA Safety Standards [http://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/] + Nuclear Power Future + Nuclear Safety: Maturing Discipline + China´s Challenging Fast Track + IAEA Databases The world´s leading experts in nuclear safety are seeking to drive home lessons learned about the safe operation of nuclear installations, and how to keep improving it. The venue is an IAEA Conference on Topical Issues in Nuclear Safety hosted by China and opening 18 October in Beijing. Mr. Richard Meserve, former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Chairman of the International Nuclear Safety Group, is serving as president of the Conference. Though much progress has been made in improving the performance of nuclear installations over the past years, numerous issues continue to be of concern in the world's changing nuclear environment. They include the: + growing diversification and globalization of the nuclear community, with one challenge being the use of common internationally accepted safety standards; + continued reporting of events whose root causes raise safety questions for regulatory authorities and operating organizations alike; + long term operation of nuclear facilities, including nuclear power plants where licensing extensions increasingly are being sought for their commercial operation. The Conference seeks to develop an international consensus on the basic approaches for dealing with these issues, and for strengthening international cooperation through the IAEA and other channels. More than 30 countries are operating or building nuclear plants for electricity generation, and dozens more have research reactors or nuclear fuel cycle facilities. The IAEA continues to work towards the development of sound collaborative approaches for dealing with safety issues, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei recently noted. "Continued strong safety performance is essential if nuclear power is to remain a viable energy option, and should remain a global priority," he said. 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 ***************************************************************** 22 UK Independent: out 'within two years' By Andy McSmith and Francis Elliott 03 October 2004 Tony Blair is facing mounting pressure from Labour MPs to depart much sooner than the five-year deadline he set himself last week. As he emerged from successful hospital treatment for a minor heart condition, the Prime Minister told friends he was feeling "liberated" after a week in which he half apologised for faulty intelligence that sent the UK to war in Iraq, and announced his intention to stand down in five years. Mr Blair believes he has given himself time to fight for public service reforms and other domestic policies, free from suspicion that he wants to cling to power indefinitely. But even old cabinet allies were warning that he would have to leave sooner than he would like, to avoid putative successors engaging in a power struggle up until the moment the next but one general election is called. Clive Soley, a long-standing Blair loyalist and former party chairman, said: "If I were him I would go very quickly, as Harold Wilson did, at a time when people are least expecting it." Frank Dobson, the former health secretary and Blairite candidate in the London mayoral election, forecast that damage from the Iraq war would make it impossible for the Prime Minister to hang on for another five years. He said: "He has two to two and a half years tops of actually being in charge." Mr Dobson added that the evidence from opinion polls, and from comments he had heard from the public, suggested that the Prime Minister is no longer the electoral asset he used to be, because of the damage done to his credibility by the Iraq war. "He isn't an asset, because he is so closely associated with our disastrous policies in sucking up to the Americans over Iraq. Opinion polls show that if Gordon Brown were the leader of the party, we'd be doing better," Mr Dobson said, in an interview with GMTV, broadcast today. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told the BBC: "We don't know exactly when he would intend to stand down towards the end of the term, but I'm sure it would be to allow sufficient time for the successor to be appointed by the party and then to fight a fourth general election." His comments contrast with Mr Blair's announcement that he wanted to stay for the "full" term of the next Parliament, implying that he expected to be in office until 2009. His cabinet ally Alan Milburn underlined the point by saying: "I really don't know what it is that people don't understand about the word 'full'." A smiling Tony Blair left Downing Street yesterday morning for a recuperative weekend in Chequers cleared of official meetings. Asked how he was feeling, Mr Blair replied "excellent". A statement thanked the London hospital for the "fantastic" care he received during the procedure on his heart on Friday. He will go back to Downing Street tomorrow, before flying to Ethiopia for a meeting of the Commission for Africa in the capital Addis Ababa on Wednesday. Publicly, he was bolstered by a call for party unity yesterday from the Chancellor Gordon Brown, in Washington for a meeting of the International Monetary Fund. Before flying back to Britain, Mr Brown said: "The priority is to get on with the job of ensuring prosperity for the British people." UK Independent Ltd. ***************************************************************** 23 Japan Times: Nuclear arsenal deemed infeasible in '81 Sunday, October 3, 2004 The main policy research arm of the Defense Agency in 1981 studied the possibility of Japan going nuclear but concluded the idea wasn't feasible in light of the nation's industrial and technological infrastructure, according to a research report obtained by Kyodo News. The report was compiled by members of the then National Defense College amid the growing threat of the Soviet Union in the early 1980s. It said Japan was capable of building simple atomic bombs but would require full and active support from the United States in developing payload-capable vehicles and other equipment for tactical and theater nuclear weapons. Arming the nation with full-fledged strategic nuclear weapons would be too heavy a burden for the industrial and technological infrastructure, the study said. The researchers also concluded that engaging in nuclear warfare would be devastating for Japan, projecting that one-fifth of the population would be killed in the event of a war with the Soviet Union, according to the report. It is already known that Japan on several occasions conducted research on the possibility of developing a nuclear arsenal, but this report focused on the technical possibilities. Most of the research projects reached the conclusion it was more realistic to stay under the nuclear umbrella of the United States. Regarding the 1981 report, the Defense Agency said, "It was independent research. . . . It was not the official opinion of the Defense Agency and has not been adopted in any policy." "At that time, there were discussions in and outside the Defense Agency that nuclear weapons could easily be made and at a low cost," said a nuclear physics expert who provided research assistance for the report. "The aim of the report was to show that maintaining an overall system (of nuclear weapons) would be too costly and difficult," he said on condition of anonymity. The report, dated July 30, 1981, is titled "On nuclear equipment" and was part of a research project on "The future of Japan's defense policy." It was compiled by a Ground Self-Defense Force officer at the defense college and his research assistants amid growing security concerns after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the late 1970s. The defense college has since been renamed the National Institute for Defense Studies. The research was based on the assumption of a five-stage scenario, beginning with the initial phase of producing and possessing several plutonium atomic bombs, to the final stage of developing intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. While Japan could achieve the initial stage in about three to five years, the report said, the stages beyond that would require support from the United States in military technology, such as facilities for extracting weapons-grade plutonium and developing nuclear reactors for submarines. In addition, Japan would need allies to provide nuclear testing grounds, it said. It would also need to ensure a supply of uranium. "It is impossible to build a technological architecture that would contribute to Japan's defense strategy," the report concluded. It estimated a cost of 2.35 trillion yen for Japan to possess 50 bombers, 100 medium-range missiles and three nuclear submarines. To operate a nuclear arms system would require an additional 9,600 personnel, the report said. Japan's basic law on nuclear power states that all research, development and use of nuclear power is limited to peaceful purposes. The Japan Times: Oct. 3, 2004 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 24 Straits Times: Tokyo 'considered use of N-arms' - OCT 4, 2004 TOKYO - A Japanese Defence Ministry think-tank studied the feasibility of Japan adopting nuclear arms in the early 1980s but concluded that it was not a viable option, the official Kyodo news agency said. Japan, the only nation to suffer a nuclear attack, has long banned the possession, production and import of nuclear arms, and even talking about a change has been trouble for lawmakers. The report on nuclear arms, the latest in a series to come to light, said Japan lacked the industrial and technological basis to equip itself with full-blown strategic nuclear arms, Kyodo said on Saturday. 'The construction of a technological system that may contribute to Japan's defence strategy is inconceivable,' it quoted the study as saying. Kyodo said the 1981 study concluded that Japan could have rudimentary nuclear armaments in three to five years but would need technological aid from the United States for items such as plutonium separation facilities or reactors for submarines. The study, compiled at a time of growing concerns about the Soviet Union following its invasion of Afghanistan, also said Japan would have suffered disproportionate casualties and damage in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The report was compiled by an army officer and research assistants assigned to what is now called the National Institute for Defence Studies - the main policy research arm of Japan's Defence Ministry. Kyodo quoted the Defence Ministry as saying the document did not reflect its official stance and had never been reflected in its policies. 'The three non-nuclear principles...form the basis of our country's defence policy and we will continue to adhere to them,' Kyodo quoted the ministry as saying. Two years ago, then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda set off a furore when he told reporters that Japan might review the ban on nuclear arms. But recently, as part of a national military strategy overhaul to be completed by the end of this year, a panel will reportedly recommend that Japan acquire the capability to launch pre-emptive strikes. -- Reuters The Straits Times ***************************************************************** 25 UK Times Online: Expert sets five-year deadline for nuclear decision [http://www.timesonline.co.uk] October 04, 2004 By Angela Jameson, Industrial Correspondent MINISTERS will have to take a decision within five years on whether to build new nuclear power stations if Britain is to reach its targets for cutting greenhouse gases, the Government’s chief scientific adviser has cautioned. Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser and the head of the Office of Science and Technology, told the annual conference of the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers last week that the nuclear question needed to be tackled sooner rather than later. After giving a speech on the problem of climate change, Sir David told an audience of hundreds of engineers that while it was important to try to make energy efficiency savings and develop renewable sources of power, it would also be necessary to review the situation on nuclear power within the near future. “The Government is saying we will come back and look at that when we’ve seen how well we are doing on energy efficiency gains and renewables. But the timescale to do that is relatively short. I do think five years or less is when we’ve got to make a decision,” Sir David said. “As we move ahead to 2020 we move from a situation where we currently have 27 per cent of our energy from nuclear on the grid to a situation where we would only have Sizewell B operating and that would produce about 5 per cent of our energy. “That’s a substantial gap to make up if we are going to go for carbon-free techonologies and I don’t think that carbon-free technologies will be sufficient to make up the gap over that period of time,” Sir David said. The scientist’s comments come after disclosure in The Times last month that DTI officials have research which shows that half of the country’s energy will have to be produced by nuclear power if Britain is to have any hope of meeting its Kyoto commitments. Nuclear power is suddenly back on the political agenda because of fears that Britain will fail to meet climate change targets without it. Nuclear power currently provides a fifth of Britain’s electricity, but the nation’s nuclear plants are ageing and all but one of these are due to close by 2023, with the first large advanced gas-cooled power stations at Dungeness, Kent, due to shut in 2008. At present there are no plans to replace the generators that shut, despite the fact that nuclear generators do not produce climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions. The Energy White Paper that was published in February last year launched a policy of “not now but not never” towards new nuclear generators and made a commitment that no new nuclear building would be signed off without wide consultation. Hopes that renewable energy sources, including onshore and offshore wind power, will replace nuclear power look increasingly misplaced. A government target of generating 10 per cent of electricity from wind farms and other projects by 2010, up from 3 per cent now, is expected to be missed. The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2004 ***************************************************************** 26 Sunday Observer: Need for nuclear power emphasised Sunday, 3 October 2004 by SHANIKA SRIYANANDA Director General, Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka, Prof. Priyantha Wijetunge emphasised that it is high time Sri Lanka thinks about using nuclear power as an alternative energy source, to tackle the demand for electricity which is going up annually by ten per cent. Prof. Wijetunge represented Sri Lanka at the 19th World Energy Congress held in Sydney, Australia recently. Delegates from 98 countries attended the confab where research papers from various international experts were presented and discussed. The Lankan delegation was headed by Secretary to the Ministry of Power and Energy, P. Weerahandi. Prof. Wijetunge, who presented a research paper on 'Greenhouse Gas Emission' told the Sunday Observer that South Africa has developed small 100mws nuclear power plants as it lacks space for large nuclear power plants. "So they are ideal for Sri Lanka, especially because nuclear waste is very small in quantity", he said adding that nuclear was the best solution for the greenhouse gas emissions. It is the only solution which could replace coal. "Coal and most other efficient energy sources emit a considerable amount of carbon- dioxide per kilo watt hour. In a bid to prevent global warming, many countries now promote nuclear energy", he added. However, according to Prof. Wijetunge, safety and other environmental aspects need to be seriously considered if we were to install nuclear plants. He also said that though the construction cost of a nuclear plant is high, the operational cost is very low compared to fossil fuel power generation plants. "Uranium is cheap and 1,000 tonnes of coal is equal to one kilo of uranium", he said. According to Prof. Wijetunge, Sri Lanka has the potential as a uranium source and so research has already found that the country has uranium deposits. "We are sure that uranium is available in Sri Lanka, but unfortunately, no one is still interested in it", he pointed out. He said nuclear energy is an option which could be considered in the planning process particularly in the context of global warming and climate change issues. Prof. Wijetunge also pointed out that Sri Lanka needs to start considering the viability of nuclear power immediately as it would take around 15 years to train fully qualified persons to operate atomic plants. Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd. ***************************************************************** 27 WCAX: Nuclear regulators to hear why there should be hearing October 3, 2004 BRATTLEBORO, Vt. Federal regulators will come to Vermont later this month to hear arguments on whether there should be a full-blown hearing on the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's request for a power boost. The quasi-judicial Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an arm of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, will meet in Brattleboro on October 21st and 22nd. The board will hear from N-R-C staff, the state Department of Public Service and the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition, as well as Entergy Nuclear, owners of the Vernon reactor.The state believes the 20-percent power increase, as proposed, would compromise safety margins at the 32-year-old nuclear plant. Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. [http://www.worldnow.com] All content © Copyright 2001 - 2004 WorldNow and WCAX. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 NATIONAL POST: Pt Lepreau suffers unscheduled shutdown Maritimes - canada.com network Canadian Press Sunday, October 03, 2004 SAINT JOHN, N.B. (CP) -- There was an unscheduled shutdown Saturday at New Brunswick's nuclear power plant. Crews had been doing maintenance work on one of the automatic shut-down systems at the Point Lepreau nuclear station prior to the disruption. NB Power spokesman Jeffrey Carleton told CHSJ radio that replacement energy was being purchased during the shutdown. There was no word on when the generating station would be back on line or on how much the shutdown would cost. © Canadian Press 2004 Copyright © CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 ThisisLondon: BE bosses lay down the law [http://property.thisislondon.co.uk Patrick Tooher, Mail on Sunday 3 October 2004 NEARLY a quarter of a million shareholders in British Energy could be sued if they oppose the stricken nuclear generator's controversial bail-out by the taxpayer. Bondholders are threatening to take legal action against individual investors who block the controversial deal that will leave shareholders with just 2.5% of the company. British Energy, the country's largest electricity supplier, owes about Ł1.5bn. It has sent a letter to shareholders ahead of an extraordinary general meeting warning them that they could face significant claims if they 'procure a breach of the agreement or otherwise unlawfully interfere with its due performance. No assurance can be given that there is no risk of such claims being successful.' British Energy and the bondholders argue that they have a legally binding contract and that any attempt to undo it is unlawful. The company was on the brink of going into administration following a collapse in wholesale energy prices until the Government stepped in with a Ł410m rescue package, later increased to Ł650m. Mervyn Davies, 69, has owned shares in British Energy since its flotation in 1996, and is one of the outraged small investors. He said: 'I thought I was only liable to lose my investment and here they are threatening me with legal action. I think the tactics are heavy-handed. I am aware that shares can go up or down, but what annoys me is that people are going to walk away with their pockets full and the owners of the company get next to nothing. 'I am a pensioner. I cannot afford to lose more than my shares.' Davies, who lives near Windsor, Berkshire, said the threat of legal action had dissuaded him from voting for the emergency general meeting resolutions on October 22. One lawyer familiar with the situation said: 'Inducing a breach of contract is actionable and you can be sued for it. It is possible the bondholders would have a claim against other shareholders who voted against the restructuring plan. That doesn't mean they would pursue the claim.' In practice, it would be unlikely that bondholders would go after small shareholders, he added. MPs last month criticised British Energy directors, headed by chairman Adrian Montague, who stand to share six-figure bonuses if the taxpayer-funded deal goes ahead. ***************************************************************** 30 Sofia Morning News: Russia Eyes Bulgaria's Energy Sector [Sofia News Agency] novinite.com Business: 2 October 2004, Saturday. Bulgaria and Russia will sign a long-term program of bilateral cooperation in the sector of energy during the visit of Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov to Bulgaria on October 19-20. The document, which has already been drafted, is going to be discussed by experts and handed over to the Bulgarian side through diplomatic channels, according to Russia's government staff head Sergei Naryshkin, who took part in the Russian-Bulgarian intergovernmental commission for trade, economic, research and technology cooperation. Russia also declared interest in cooperation in atomic energy, particularly the upgrade of units at Bulgaria's sole nuclear plant Kozloduy, supplies of nuclear fuel and return of spent fuel to Russia. Bulgaria has recently revived the plan to build a second nuclear power plant on the Danube river a decade after it was shelved amid protests from environmentalists. The move came in response to the closure of two units at Kozloduy in 2002. The shut-down of the two oldest units came after many years of concern over their safety, strong pressure from the European Union, protests from the nuclear lobby and opposition parties that the reactors are economically necessary.[ width=] novinite.com Forum Google Tourism Business All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright Novinite.com (thebulgariannews.com also) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also ***************************************************************** 31 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria's Belene N-plant - Not at Any Cost [Sofia News Agency] novinite.com The construction of Bulgaria’s Belene nuclear plant is a major investment, which will be implemented only with safe funding, according to Energy Minister Milko Kovachev. Photo by Yuliana Nikolova (novinite.com) | buy photo | Business: 3 October 2004, Sunday. Bulgaria pledged to start the construction of its second nuclear power plant only provided that the supplier meets the safety requirement and offers a reasonable price of the electricity produced. The construction of Bulgaria's Belene nuclear plant is a major investment, which will be implemented only with safe funding, Energy Minister Milko Kovachev told private TV channel bTV. We won't build Belene at all costs, he underlined. Bulgaria has recently revived the plan to build a second nuclear power plant on the Danube river a decade after it was shelved amid protests from environmentalists. The move came in response to the closure of two units at Kozloduy in 2002. The shut-down of the two oldest units came after many years of concern over their safety, strong pressure from the European Union, protests from the nuclear lobby and opposition parties that the reactors are economically necessary.[ width=] Click here to receive realtime news about this topic in the future. [ width=] NOVINITE.COM All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright Novinite.com (thebulgariannews.com also) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also ***************************************************************** 32 Straits Times: 136k plutonium shipment open to terrorist attacks - OCT 4, 2004 asia1.com.sg/ OCT 4, 2004 MON LONDON - Enough weapons-grade plutonium to make more than 15,000 nuclear bombs will be vulnerable to hijacking by terrorists and rogue states as the result of a disarmament initiative. The Independent newspaper reported yesterday that an unprecedented shipment of 136kg of the material from the United States was heading towards the French port of Cherbourg on two British ships over the weekend. Its content is the first instalment of 68 tonnes of plutonium from US and Russian stockpiles to be put on the world's roads and seas at a time when terrorists are actively seeking the material. The move severely undermines the war on terror, according to the newspaper, and casts further doubt on the rationale advanced for the Iraq war by British Prime Minister Tony Blair at last week's Labour Party conference - keeping weapons of mass destruction out of terrorist hands. Mr Blair has repeatedly insisted that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups will make nuclear bombs and explode them in Western cities if they can get hold of the material for them. On Saturday, the Greenpeace boat Esperanza was stalking the shipment from the US nuclear weapons establishment at Los Alamos, the birthplace of the atomic bomb. Described as 'the biggest- ever shipment of weapons-grade plutonium' by the independent nuclear consultant John Large, it is being carried on the Pacific Teal and Pacific Pintail, owned by a company whose largest shareholder is British Nuclear Fuels (BNF). BNF refused to disclose to The Independent details of the security arrangements, but the two ships are believed to have crossed the Atlantic each armed only with a 30mm machine gun and guarded by 13 atomic energy policemen. There were reports that a French warship came out to escort them as they approached Cherbourg. The US government said it escorted them to the limit of its territorial waters with 'a combination of Coast Guard cutters, boats, aircraft and other local law enforcement and naval assets'. The Straits Times ***************************************************************** 33 Bellona: 220 pounds of uranium stolen in Russia during recent 25 years The Russian nuclear chief Alexander Rumyantsev also acknowledged on September 15 that the nation has had natural uranium and other radioactive materials stolen since the Soviet collapse. 2004-10-01 15:44 "Tens of kilograms, maybe up to 220 pounds of raw uranium, have been stolen by people who hoped to sell it at profit because of their ignorance," he said. "Only some 10 percent of these materials have been found." Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev said the nation's nuclear facilities are safe from terror attacks and thefts but acknowledged controls over radioactive materials at clinics and industrial plants have been loose. Rumyantsev admitted authorities have been negligent in disposing worn-out equipment involving lethal radioactive isotopes. Such equipment, used for cancer treatment in clinics and for various industrial purposes in manufacturing industries, has been carelessly dumped across Russia, he said. "Such equipment has been found in dumpsites, among garbage," Rumyantsev said. He added that Russian and U.S. officials had taken joint efforts to strengthen control over medical and industrial radioactive sources. The Russian government has recently toughened legislation to help track down radioactive equipment. Many experts warn that medical and industrial radioactive devices could be used by terrorists for making a radiological dispersal device, or dirty bomb. Unlike nuclear warheads that are designed to kill and destroy through a huge nuclear blast, dirty bombs - which thus far no one has employed - would rely on conventional explosives to spread radioactive material. Rumyantsev said all Russian nuclear facilities, including nuclear power plants and waste storage facilities, are securely guarded by heavily armed Interior Ministry troops, Associated Press reported. Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 34 Lexington Herald-Leader: Congress torn over nuclear-workers program | 10/03/2004 | By Nancy Zuckerbrod ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON - Congressional lawmakers agree a program to compensate sick nuclear weapons workers is broken, but how to fix it is the subject of debate on Capitol Hill. The program is for tens of thousands of people nationwide who helped build Cold War-era bombs or cleaned up the waste left behind. Many got sick from harsh toxins and are seeking to win lost wages for time spent off the job. Legislation passed by the Senate would move the program from the Energy Department to the Labor Department, which is said to be doing a good job handling a separate compensation program for nuclear workers. In contrast, the program run by the Energy Department has been bogged down by delays. The Energy Department is supposed to help workers file for assistance under state worker compensation systems. Federal contractors pay the claims and get reimbursed. The Senate proposal would require the government -- not the contractors -- to pay the bills. In some cases, contractors are long gone. In other instances, the government can't compel contractors to pay the claims because the contractors are privately insured. The Senate proposal is included in a defense bill. The House defense bill does not include such a measure, and lawmakers from both chambers are trying to negotiate a compromise. Some lawmakers who represent the workers say a proposal put forward by the House negotiators doesn't go far enough. Most of the people covered by the program worked at facilities in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and the state of Washington. "The House plan I have seen is a far cry from the sound plan the Senate passed," said Republican Rep. Ed Whitfield, who represents workers at a gaseous diffusion facility in Paducah. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., who sponsored the Senate measure, said Friday he was "cautiously optimistic that a good deal will be worked out." House negotiators agree the Energy Department program should be moved to the Labor Department. However, they disagree with House and Senate members who represent the sick workers over the level of benefits the workers should get. The proposal in the Senate bill would require the Labor Department to use individual state worker compensation laws when determining how much employees should get. House members say such a system is too complicated. They say a better approach is to offer various lump-sum benefits to the workers that are uniform. The benefits would vary depending how sick a person is. House and Senate lawmakers who represent the workers say that approach fails to give workers something equivalent to what they have lost. The compensation program run by the Labor Department program is entirely different from the Energy program. It pays workers a lump sum of $150,000 only if they got cancer due to radiation or lung diseases associated with beryllium or silica. Workers are now allowed to apply for benefits under both compensation programs, and many of them do that. Lawmakers who represent the workers say that's only fair since the lump sum is an apology for putting workers in harm's way, while the other program is supposed to replace lost wages. A House proposal would limit the degree to which workers could apply for assistance under both programs. "It just seems like we are once again trying to sock it to the worker while pretending to reform a program," said Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio. "I don't think it's fair." A call to the House Armed Services Committee seeking comment on the negotiations was not immediately returned. The government previously kept quiet about the toxins the workers were exposed to at the nuclear sites. Four years ago, after the Clinton administration apologized to the workers, Congress passed the dual compensation programs. House and Senate negotiators are trying to work out their differences so they can produce a compromise defense bill before Congress adjourns next week for a lengthy recess. ***************************************************************** 35 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear weapons research necessary to maintain national security Article Last Updated: 10/02/2004 02:20:01 PM Op By Bob Bennett In The Tribune's Sept. 28 editorial, you state that "the federal government is considering resuming nuclear testing." You then accuse me of being unable to make up my mind on the issue. May I offer some history, and a few facts, in response? The exposure of Utah downwinders occurred in the late 1950s and early 1960s, as you state, as a result of above-ground tests in Nevada. The federal government stopped all such atmospheric tests in 1962, and no one, in any administration or Congress since then, has ever considered their resumption. All subsequent tests were conducted underground. In 1970, one of the underground tests known as Baneberry "vented" material into the air. Immediately, further underground tests were suspended until changes could be made in methodology. Following those changes, in the ensuing 34 years, Utahns have had no exposure to radiation from Nevada. In 1992, the first Bush administration stopped testing altogether. The Clinton administration continued that policy, as has the second Bush administration. This is not only because some people oppose testing on principle; research, associated with computer simulations of tests, has made it unnecessary. For that reason, The Tribune's suggestion that the "federal government is considering resuming nuclear testing" comes as a surprise to every government official who has anything to do with this activity. Current government policy is clear - no testing - and while no official will say "never," no one sees any likely circumstances that would change that policy. In the mid 1990s, the Clinton administration called for funds to study new uses for existing weapons, including a possible "bunker buster," as deterrents to emerging threats by rogue nations. I supported that research. The Bush administration has continued that line of research seeking to improve the weapon's capability. My support for the project continued with the change of administrations. In both Clinton and Bush administrations research will lead to testing. The contrary claims that it will have come from groups outside the government, including some that argue we should not maintain any stockpile of nuclear weapons. I respect the sincerity of those who hold that view, but I do not subscribe to it. I believe our possession of nuclear weapons during the Cold War played a crucial role in maintaining our national security. I am not ready to enter a world now in which Iran, North Korea and other countries have such weapons and we do not. The irony of all this is the possibility - some scientists say "probability" - that a cessation of research, might, in fact, increase the likelihood that testing could resume. It is possible that some future administration would want to deploy a weapon not now in the stockpile. Deprived of the information provided by the current research, they might decide their only way of knowing the weapon's capability would be to resume testing. My proposed legislation would require such an administration to obtain congressional approval before it could proceed. I have no trouble making up my mind. I am opposed to nuclear testing. I am also opposed to nuclear ignorance. I have supported research because I believe that through it, testing will continue to be unnecessary, even as we maintain our national security. --- U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah is seeking his third term. © Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 36 Japan Times: Recommitting to nuclear safety Saturday, October 2, 2004 EDITORIAL A government panel investigating the Aug. 9 nuclear reactor accident, which killed five workers and injured six others, has published an interim report that reveals a pattern of loose safety management. The central message is that the tragedy -- the worst in the history of Japan's nuclear power industry -- would have been prevented if strict safety measures had been taken. The report, published by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, blames the operator, Kansai Electric Power Co. (KEPCO), for failing to conduct sufficient quality and maintenance checks. In a meeting with the company president, Mr. Yosaku Fuji, Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Shoichi Nakagawa ordered a suspension of the reactor involved. It is the first time that a power company has received such a penalty under the Electric Utility Law. The accident occurred in one of the light-water reactors (pressurized-water type) at KEPCO's nuclear power plant in Mihama, Fukui Prefecture. Investigations have revealed that a section of piping in the secondary loop ruptured due to stress and corrosion, spewing tons of superheated steam. There was no radiation exposure, however, because only the primary loop contains radioactive material. The piping, particularly the steel thickness, should have been checked regularly. The report says, however, that no such checks had been conducted during 28 years of reactor operation. The steel was 10 millimeters thick when the piping was installed. At the time of the accident, a part of the damaged section had a thickness of only 0.4 millimeter. It is well known that pipe wall thinning could cause a major rupture. The warning had been around for years, both at home and abroad. At a KEPCO nuclear plant in 1983, steam leaks from branch piping occurred. At a U.S. plant in Surry, Virginia, in 1986, piping in the same type of reactor system broke, killing four people. In 1990, KEPCO and other power companies running light-water reactors set guidelines for checking pipe thickness. One area that required inspection was a section of piping where the flow of hot water becomes turbulent because a flow meter, installed immediately upstream, creates higher pressure inside the pipe. That is precisely where the rupture occurred Aug. 9. That section was not inspected, however, because, investigators say, the company that was in charge of inspections -- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries -- did not mention it on the checklist. Since no corrective action was taken, they say, the carbon steel in that high-tension area continued to erode, leading eventually to its rupture. The lesson is clear: If the guidelines had been strictly followed, the trouble would have been spotted early on. As the report points out, KEPCO had neglected to take the necessary measures over an extended period of time. Inspections following the accident reveal that 15 other places had also been left off the checklist. Moreover, part of the secondary piping in a different reactor system had thinned to 1.8 millimeters; substandard thinning had also occurred, though to a lesser extent, in parts of the piping for two other reactors. But the company had left nearly all quality and maintenance checks to affiliated companies. In other words, KEPCO lacked an effective system of checking and correcting errors. Lax safety management is a recipe for disaster. It is only natural that the report should emphasize the need to investigate the accident from the administrative (as opposed to technical) standpoint. The company, meanwhile, is moving in the right direction: It has decided to conduct its own inspections of pipe thickness in the secondary loop. But checking the piping is not enough. To regain public confidence in nuclear safety, the management system for nuclear plants must be reviewed from the ground up. Strict safety controls are required not only for nuclear-plant piping but also for steam piping in the thermal power plants, most of which are said to be neglecting thickness checks. It is also necessary to tighten the inspection system for nuclear plants that have been in operation for about 30 years. It has been five years since an accidental critical-mass chain reaction at a fuel processing company in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, caused the deaths of two workers. Meanwhile, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) has been accused of covering up technical problems. No country has seen as many serious accidents in recent years as Japan. It is time for the nuclear plant operators, as well as regulatory authorities, to discover all defects, actual and potential, and re-examine the quality control system. Disclosure of errors, such as omissions from checklists, would help. What is needed is a renewed commitment to nuclear safety. The Japan Times: Oct. 2, 2004 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 37 CNN: Lost nuclear bomb is legend in beach community [http://www.cnn.com/] [story.nuke.ap.jpg] A group of divers and scientists from the federal government tow an array of radiation detectors Thursday, near Little Tybee Island, Georgia. TYBEE ISLAND, Georgia (AP) -- Below the deck of his shrimp boat, W.G. Smith recounts the story of his big catch more than 40 years ago. It was 1959 or 1960, as best Smith remembers, as he trawled for shrimp off the coast of Georgia. His net snagged on something large, an object so heavy he had to get a diving buddy to shake the net loose. "He dived down and when he came up he said, 'That's a bomb,"' recalled Smith, 72. "I really didn't think much of it. I thought he was cutting the fool or something." Smith's story still fascinates his 50-year-old son, Glenn. The younger Smith figures his father caught the so-called "Tybee bomb," a 7,600-pound nuclear device dumped by a damaged B-47 bomber in February 1958. In this beach community east of Savannah, the lost bomb has been a legend for so long, it's hard to separate fact from folklore. For the first time in 46 years, the Air Force last week led a team of experts to investigate reports of radiation traces that might reveal the bomb's location. "I thought it was over here, and then I kept hearing it was over there," said handyman Harold Michael, wildly pointing in several directions from his seat at the bar at Cafe Loco. "You listen about and there's probably a thousand stories out here." Islanders remain divided over whether the Air Force should recover the bomb or leave it. The government says the Mark-15 nuke is incapable of an atomic explosion, though it still contains about 400 pounds of conventional explosives. Some residents have responded to the search with humor. Financial adviser Joe Rochefort said he's conspiring with friends to form a "volunteer bomb squad" to spoof the search. "We're going to wrap up in blankets with divining rods and inner tubes and go out there and find the damn thing," Rochefort said. "We like the notoriety. It's just something to talk about." Others, like technical writer Ernie Love, see a more serious side to the search. "It's good that they're looking for it and taking care of business, which they probably should have done 50 years ago," Love said over a cold beer at Doc's Bar. "Just think if it would fall into terrorists' hands." Three years ago, island Mayor Walter Parker and the City Council sent a resolution to the Air Force, asking that the bomb be located before the military declared it non-threatening. Five months later, the Air Force rejected a renewed search. Now, Derek Duke, a retired Air Force pilot who has privately sought the lost bomb for five years, says he has detected radiation patterns that likely mark the bomb's resting place near the southern tip of uninhabited Little Tybee Island, about four miles south of the Tybee beach community. So the military sent a team of 20 experts to gather water and soil samples Thursday. A final report will not be ready for several weeks. Glenn Smith said he has been tempted to fetch the nuke himself. "I asked a friend, 'Can I borrow your boat?' I said, 'I think I can go get it,"' he said, pointing on a navigational chart to the spot where his father believes he snared the bomb -- about two miles from where the Air Force investigated. Smith's father, who says he let the mystery drop after retrieving his net, sees no need for anyone to hunt for the lost bomb. "My thought is, no. It's been there all these years," he said. "I see no reason. Let sleeping dogs lie." Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This ***************************************************************** 38 UK Independent: material for 'dirty bomb' attacks By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor 03 October 2004 It was just a year before 9/11 that the United States and Russia reached agreement on reducing their stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium. The agreement was hailed as making the world a safer place - but seems set to usher in unprecedented dangers. The two countries agreed in September 2000 to each reduce their stockpiles of the fissile material by 34 tonnes, enough to make at least 15,000 nuclear bombs, in a series of parallel cuts of at least two tonnes a year. The plutonium was instead to be mixed with uranium and turned into so-called mixed-oxide (Mox) fuel and burned in nuclear reactors to generate electricity. It seemed a classic case of beating swords into ploughshares, to herald the dawn of the new millennium. But the process of making the ploughshares is turning out to be even more dangerous than the stored swords ever were. The problem is the plutonium has to be transported from the stockpiles to fuel-making plants, and then taken as fuel to the nuclear reactors. This has hazards at the best of times - the results of a road accident or of being caught in a blaze like that which raged in the Mont Blanc tunnel in 1999 could be catastrophic. There were worries, even back in 2000, that terrorists and rogue states were anxious to get their hands on nuclear material. The 9/11 attacks made these concerns worryingly realistic. Days later, Tony Blair told the House of Commons that terrorists would use nuclear weapons "if they could", a warning he has repeated ever since. Al-Qa'ida, for its part, regards it as a "religious duty" to acquire them. The plutonium could be dealt with much more safely. It could be "immobilised" by mixing it with boron or binding it in glass, or made untouchable by spiking it with nuclear waste. This would also be cheaper; a US government report calculates it could reduce by half the cost of making the fuel. But the agreement stipulated both countries use the same means, and the Russians insisted on the fuel option. In this, they were governed by considerations not so much of safety or economy but of nuclear ideology. Almost since its inception, the nuclear industry has wanted to recover plutonium and uranium from nuclear waste and to burn it again as fuel. British Nuclear Fuels has built a Ł473m plant at Sellafield to make it, but has yet to get it to work properly. France has been more successful, but it is much more expensive than normal nuclear fuel and so has not been taken up around the world. But the new threat is far greater. For the weapons-grade plutonium being released under the disarmament agreement is easier to make into a devastating bomb than the civilian plutonium produced in the nuclear power programme. Dr Frank Barnaby, one of the world's leading experts in the field, said that a terrorist group could easily use just four and a half pounds of it to make a bomb at least half as powerful as the one that destroyed Nagasaki. Even one 10 times smaller than that would be enough "to devastate the centre of a major city". Nuclear expert John Large calls the material "a terrorist's dream". So one might expect the transport of the material to be surrounded by enormous security. But experts are deeply alarmed by what Mr Large calls the "meekly armed" state of the two British ships carrying the present shipment, and by the flaws he and Greenpeace have discovered in the security arrangements for transporting it through France. As a result, opposition to the whole agreement - which depends on US finance - is now beginning to surface in the US Congress. UK Independent Ltd. ***************************************************************** 39 UK Independent: At large, material to make 15,000 nuclear bombs By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor 03 October 2004 Enough weapons-grade plutonium to make more than 15,000 nuclear bombs will be vulnerable to hijack by terrorists and rogue states as the result of a disarmament initiative. An unprecedented shipment of 300lb of the material from the United States was last night heading towards the French port of Cherbourg on two British ships. The shipment is the first instalment of 68 tons of plutonium from US and Russian weapons stockpiles to be put on to the world's roads and seas at a time when terrorists are actively seeking the material. The move severely undermines the war on terror and casts further doubt on the rationale advanced for the Iraq war by Tony Blair at last week's Labour conference - keeping weapons of mass destruction out of terrorist hands. The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted that al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups will make nuclear bombs and explode them in Western cities if they can get hold of the material for them. Last night, the Greenpeace boat Esperanza was stalking the shipment from the US nuclear weapons establishment at Los Alamos, the birthplace of the atomic bomb. Described as "the biggest ever shipment of weapons-grade plutonium" by the independent nuclear consultant John Large, it is being carried on the Pacific Teal and Pacific Pintail, owned by a company whose largest shareholder is British Nuclear Fuels. BNFL refuses to disclose details of the security arrangements, but the two ships are believed to have crossed the Atlantic each armed only with a 30mm machine gun and guarded by 13 special atomic energy policemen. There were reports last night a French warship came out to escort them as they approached Cherbourg. The US governmentsaid it escorted them to the limit of its territorial waters with "a combination of Coast Guard cutters, boats, aircraft and other local law enforcement and naval assets". After the plutonium has landed, it will be taken 500 miles by road to Cadarache in Provence, to be made into nuclear fuel. A series of studies by Mr Large, presented to the US authorities, have demonstrated gaping holes in the security arrangements. Early next year, the fuel - only slightly less vulnerable to hijack - will be transported back across the Atlantic to the Catawaba nuclear power plant in Charlotte, South Carolina. US officials say the transatlantic trip is a "one-off", because there are plans to make the fuel in a new plant at home. But nuclear experts point out that - though this precise journey is unlikely to be repeated - it will just be the start. In September 2000, the US and Russia each agreed to eliminate 34 ton of weapons-grade plutonium and turn it into nuclear fuel. At least two tons will be taken from stockpiles each year, transported to fuel fabrication plants, turned into fuel and transported again to reactors. Security experts are particularly worried about Russia, where plutonium is to be taken on journeys of up to 1,200 miles in its raw form, and up to 4,300 miles as fuel. Last night, Dr Frank Barnaby, a former Aldermaston nuclear weapons specialist who became director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, called the plans "an invitation to terrorists to go nuclear". He says a group could easily make an atomic bomb from just four-and a-half pounds of the plutonium. UK Independent Ltd. ***************************************************************** 40 [progchat_action] BREAKING: Greenpeace Lies in Wait for Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 14:37:27 -0500 (CDT) BREAKING: Greenpeace Lies in Wait for 'Nuclear Transport Ships' http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100304W.shtml -- Click to SUBSCRIBE -> mailto:join-three-to@news.truthout.org Or go directly to our home page: http://www.truthout.org ------------------------ 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/XgSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progchat_action/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: progchat_action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 41 Straits Times: Dalai Lama says nuclear waste dumped in Tibet - OCT 4, 2004 asia1.com.sg MEXICO CITY - Deformed birds and other animals born with birth defects in remote corners of Tibet are evidence that China is dumping nuclear waste there, the Dalai Lama said on Sunday. The Dalai Lama, 69, will offer several talks and give a prayer for peace at the National Cathedral. His Mexican trip wraps up a tour of the Americas that also took him to Miami, as well as Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Guatemala. -- AP 'Logically, if we use common sense, in China proper, (it is) so densely populated that the only suitable area where this nuclear waste could go is Tibet,' the 14th Dalai Lama said during a news conference kicking off his four-day visit to Mexico City. The Buddhist leader, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, has called for greater autonomy and religious freedom in Tibet, but acknowledges it is part of China. He has lived in exile in Dharamsala, India, since a failed Tibetan uprising against the Chinese government in 1959. In recent years, the his supporters in Tibet have charged that China has damaged the region's environment by dumping nuclear waste and carelessly exploiting oil, water and timber resources. They have also suggested China stores nuclear missiles underground in Tibetan territory, but the he distanced himself from those claims on Sunday. 'We have no clear information about the setting up nuclear weapons in Tibet,' he said. The Dalai Lama, 69, has visited more than 70 countries. His Mexican trip wraps up a tour of the Americas that also took him to Miami, as well as Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Guatemala. This country has been quick to say it is welcoming him as a religious leader, not a political one. The issue is sensitive for Mexico, which has a long tradition of not taking sides in international conflicts and is trying to expand political and economic relations with China. He met with the presidents of Costa Rica, El Salvador and Guatemala, but a visit with President Vicente Fox won't be on the Mexico City itinerary. -- AP The Straits Times ***************************************************************** 42 BBC: Greenpeace targets nuclear cargo Last Updated: Sunday, 3 October, 2004 [BNF ship the Pacific Pintail] The Pacific Pintail is one of the two cargo ships being used Greenpeace protesters are still waiting in the English Channel to try to intercept two ships carrying plutonium from the US to France. The environmental group's ship, MV Esperanza, is anchored due south of Weymouth, Dorset. Protesters expected the ships to reach Cherbourg on Saturday, but now think they will arrive on Monday night. In Cherbourg, French police arrested at least two people for sailing too close to the dockyard's military zone. Flotilla members from the nine vessels at Cherbourg have gone to the military base to call for the pair's release. Yachtsman Eugene Riguidel and Greenpeace activist Jonathan Castle, from Guernsey, were among those arrested, said Greenpeace. [French maritime police surround Eugene Riguidel's boat ] Mr Riguidel was arrested for sailing too close to the military zone Nuclear Free Seas Flotilla spokesman Philippe Marechal told BBC News Online a woman had also been arrested and all three were expected to be held overnight. The weapons-grade plutonium is being transported on behalf of the US Department of Energy by two UK-registered vessels from shipping company Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited (PNTL). British Nuclear Fuels Limited, PNTL's main shareholder, is refusing to reveal the ships' location. The cargo of 125kg of plutonium, enough to make about 40 nuclear weapons, is heading from the US for France, where it will be converted into nuclear reactor fuel rods. Greenpeace claims the cargo is dangerous and should not pass so close to UK shores. It also believes it could be a terrorist target. There have been no safety a security issues BNFL A BNFL spokesman said that PNTL had carried over 170 shipments for a total of about five million miles without any incidents. He refused to comment on security arrangements, but it has been reported that the ships have double hulls and are each guarded by 13 commandos and armed with a 30mm cannon. He added: "The shipments are on schedule and everything is running to plan and there have been no safety and security issues." The plutonium carriers could pass about 16 miles off the Lizard in Cornwall and Greenpeace campaigners are waiting between Guernsey and Start Point. 'Boiling' issue in France Greenpeace spokesman Shaun Burnie said French environmental groups are also planning road blockades to prevent the cargo being transported to processing plants. "It's boiling up as a real issue here in France," Mr Burnie said. The Pacific Teal and the Pacific Pintail left the US a week ago on their trans-Atlantic crossing. The highly radioactive material has been taken directly from nuclear warheads, following disarmament agreements with Russia. Once in France, the plutonium will be transported to Cadarache in the south of the country to be processed and converted into mixed oxide nuclear fuel. ***************************************************************** 43 Bradenton Herald: Delays test patience in Tallevast | 10/03/2004 | Former defense plant workers upset by pace of bureaucracy DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer Claims already filed: 144. More to come: potentially hundreds Payments approved as of Saturday: one. To date, only one employee from the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant in Tallevast has received compensation through a federal program established to compensate workers suffering respiratory illnesses after being exposed on the job to beryllium, a known carcinogen. And that case was settled before U.S. Labor Department officials visited Bradenton in August to help former workers file claims, according to the latest figures available on the U.S. Department of Labor Web site. The approval process, several workers have told the Herald, is aggravatingly slow and involves many requests for additional information. Some have found it difficult to even prove they worked for the company on top-secret defense projects. Workers who filed claims in August should not be discouraged, said Barbara Armstrong, a member of the labor department team who set up shop for two days in Bradenton to help former American Beryllium employees with the paperwork. It takes about 45 days for a claim to be processed when every part of the claim is in order and every requirement met, but that's not usually the case because of difficulties in obtaining medical records and tests as well as employment verification. Determining whether an employee worked at the plant when American Beryllium had contracts with the Department of Energy to produce parts for nuclear weapons can be difficult, she acknowledged. Those eligibility periods are specific: any time during the year of 1968 or between Jan. 1, 1980 through Dec. 31, 1989. "I know sending employment information and getting blood tests done are frustrating," said Armstrong, who works for the regional office in Jacksonville. "But we want to give claimants every opportunity to get the appropriate information to us so their claims can be approved." Exposure to beryllium dust was common during the machining of the precious but toxic metal. Inhaling the dust can cause both short-term, or acute, respiratory illnesses as well as long-term, or chronic, beryllium disease or berylliosis. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act covers medical expenses for nuclear weapons workers with beryllium sensitivity or chronic beryllium disease. In some cases, workers may be eligible for a lump sum compensation payment up to $150,000. Workers at American Beryllium knew their contact with toxic metal carried health risks, but most trusted the company's safety precautions: annual check-ups, vacuum systems that collected the dust, and safety information on the lung problems exposure to beryllium dust might cause. Now, 20 to 30 years later,some workers are finding out that their exposure to the toxic dust has led to chronic health problems. The Tallevast plant has been in the news this year because of chemical leaks and spills that contaminated groundwater and surrounding private wells, perhaps for decades. Those spills have increased public awareness of the health hazards related to beryllium - and may have contributed to the large number of claims filed in the past two months. Labor officials were stunned when more than 130 workers filed into the Holiday Riverfront Hotel to file claims in August. Slow process Be prepared for lots of red tape, workers who filed their claims in August warn. Proving he was employed by American Beryllium has been a huge problem for 61-year-old Lee Hatt of Palmetto, a process engineer who says he worked on top-secret projects there between 1980 and 1991. "They came and got us, and now we have to prove to them that we worked there," Hatt said. He, like many American Beryllium employees, considers himself to be one of the Cold War warriors whose contributions in the weapons industry helped keep Americans safe. "They've asked for names of other employees who could verify that we worked there," Hatt said. "Are they now saying they will believe them but not us?" Hatt hopes a letter of commendation he received with his 10-year employment service pin will fit the requirement. But 77-year-old Richard Deutsch's commendation letter didn't pass muster. Deutsch, who worked at the Tallevast plant from 1959 to 1975, now lives in Indianapolis and spoke to the Herald by phone. Deutsch said his 15-year service award letter was on letterhead, too. It also bore the signature of the president of American Beryllium, but his claims examiner said more proof was needed. Now Deutsche, whose says his breathing problems are so severe he can't walk to the mail box across the street, must send in another form, giving the claims examiner permission to search through his Social Security records. "I think they put you through all this paperwork to try to disgust you so you forget it," Deutsch said. Blood test hassles An abnormal reading on the beryllium sensitivity blood test is a critical step in the approval process. Only five labs in the country can process that blood test. And even though the blood specimen can be drawn at most medical labs, special provisions are necessary to send the blood specimens overnight to one of the specialty labs. Deutsch said three health care providers in Indianapolis refused to draw his blood and send it to an approved lab because they were unfamiliar with the test and beryllium disease. His wife's physician finally agreed to sign a blood test request so Deutsch could have his blood drawn at a local Indianapolis hospital, with him footing the bill. The hospital then sent his blood a specialty lab in California. "All this hassle is about to drive me crazy," said Deutsch, who was a prototype machinist at the Tallevast plant. During his employment with American Beryllium, Deutsch said he was treated for lung ailments, including tuberculosis. But he adds that he could never get a clear answer from his doctors on what was wrong with his lungs. "The doctors didn't want to get involved because they knew where I worked and what I did," said Deutsch, who says he has sent more 80 pages of medical records detailing respiratory problems to his claims examiner. Each time he receives another information request, Deutsch says, the clock starts again with 30 days to respond. Myriad illnesses For some, time is of the essence. James Richmond of St. Petersburg, a former quality control inspector, worked at the Tallevast plant from 1987 to 1990, when he was forced to quit at age 46 because of chronic breathing problems. He has been on disability ever since. Richmond, now 58, lost the top half of his right lung in 1996 after doctors found two nodules and scarring that can be characteristic of berylliosis or chronic beryllium disease He has lost his spleen, Richmond said, and his immune system is so compromised that a cold can keep him down for weeks. Medical tests connected to his claim are ongoing. But even if his blood test fails to show a sensitivity to beryllium - a precondition to berylliosis - other procedures including a pulmonary function test and CT scan could show evidence that he has chronic beryllium disease. Lee Hatt of Palmetto learned the same thing when his blood test came back normal. The lab report from the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, where his blood was analyzed, states that a negative or normal response to the beryllium blood test "does not exclude a diagnosis of beryllium disease." Even though Hatt's test is normal, he still suspects something might be wrong. He has suffered from a serious cough and tightness in his chest that hasn't eased since he worked at the Tallevast plant. "It's good news in the respect that I don't appear to have anything, but I still don't know," said Hatt. "I am sure I have some beryllium in my body. You can't be there for 11˝ years and not have some beryllium in your system. But you kind of wonder how many people are going to deal with this." Charlie Zeigler of Tallevast, whose blood test also came back normal, has just about given up. "I guess that ended my claim," said Zeigler, who has been plagued with breathing problems for years. Options for appeal That's not necessarily the case, confirmed Dr. Lee Newman, one of the foremost experts on beryllium disease in the country at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver. If a beryllium blood test is negative or normal, but the patient has a lot of symptoms or CT scans that look like beryllium disease, another procedure can be performed to test whether the cells of the lungs are sensitive to beryllium, Newman said in a recent interview with the Herald. Both tests meet the compensation program requirements. Armstrong stressed that some workers may not need to have a blood test if they were diagnosed with a lung ailment prior to Jan. 1, 1993, and have medical records that can prove the diagnosis of advanced beryllium disease. Because they already have a chronic disease, a blood test for beryllium sensitivity is no longer required by the law governing the compensation program. The beryllium blood test required was not widely used until after 1993, Armstrong said. Therefore only those workers whose lung conditions were diagnosed after Jan. 1, 1993 - the date when the blood test became widely used - need to fulfill that requirement, Armstrong said. She warned that even if workers have had normal results on their blood tests in years past, they should be retested because beryllium sensitivity can take up to 40 years to develop after exposure. "A person can test this year and nothing will show up, but three years - it may show up," Armstrong said. A claim with no confirmed diagnosis will be denied, Armstrong said. But workers can reapply as many times as they wish. The company employed 100 or more workers every year while in operation, but it is unknown how many employees might have been exposed to beryllium dust. Local medical help for affected workers is also in the works. Several area lung specialists have contacted the Jacksonville office, offering their services to treat former American Beryllium workers. The details and the doctors' names, Armstrong said, should be released soon. The bottom line, said Lee Hatt, is the government needs to be held accountable for workers' exposure to beryllium. "They know what they did was wrong," said Hatt. "They just ought to take care of it." BERYLLIUM INFORMATION • NATIONAL JEWISH MEDICAL AND RESEARCH CENTER: Leading medical care and research facility specializing in beryllium sensitivity and disease. • LUNG LINE: (800) 222-LUNG 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday, Mountain Time -Registered nurses can answer questions and provide educational literature on respiratory and immunologic diseases. Lung Line also provides information on the treatment options available at the National Jewish Center. • PHYSICIAN LINE: (800) 652-9555 8 a.m.-5 a.m. Monday-Friday, Mountain Time. - Provides physicians direct access to National Jewish for patient referrals and medical consultations. • CASE MANAGER LINE: (800) 573-LUNG (5864) 8 a.m.-5 p.m. Monday-Friday, Mountain Time. • BERYLLIUM SENSITIVITY BLOOD TEST: National Jewish Medical and Research Center. Beryllium Information Line, (303) 398-1722, or Clinical Immunology Laboratory, (303) 398-1344. Cost: $259. On the web: www.nationaljewish.org [http://www.nationaljewish.org] TO FILE A CLAIM To file a claim with the U.S. Department of Labor: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act Savannah River Resource Center 1708 Bunting Dr. North Augusta, SC 29841 (866) 666-4606 Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@bradentonherald.com [dwright@bradentonherald.com] . ***************************************************************** 44 CBC: Uranium industry enjoys rebound as prices nearly triple Uranium’s-Upswing [http://www.cbc.ca/ 10:04 PM EDT Oct 03 ROBERT BLACK DOUGLAS, Wyo. (AP) - Watching a computer screen, Pat Drummond monitors a complex system of pipelines and vats that produce big drums of uranium, weighing more than 300 kilograms, ready to be shipped to nuclear power plants across the globe. Drummond, who began mining at age 16 in his native Scotland, is among a dwindling number of workers in an industry that has been plagued by low prices for more than a decade, but is finally seeing a rebound. "Mining's in my blood," Drummond said in a thick brogue during a recent afternoon at the Smith Ranch-Highland mine in east-central Wyoming. "I enjoy the challenge of uranium, and given the price wars of the last 15 years, it's been a challenge staying in the industry." Prices are nearly triple what they were four years ago, and Cameco Corp., a Canadian company (TSX:CCO) that owns the last two active uranium mines in the United States, is stepping up exploration and production. The Saskatoon-based company holds a fifth of the world uranium market, but may soon be joined by other companies reopening or starting operations to meet rising demand. Uranium produced at Smith Ranch is typically yellowish powder, or yellowcake, which is sent to other plants to be enriched and formed into pellets to fuel nuclear reactors. About 20 per cent of America's electricity comes from steam created by nuclear fission. Yellowcake prices were $7.10 US a pound in December 2000 but have risen steadily and recently surpassed $20 for the first time since 1984. In the 1940s, the U.S. government began buying large amounts of uranium in the effort to produce the world's first atomic bomb. After the Second World War, the Atomic Energy Commission began examining peaceful uses. The first privately funded nuclear energy plant came online in 1959 in Illinois. By the 1970s, about 250 nuclear reactors were planned across the United States - but then an accident in Pennsylvania changed all that. "Three Mile Island hit, and starting in the 1980s, utilities started canceling plants," said David Miller, a Wyoming state lawmaker from Riverton and geologist with more than 25 years experience in uranium exploration and consulting. "The investing public, the lay public, everyone kind of turned on nuclear power at that time. The uranium market collapsed on all those canceled plants." A second blow came when the Soviet Union fell apart, and enriched uranium removed from Russian bombs was blended down to reactor-grade fuel and dumped on the market. The third jolt occurred when the administration of former president Bill Clinton privatized a government-owned uranium-enrichment program, and about 25 million kilograms of yellowcake was unloaded on the market. "You basically have had a long period of inventory liquidation, which pushed prices down to quite low levels, and during this time you also pushed production down," said Jeff Combs, president of Ux Consulting Co., of Roswell, Ga. Exploration also tapered off. Wyoming once had eight uranium operations, producing more than five million kilos per year. Now it has one. After the bottom fell out, the state legislature lowered taxes on the industry, then exempted uranium producers from paying any severance taxes until the price stayed at $14 or higher for six straight months. That threshold has now been reached, and the state began collecting revenue again in June. "If the markets are there for it, I think they'll mine as much as they can, and we'll see an increase in tax revenues as a result," said Randy Bolles, administrator of the state Mineral Tax Division. Global uranium production is about 40 million kilos a year, while consumption is up to 75 million kilos by the 435 reactors in the world, Miller said. Thirty-five more reactors are under construction in China, Taiwan, India, Brazil and Eastern Europe, which will further increase demand. The 103 reactors in the U.S. are housed in 66 plants that have cranked out more than 700 billion kilowatt hours for five straight years, but American uranium production peaked in 1980 at about 20 million kilos, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By 1990, U.S. production had dropped to about four million kilos. Last year, it was less than one million, most coming from the Smith Ranch-Highland mine north of Douglas, Wyo., and Cameco's other active mine, the Crow Butte operation near Crawford, Neb. Both use a method more environmentally friendly than conventional open-pit mining. It is known as "in-situ leaching." Water rich in oxygen and carbon dioxide is circulated through an underground reserve, loosening uranium from sand and sending it to the surface. Tiny beads of resin attract and remove uranium from the water. The heavy metal is then compressed, dried, sealed in drums and loaded onto trucks for shipment. The water is reinjected into the ground. Mine manager Ralph Knode is thankful prices are finally rebounding. "We just survived 15 years of horrible market," he said. "Now, it's sort of like a renaissance. Now you're finally starting to see that you're not just treading water, but you're actually moving forward." © The Canadian Press, 2004 ***************************************************************** 45 Nevada Appeal: Decision on nuke dump funding to come after election Associated Press October 2, 2004 LAS VEGAS - Congress is putting off until after the presidential election a budget fight on spending for a national nuclear waste dump in Nevada. Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Pete Domenici, R-N.M., leaders of the Senate energy and water subcommittee, have been unable to agree on spending for the Yucca Mountain project. Analysts say lawmakers also might also look for a signal from voters whether to continue developing the repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic challenger, has told voters in Nevada he would kill the Yucca program if elected. Republican President Bush backs the repository and authorized the Yucca project along with Congress in 2002. The administration has asked Congress for $880 million to continue repository work in 2005. However, Congress has balked at a provision to tap $749 million by restructuring a national nuclear waste fund. That leaves the Energy Department with $131 million to spend on the Nevada program in the fiscal year beginning Friday without making deep cuts in other energy priorities. Brian O'Connell, nuclear waste director for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said Yucca backers might try to increase spending on nuclear waste issues if Bush wins. If Kerry wins, "Congress could go with a low number and say we need a time-out," O'Connell said. The House and Senate this week enacted temporary spending bills to keep government departments operating beyond the start of the new fiscal year. Temporary spending bills will let the Energy Department spend the same amount on the Yucca project as it spent in fiscal 2004, officials said. Lawmakers plan a lame-duck session after the Nov. 2 elections to complete work on 2005 spending and other unfinished business. Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com [http://www.lvrj.com] All contents © Copyright 2004 nevadaappeal.com Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701 ***************************************************************** 46 Morgan Hill Times: $25 million for perchlorate Saturday, October 02, 2004 By Carol Holzgrafe [carolh@morganhilltimes.com] Money to clean perchlorate from the South Valley underground watertable moved one step closer to reality after the House of Representatives passed a bill authorizing $25 million for such purposes. The bill, HR 4459, was sponsored by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Stockton, who represents Morgan Hill; it was passed on Sept. 21. The next day it went to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources where, if passed there and in the Senate, it goes to the president’s desk. If the president signs it, the bill will become law. Congressmust still appropriate the funds. No timetable has been set for hearings in the Senate. “Citizens of Santa Clara (County) have suffered long enough - today is their day,” Pombo said in a statement issued shortly after the bill received unanimous support from his colleagues. The money, if appropriated, can be used for cleanup and remediation projects for projects begun after Jan. 1, 2000, but not for projects taking more than 10 years to complete. Cleanup of the South Valley aquifer has been estimated by water district officials to cost between $2 million and $150 million. City Manager Ed Tewes said the federal money will not come to the city, which is covering the costs of cleansing city water of perchlorate. Nor will it come to ratepayers who, by January, will be paying a 10 percent perchlorate surcharge on their water bills. “This is for future remediation,” Tewes said. “We We don’t get reimbursed.” The federal funds must be matched 65 percent from the federal government and 35 percent from state and local agencies - or private entities. In the South Valley case, “private entities” could include Olin Corp. whose 40-year manufacture of safety flares in south Morgan Hill deposited the perchlorate in groundwater. The Pombo bill was initially criticized for letting Olin off the hook by requiring the 35 percent match of taxpayer and ratepayer money. Including “private entities” could cast the net wider and allow Olin to pay its part. And while Olin paid to replace Morgan Hill’s Tennant well, closed because of the contamination, the company has refused to help the city with expenses relating to contamination in several other city wells north of Tennant Avenue. As a result, Morgan Hill residents are now paying a 5 percent surcharge on their water bills to ease the budget squeeze perchlorate has imposed on the city, and will be paying 10% in January. Treatment systems for the dozens of private wells, mostly in south Morgan Hill and San Martin east of Monterey Road, have been under study. Carol Holzgrafe is a reporter at the Morgan Hill Times. She covers all local news, including City Hall. [(408)842-9070] [South Valley Homes] ***************************************************************** 47 TheStar.com: Haulers vow `clean' waste Oct. 2, 2004. 01:00 AM Michigan trash rules must be met Toronto-style bylaw one solution STAN JOSEY STAFF REPORTER Private waste haulers in the regions surrounding Toronto are scrambling this month to ensure industrial, commercial and institutional trash meet stringent new guidelines for dumping at a Michigan landfill. Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality said this week it would continue to accept both residential and non-residential waste from Toronto, but so far has only agreed to accept residential garbage from the 905 regions. Waste industry representatives say they will try and meet the strict environmental restrictions by the end of October so the regions can continue hauling 905 non-residential trash to the Michigan landfill. Vaughn Bullough, general manager of Miller Waste Systems, one of the GTA's largest private waste haulers, said he is confident a solution can be found before the end of the month. "It doesn't mean the ICI (industrial, commercial and institutional) waste is prohibited, it's just not currently approved," he said. He said Toronto's non-residential waste is being accepted because the city passed an "emergency bylaw" outlining what can be deposited in industrial, commercial and residential waste. The bylaw has satisfied Michigan that the non-residential waste hauled there does not contain 12 prohibited waste items. These items include: used deposit beverage containers, tires, used oil, lead acid batteries, yard clippings, medical waste, low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, liquid waste and sewage. Peel, York and Durham regions do not have bylaws prohibiting these items, Bullough said. One solution, he said, would be to ask the regions to pass legislation similar to Toronto's. Michigan also is looking at allowing the private waste haulers to remove any of the prohibited materials at waste transfer stations here, and then certifying that their trucks are clean. Bullough said pop cans and grass clippings are the two big culprits, both of which can easily be eliminated at source. "Either way, we believe the problem will be solved by the deadline," Bullough said. Andrew Campbell, head of waste management for York Region, said his municipality hasn't decided what, if anything, it will do to assist the private waste haulers. "All of our residential trash has been approved to go to Michigan but the ICI waste is handled by private waste disposal firms," he said. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of ***************************************************************** 48 Scotsman.com: Irish Demand Action to Halt Plutonium Shipments Sun 3 Oct 2004 By Victoria Ward, PA News The Irish Government was today urged to intervene to bring a halt to the shipment of weapons-grade plutonium being transported off the Irish coast. Irish Labour Party chief whip Emmet Stagg called on the new Environment Minister Dick Roche to take the lead at European level to bring an end to such shipments. He said: “This lethal cargo of plutonium, which is in transit from the United States to France is a nuclear hazard which would have enormous consequences for marine and human health were it to leak or explode. “It is simply not good enough for the Minister for Environment to say he can do nothing.” Mr Stagg claimed that by transporting the lethal cargo across the Atlantic, the French and US Governments were posing an unnecessary threat to the environment and human health. He said the international community should be hugely concerned about the extent and nature of the shipments, particularly at a time of heightened international terrorism. “The Irish Minister for the Environment must intervene with the American and French Government to ensure that this shipment is kept away from Irish seas,” he added. Mr Roche should use every international convention on marine safety and the marine environment to prevent such shipments from entering Irish waters, the Kildare North TD said, describing the Government’s response to date as “pathetically insufficient”. The Irish Sea Nuclear Free Flotilla (ISNFF) has also voiced grave concerns that the ships, carrying weapons-grade plutonium, passed so close to Irish waters. The radioactive cargo, taken from the warheads of US missiles, is en route from the US port of Charleston to Cherbourg in France on ships owned by British Nuclear Fuels. [ ©2004 Scotsman.com [http://www.scotsman.com/] | ***************************************************************** 49 The Enquirer: Fernald waste still needs home [http://www.cincinnati.com] Sunday, October 3, 2004 Nevada's opposition forces search for alternative dumping areas By Dan Klepal Enquirer staff writer CROSBY TWP. - The federal government is shopping around for a new place to dump 50-year-old nuclear waste from Fernald's three concrete storage silos. Cleaning the three "K-65" silos at Fernald is the most complicated and dangerous project at the long-closed uranium plant in northwest Hamilton County. The plant has been the focus of a decade-long cleanup that has included hauling away millions of tons of contaminated dirt, cleaning an underground lake, disposing of radioactive building debris plus thousands of barrels filled with hazardous materials. The government had planned to dump the silo waste in the Nevada desert, 70 miles outside Las Vegas. But state officials there threatened in April to file a lawsuit to stop that plan, which they say is illegal and unsafe. Department of Energy officials wrote a letter last week to the contractor managing the $4.4 billion cleanup, directing the company to identify places capable of storing or accepting for disposal millions of pounds of nuclear waste that have been held at Fernald since the 1950s. A report on the alternatives is due Friday. Energy officials insist they can legally dispose of the waste in Nevada, but have made no progress toward a resolution. They have promised Nevada a 45-day notice before waste shipments begin. Bill Taylor, the Energy Department's director at Fernald, said the public will have a say if the disposal plan changes. "Although a formal public comment period is not required ... DOE is committed to continuing full public participation and will have a 30-day public comment period and public hearing," Taylor wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency. Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Project office, said there have been no discussions with the federal government on a possible solution. "We've just been sitting tight and waiting to see if they give us the 45-day notice," said Loux, whose office reports to the governor. "I think this is recognition that Nevada's legal position is correct." Nevada's threatened lawsuit came just weeks before shipments of powdery waste from Silo 3 were to begin. The legal dispute has put on hold that work, while the contractor continues on "standby,'' ready to begin removing the waste on two-weeks' notice. The decision to keep the crew on standby has cost taxpayers about $200,000, without an ounce of the waste being removed. The more highly radioactive waste in silos 1 and 2 is being transferred into temporary holding tanks and will eventually be mixed with concrete for shipping. That waste also was to be buried in Nevada. Dennis Carr, manager of the silos project for contractor Fluor Fernald, said the earliest a decision could be made on alternative disposal sites is the end of February. E-mail dklepal@enquirer.com [dklepal@enquirer.com] ***************************************************************** 50 AU ABC: Councils seek nuclear dump veto » "Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online"> [http://abc.net.au/] Sunday, 3 October 2004 The New South Wales Shires' Association wants councils to be given the power to accept or reject nuclear waste. Last year the National Store Advisory Committee, which is looking at possible sites for a nuclear waste dump, suggested several possible locations. Those included the Ilawarra, Riverina and Central West. The association's president, Phyllis Miller, says the Federal Government should take local views into account when it makes its final decision. "We're not silly enough to not realise that it has to go somewhere but we should have choices, our community should have the choice," she said. [ more news ] Last Updated: 9:03:00 AM (AEST) [http://www.abc.net.au/privacy.htm] | Information about the use ***************************************************************** 51 AU ABC: CLP moves to strengthen anti-nuclear dump laws » [http://abc.net.au/] Monday, 4 October 2004 The CLP wants to strengthen the Northern Territory Government's anti-nuclear dump legislation, claiming the Bill is a charade in its current form. The Federal Government has ruled out locating a national radioactive waste dump in the Territory. But a Bill will still go before the Territory Parliament this week formally legislating against the transport and storage of nuclear waste. Opposition Leader Terry Mills says if anti-nuclear legislation is to be introduced, then it should be as strong as possible. "The Opposition has never supported the dumping of nuclear materials in the Northern Territory," he said. "If this Chief Minister were actually serious about this, she would not have introduced Mickey Mouse legislation. "Therefore we'll be making a move to strengthen it and exposing this as simply scaremongering and a Labor Party sham." [ more news ] Last Updated: 6:01:00 AM (ACST) [http://www.abc.net.au/privacy.htm] ***************************************************************** 52 UK Independent: Japanese lifeline for BNFL's 'white elephant' By Louis Benjamin 03 October 2004 BNFL's controversial plutonium- uranium mixed oxide (MOX) plant is in line for an unexpected boost - from Japan. This will mark a huge reversal in fortune as a scandal involving falsified documents on MOX shipments to Japan five years ago severely damaged BNFL's business prospects and reputation. Record high oil prices and a dispute with China over gas fields have prompted a secretive Japanese energy committee to push for a major review of nuclear policy. Its expected recommendation is that Japan should embark on a dramatic upgrade of nuclear power stations, which will lead to lucrative orders for reprocessed fuel. Building completely new nuclear sites is politically impossible, so Japan's energy plans will probably involve converting old and defunct stations into modern plants that use MOX - a fuel which BNFL and its French rival, Cogema, sell to the Japanese market. The special energy advisory committee, part of the Ministry for the Economy, Trade and Industry (Meti), has been convened to deal with what one of its members described as "a long-overdue sense of crisis". Japan has few natural resources of its own, and depends on imported oil and gas for more than 90 per cent of its energy needs. Pipeline projects with Russia remain troubled by stalled negotiations, and a controversial oil-field development in Iran has brought Tokyo into direct opposition to Washington. The panel is expected to conclude that updated nuclear sites offer the best chance of coping with future energy shortages. A string of safety scandals, including a fatal steam leak earlier this summer, has destroyed trust in nuclear power among the Japanese public. That accident, stemming from a badly corroded pipe, is taken by industry experts as evidence that the existing stations are ripe for an upgrade anyway. The committee, which includes several industry veterans from the 1970s oil crisis, may run into opposition from within Meti itself as it is understood to take a dim view of the ministry's support for electricity deregulation in Japan. Aileen Myoko Smith, a director of the Japan-based nuclear watchdog Green Action, said: "The global energy situation has put Japan at a crossroads, and the pressure is all the greater for the country to build its dependence on nuclear power. The whole project will only work, of course, if it is treated as a huge national project and the government comes up with big subsidies." Even with a host of potential new projects up for grabs, BNFL's success in Japan hangs by a thread. Sources in Fukui prefecture, a centre for nuclear power stations, say that sensitivities over the BNFL scandal mean the first batch of MOX orders are almost certain to be awarded to Cogema. The MOX plant at Sellafield - which has been derided as a Ł600m white elephant - will be taken from BNFL's control next April and handed to the newly created Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK Independent Ltd. ***************************************************************** 53 NEWS.com.au: WA `likely' nuclear dump site (October 3, 2004) By CATHERINE MADDEN ONE of WA's pristine offshore islands could become the dumping ground for Australia's nuclear waste. Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell has refused to rule out a WA site for a nuclear waste dump, saying offshore islands are the "only option we are pursuing". The State Government and environment groups fear that WA – with 3747 islands, more than twice that of any other state or territory – is "highly likely" to be targeted. A federal MP has already suggested that the Monte Bello islands, 100km off Dampier, should be top of the Government's shortlist. The islands were the site of nuclear testing by Britain between 1952 and 1962 but are now a conservation area and considered among the world's best marine sites. Premier Geoff Gallop said that any attempt to place nuclear waste on a WA island would be met with fierce resistance. "This concept is totally abhorrent to every West Australian," he said. "The Monte Bellos were taken out of action for many, many years as a result of British nuclear testing and they have finally been rehabilitated. We are considering a marine park for the area." He said it was outrageous that the Government would not reveal which sites were being considered. "The Federal Environment Minister may believe that out of sight on one of WA's islands is out of mind but the Government and people of WA do not," Mr Gallop said. Greens senate candidate Rachel Siewert said there had been several weeks of speculation that an island off the WA coast had been chosen for the dumping ground – and that the announcement was being held back until after the federal election Federal MP Christopher Pyne said last month that "a good place for the nuclear waste dump might be the Monte Bello islands off the North-West of WA, which used to be a place where they had atomic testing". Mr Campbell said this week: "The Commonwealth is not pursuing any options anywhere on the mainland. "We say our preferred option and the only options we are pursuing are on offshore islands." The Federal Government was forced to search for a nuclear waste site after community outcry blocked plans for one in Woomera, South Australia. A spokesman for Mr Campbell said that a shortlist of islands was being compiled but there was no point in speculating which one would be chosen. The Sunday Times Copyright 2004 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT+10). ***************************************************************** 54 Tri-City Herald: Hanford dams up K East Basin This story was published Saturday, October 2nd, 2004 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Water has been removed permanently from the first section of the leak-prone K East Basin and that part of the pool filled with concrete so it never can leak again. It's another step toward cleaning up one of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation's worst environmental risks. Millions of gallons of radioactive water leaked from K East Basin into the surrounding soil in the 1970s and 1990s. It sits about 400 yards from the Columbia River. "We want to reduce the risk as fast as we can and do it safely," said Tony Umek, project director for Fluor Hanford, the Department of Energy contractor. The K East and K West basins were built in the early 1950s to hold irradiated fuel from the adjacent K East and K West production reactors until it was processed. Plutonium was extracted from the fuel for the nation's nuclear weapons program. By the 1970s, the basins were being used to store spent fuel from the N Reactor until the fuel was ready to be processed for plutonium. About 2,300 tons of irradiated fuel were left there when the processing plant was shut down permanently in 1992. The basins, indoor pools that hold 1.2 million gallons of water each, have remained filled with water and irradiated fuel long past the 20 years for which they were designed. Fuel that was in open-top containers has degraded, forming a radioactive sludge with dirt and concrete that has sloughed off the pool walls and settled at the bottom of the pools. Fluor Hanford has the task of removing the fuel, removing the sludge and then removing the water so the basins can be removed permanently. The plan is to fill the basins with concrete, then saw out pieces to be trucked away for permanent disposal. It's been a difficult project, and sludge removal has fallen behind the initial deadlines set by regulators. The first section to be filled with concrete is the pool where irradiated fuel was pushed out of the back of the K East Reactor and slid down a wide steel ramp into the water. Complicating the project is radioactive cesium, which has an affinity to the calcium in the concrete walls. When the pools are full, the water shields the radiation in the concrete walls. The walls of the discharge chute were reasonably clean because it had been twice cleaned in the past. But it still was radioactive enough that Hanford workers were required to do an underwater concrete pour. Because the walls are least contaminated at the top, the 17 feet of water were drained about a foot at a time and a specially formulated cement poured in until the water level rose to its former level. The cement looks like oatmeal as it's poured in and spreads underwater across the floor of the basin, Umek said. "Replacing the water in the discharge chute with cement provides a solid dam between the remaining water in the basin and a construction joint that has leaked over 15 million gallons of contaminated water," said Larry Gadbois, project manager for the Environmental Protection Agency, in a prepared statement. It also creates a barrier between the reactor core and the basins. Other walls of the basins will have to be cleaned with a hydrolaser system that uses 35,000 pounds per square inch of pressure to break up the contaminated concrete on the surface of the pool walls and vacuum it up. DOE was required to start work by Thursday on removing water from the K East Basin under the Tri-Party Agreement, which regulates Hanford cleanup. It easily met that deadline, but water cannot be emptied from the rest of the basin until fuel and sludge are removed. Fluor Hanford has been removing fuel since December 2000 and has retrieved more than 99 percent of it, including moving all the fuel from the K East Basin. The final work on the project has taken longer than expected, because the remaining fuel is in such poor shape. But it should be completed in a few weeks. Sludge retrieval was begun in June on a section of the pool that's less contaminated, the North Load-Out Pit. A system relying on containers that would catch the radioactive sludge but let water filter out has not worked as planned because its filters have tended to clog. Instead, Fluor Hanford has been trying to let the sludge settle and then dip out the water. While progress is being made on removing sludge, Fluor Hanford still is troubleshooting the system, Umek said. In addition, work has yet to begin on removing the sludge in the rest of the K Basins. DOE is working under new deadlines for the project that do not set start days but call for removing sludge from K East Basin by winter 2006 and having the K West Basin sludge in containers by summer 2006. With progress made on sludge removal, fuel removal and now water removal, "we're pretty optimistic," Umek said. "It's not going to be easy, but we're optimistic we're off to a good start." © 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 55 Tri-City Herald: Company cleaning up FFTF in hot water This story was published Sunday, October 3rd, 2004 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer The lead company on a team awarded a new contract to decommission Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility is barred from bidding on similar cleanup work in Oak Ridge, Tenn., after dripping radioactive waste down a state highway. Safety and Ecology Corp., or SEC, expects to soon resolve issues so it will again be allowed to bid on cleanup work at the Oak Ridge site near its Knoxville, Tenn., headquarters, said Mark Duff of SEC Federal Services. Work on the Oak Ridge contract that resulted in contamination of the Tennessee highway has not resumed since the May incident. SEC was working to remove a 600-gallon tank once used to mix radioactive waste with grout from a facility that was being dismantled. The facility had been used to prepare radioactive waste to inject deep in the ground for disposal before the practice of using injection wells was discontinued. In April, cement was added to the tank and a plywood plug put over a flange where sludge was observed, according to a 94-page report filed by the Department of Energy after an investigation into the accident. Later that month, liquid was seen dripping from the area around the plug. On May 12, when the tank was lifted to be placed in a dump truck bed for transportation, about 2.5 gallons of liquid were found in plastic that had been wrapped around the tank. The liquid was drained, but drops of liquid continued to fall from the tank as it was placed into the dump truck bed lined with two sheets of plastic, according to the DOE report. SEC workers then put what DOE described as a "diaper" on the dump truck tailgate to collect any more liquid from the tank. The next day, 1 to 2 quarts of liquid were found in the diaper that hung off the tailgate. Workers decided to resolve the problem by tilting the truck bed for a couple of hours to check for additional liquid. When none was found and other inspections had been made, the truck left for the 30-minute trip to a disposal station on May 14, according to DOE. But when it arrived, a radiation control survey found contamination on the truck. A survey of its route over several miles along Highway 95 and two access roads found strontium 90 dripped along the roadways, according to DOE. DOE pictures show safety specialists walking shoulder-to-shoulder in lines of six down each lane of the highway with Geiger counters to look for spills. The highway was closed and sections of it and the access roads repaved over the next three to five days. The cost exceeded $1 million, according to DOE. Bechtel Jacobs, which awarded the subcontract for the work to SEC, said SEC was paying for the work. No contamination to people or vehicles that traveled the roads was found in DOE inspections. The federal investigation concluded that SEC had an inadequate work control process to prepare the tank for transportation. It also found that SEC had not adequately used its quality assurance program or its corporate program to learn from past errors. It also criticized the DOE office at Oak Ridge and Bechtel Jacobs for not adequately overseeing the project. SEC also was involved in another incident at Oak Ridge in October 2003 under another contract that required checking workers for radioactive contamination. Some workers were cleared to leave the nuclear reservation even though they had contamination on their clothing, said Dennis Hill, a spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs. No contamination was found off site. Although Bechtel Jacobs, which holds the environmental management contract at Oak Ridge, has barred SEC from bidding on more contracts there until issues are resolved, SEC continues work on two other Bechtel Jacobs contracts there. In addition to the radiation control contract, it also holds a contract to remove excess materials, including waste and stored equipment, from a large facility used to enrich uranium. "It shows the confidence they have in SEC locally," Duff said. "Our safety record is very strong" when compared with industry standards." he said. The lessons SEC has learned from the May incident will be applied to its new work at Hanford, Duff said. On Sept. 24, DOE awarded SEC Closure Alliance a $235 million contract to continue the permanent shutdown of Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility, an unused research reactor, and then dismantle it. Fluor Hanford has been doing the work, but DOE decided to move the remainder of the project to a small business team as part of a federal initiative to give more work to small businesses. The contracting team is led by SEC Federal Services and includes Los Alamos Technical Associates, Parallax, Hart Crowser, Areva and Resource Consultants. n Reporter Annette Cary can be reached at 582-1533 or via e-mail at acary@tri-cityherald.com. © 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 56 AP Wire: NNSA promises Los Alamos Lab employees jobs, benefits | 10/02/2004 | TRIBUNE STARS [http://www.sanluisobispo.com Associated Press LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - Employees of Los Alamos National Laboratory will keep their jobs, benefits and retirement, no matter who wins the bid to operate the lab, according to a federal agency. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced in April 2003 that the lab contract would be put up for bid and made a verbal commitment that the lab employees would retain the benefits offered by the University of California, the lab's current manager. The National Nuclear Security Administration confirmed the promise in writing Friday. According to the formal acquisition plan, a new operator must commit to "offer employment to all personnel employed by UC at the lab, with the exception of those senior management individuals identified by the offer, at comparable compensation packages." Employees also must get "a pension plan that maintains the benefit accrual terms and conditions of the current UC pension plan," and can apply their years of service under UC to the new employer. The new operator must also honor "any certified collective bargaining agents and their bargaining agreements." That will cover the Los Alamos employees who belong to the University Professional and Technical Employees union. Recently retired LANL employee Betty Gunther, a former union president, said the union was formed in 1997 and officially recognized by the lab in 2000. However, it hasn't held an employee election to gain a collective bargaining agreement. Gunther said employees will be relieved about the NNSA's requirements for the new contractor. "They will feel less in danger," she said. "Everybody figured they had to retire to save their retirement." The NNSA plan released Friday also outlined some other qualifications it will look for when the bidding for the new contract begins. The next operator will be expected to safeguard nuclear materials and information, recruit the best staff and scientists and maintain vigorous research and development and a "creative scientific culture." NNSA said it plans to have a draft request for proposals on the competition to run Los Alamos National Laboratory by the middle of this month. It will then provide a 30-day comment period to meet with companies and institutions who have expressed interest in operating the lab. It plans to make a final decision by July 1, 2005, so the next operator will have three months to transition to full control of the laboratory when the UC contract expires Sept. 30, 2005. UC has managed Los Alamos for the government since it was formed in 1943 to work on the atomic bomb, but in the wake of problems the Energy Department announced it would seek competitive bids when the current contract expires. Operations were temporarily shut down in July following the announcement that two computer disks believed to contain classified information had disappeared. Also in July, an intern was injured when she looked into a laser that was supposed to be turned off. University officials continue to consider whether to bid to continue operating Los Alamos. An advisory council recommended they find an industrial partner and compete for the job. ***************************************************************** 57 Tri-Valley Herald: Nuclear fuel's location unknown Article Last Updated: Saturday, October 02, 2004 - By Associated Press EUREKA -- Authorities are still trying to locate 4 pounds of radioactive nuclear fuel that went missing in June from a shuttered nuclear power plant near Eureka. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission met with Pacific, Gas &Electric Co. officials to discuss the status of the investigation at a public meeting Wednesday. "You have to exhaust all avenues to find it, and we expect you to continue searching for it," the commission's Bruce Mallet told PG representatives. Still unaccounted for are three pieces of a nuclear fuel rod that may be among hundreds placed in a deep storage pool at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant before it closed in 1976. Plant workers have been searching a pool where spent fuel is stored. The pool is 26-to-30 feet deep and measures 22-by-28 feet. About 390 used fuel assemblies are stored in the pool. So far, PG's search has yielded 40 fuel fragments, which are being analyzed to see if they match the missing pieces. Gregory Reuger, PG's chief nuclear officer at the plant, said documents give conflicting clues to the fuel's whereabouts. One set of records state the pieces were shipped while another states the shipment was canceled and the pieces placed back in the pool. Both the commission and PG representatives said they believe there's no public danger, that there's no chance the missing nuclear rods might have managed to get into the wrong hands. "We are confident that if the segments are not found in the pool, then they were transferred to a facility licensed to accept radioactive material," said the commission's Mark Satorius. ©2004 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 58 amarillo.com: Cold War Casualties: Waiting for word 10/03/04 Workers look to Pantex's past for answers to illness, death By JIM McBRIDE jim.mcbride@amarillo.com The Amarillo Globe-News Ted Shutt died waiting - just like he thought he would. Shutt, a soft-spoken man with a friendly smile, testified in an Amarillo public hearing four years ago that he retired from his Pantex job healthy as a horse. But soon afterward, doctors cut a cancerous lobe from his lung. In March, the former Pantex worker died after cancer spread throughout his body and took its deadly toll. Shutt, 68, left behind a wife, a son, a daughter and two grandchildren. Two years before his death, Shutt predicted he'd never hear the Labor Department's decision on whether 20 years of dismantling and assembling nuclear weapons caused the cancer that finally killed him. "I don't look to ever get anything but grief," Shutt said then. "Everybody who has filed a claim will probably be dead before they ever hear they've been denied." According to Labor Department records, one Pantex cancer claim has been paid and another 19 claims have been paid for chronic beryllium disease, a potentially fatal lung disease. But more than 480 Pantex workers haven't heard the last word on their claims. And many are critical of a program they see as slow to respond and mired in mind-numbing bureaucracy. Thousands of former Pantex production technicians were exposed to radiation and gritty, black radioactive dust while building and dismantling nuclear warheads, bombs and artillery shells during Pantex's Cold War heyday. Others developed lung problems from beryllium exposure. Protective clothing and worker radiation monitoring were largely non-existent during the Cold War, Shutt said in a 2002 interview. "I know the reason I had that mass in my lung is from that work out there," he said. "It felt like you worked in a coal mine. You had black in your nostrils. You would eat it, breathe it and everything else." Shutt's widow, Sue, said she, too, thinks Ted's cancer was caused by his years at Pantex. "I'm absolutely sure it was. In his family, there had never been any diagnosed cases of cancer," she said, still waiting for the Labor Department's decision on Ted's cancer claim. "He felt like Pantex thought they were dispensable, that all they wanted was production during the Cold War and that if guys got ill, they could just hire more." Former production technician Robert Tolley, who worked with Ted Shutt, started at Pantex in 1958 and said employee radiation monitoring was lax or non-existent then. "When I first went to work out there, there was nothing to monitor any radiation," he said. "They kind of had classes on it, but more or less they told you that you don't get enough to hurt you." Protective clothing consisted of coveralls back in Pantex's early days. Workers didn't wear respirators or masks. The plant gave employees underwear that the plant washed to keep them from carrying radioactive contamination back to their homes. And many production technicians were caked with radioactive dust after their Pantex workday was done, Tolley said. "You'd go in there with a pair of white socks on and when you went home they'd be black. You'd sneeze the black out of your head or blow your nose," he said. "Really, none of that serious monitoring took place until the early '90s." Radiation protection improved steadily during the years, Tolley said, particularly after several workers were exposed to tritium, a radioactive gas, during a May 1989 accident. Tolley now suspects that some workers were more susceptible to radiation effects than others. "There have been several people that I worked with that have died from cancer. You don't know why. You've got your suspicions," he said. "It got them and it didn't get me, and we worked right alongside each other." He remembers Ted Shutt as a good worker who always seemed to be healthy and was eager to perform difficult tasks. Brenda Britten, another former Pantex worker, said Shutt, who retired from the Air Force before starting at Pantex, was proud of his country and serious about his job. When some other workers gabbed and gossiped after meetings, he talked about the work at hand or his family, Britten says. "When he walked down the ramp, he could have been in uniform," she remembers. "He carried himself with dignity." After Shutt retired, Britten said, she kept in touch with him and worried as his cancer progressed. Shutt, she said, was one of the first workers to fill out paperwork for the government's compensation program but lost faith in it as time went on. "I think he began to realize that his time ran out before theirs did," she said. Many former workers, Tolley said, have criticized the government's compensation program. "I have heard that there has been very little satisfaction with it. I've only heard of two, maybe three people who have received anything from those claims," Tolley said. Sue Shutt says Ted's death has devastated her family and Ted's grandchildren. Her husband, she said, loved them and doted over his grandchildren. "They still get pretty emotional even after a little over five months that their Paw Paw's gone," she says. "He was one of those rare men that you just don't meet every day. She worries others will think her greedy for seeking the government's payout but says Ted wanted her to have it if it comes. "I take it one day at a time because that's all I can do," she said. "Ted touched a lot of lives. ... I catch myself even now thinking I've got to hurry home to check on Ted. And then it dawns on me: Ted's not here." A Brief History In 2002, Congress approved a law to compensate nuclear weapons workers sickened by exposure to radiation, silica or beryllium. Eligible workers can receive a $150,000 lump sum and medical expenses. In some cases, their survivors also are eligible to receive a government check. Government officials in the program say they are working as rapidly as possible to process worker claims. This is the first installment in a series examining the issue, including stories of three Pantex workers who died before their claims could be processed. [http://www.amarillo.com/] ***************************************************************** 59 amarillo.com: Scientists look for pieces to radiation puzzle 10/03/04 By JIM McBRIDE jim.mcbride@amarillo.com The Amarillo Globe-News For decades, employee radiation monitoring at the Pantex Plant and other weapons production sites often was a secondary concern as workers churned out thousands of nuclear warheads, bombs and artillery shells. But in April 2000, then Energy Secretary Bill Richardson reversed the government's long-standing policy of opposing employees' claims that work-related exposures to radioactive and toxic materials were killing or sickening them by the thousands. "We are moving forward to do the right thing by these workers," Richardson said as he announced government plans to begin compensating sick workers and their survivors. "The men and women who served our nation in the nuclear weapons industries of World War II and the Cold War labored under dangerous conditions with some of the most hazardous materials known to mankind." Now, medical investigators reviewing nuclear worker health issues are piecing together a puzzle with missing pieces as they try to sort out thousands of employee claims. Much of the key work is done by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. There, researchers must pore over worker radiation exposure documents or estimate worker radiation doses when accurate records are unavailable. "Essentially our guys go to the extra mile in the absence of records or exposure measures," said NIOSH spokesman Fred Blosser. Dr. Larry Elliott, who heads up NIOSH's Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, says his agency wants to help workers or their survivors through the claims process, one he knows is often complex and frustrating. "We're doing our very best," Elliott says. "'We're as claimant-favorable as we can be, we're bringing the best available science to bear, and trying to provide a decision for them. I know they are not going to like the decision in some cases, but we think the decision is accurate." Investigators at NIOSH receive a claimant's request from the Labor Department and then ask Energy Department officials for a worker's original dosimetry badge, which measured the worker's radiation dose. "We prefer to use original badge data or bioassay results. We don't ask the Department of Energy to provide us annual summary data. We want the individual badge results or bioassay data," Elliott says. "We have to verify the integrity and the credibility of the data." The agency also wants to know how and when the original badge data was collected. Workers decades ago may not have been monitored for different types of radiation because the technical know-how wasn't available, Elliott said. "We factor in what might not have been monitored for or what might have been missed," Elliott said. Years ago, record-keeping procedures for Pantex workers were limited, and government officials acknowledge not all employees were monitored. "They only monitored a select few and then applied that dose to everybody else," Elliott said. "We look at that as well and try to factor in what the uncertainty is associated with assigning dose versus actually monitoring the person for their dose." Researchers must develop an annual dose estimate for each claimant. If the worker is still alive, medical investigators interview them. But if the person has died, researchers turn to co-workers or survivors to gather anecdotal information about possible work-related exposures. "We want to hear their story. We want to know what kind of exposures they encountered that may not have been recorded in any record anywhere," Elliott said. That estimate is sent to the claimant in the form of a dose reconstruction report. Workers or their survivors then may review a draft dose reconstruction report and comment on it. If the claimant has no questions or does not contest the report, they sign it so it can be forwarded to the Labor Department. In cancer cases, the Labor Department's standard for compensating workers is "at least likely as not" that an employee's cancer was caused by their weapons work. The standard means that there must be a greater than 50 percent likelihood that the worker's cancer was work-related. "In dose reconstruction, we use a variety of information from personal dose all the way to source term - what type of radiation was in the plant and how much of it," he said. For some workers, reviewers may not be able to glean enough information to make an accurate dose reconstruction. A federal rule enacted in May allows such workers to petition to be added to a "special exposure cohort." "If they file a claim while being a member of the special exposure cohort, and in their claim they have one of 22 cancers, then that cancer is presumed to be caused by their radiation exposure at work," Elliott said. "If they have a cancer that is not one of the 22, and we say we can't do dose reconstruction, then they are without remedy." Different types of cancer, Elliott said, are known to be radiogenic, potentially caused by radiation exposure. Lung cancer or leukemias are considered radiogenic - more likely to be caused by radiation exposure - but other cancers, such as prostate cancer, are less likely to have been caused by radiation, he said. "We want to be claimant favorable. Where science fails us, we give benefit of the doubt to the claimant. If we can help the claimant out and get them over the compensation bar, great," he said. [http://www.amarillo.com/] ***************************************************************** 60 Paducah Sun: Honeywell reports advances since shutdown by toxic gas - [http://www.paducahsun.com/] Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com 270.575.8656 Friday, October 01, 2004 METROPOLIS, Ill. Since a Dec. 22 toxic gas release that threatened neighboring homes, Honeywell has made extensive improvements and made sure workers know they have authority to stop a job if it is unsafe, plant manager Rory O'Kane said. "I think there are a number of indicators that show we're a safer, more responsible operation that we were a year ago," he said Thursday during a public meeting led by senior Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials. Attending were about 20 people, including plant neighbors and community emergency response personnel. Honeywell has upgraded equipment, procedures, training, emergency systems and virtually all other aspects of the factory, largely through the work of 350 employees whose commitment "speaks volumes," O'Kane said. The corporation is spending nearly $7.5 million this year on improved technology — the largest expenditure since the 1970s — and will spend more than $10 million next year, O'Kane said. "This plant is here to stay," he said. "The company is investing these kinds of dollars because (its executives) want the plant to work." Having hired 35 employees this year, Honeywell expects to increase production of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) by late this year to a level higher than it was before the UF6 release. Despite the increase, the plant recently celebrated a full year without a lost-workday injury and is on pace to have its safest year since the plant opened in 1958, O'Kane said. A long-term improvement plan will be submitted to the NRC by early next year in advance of the plant's license renewal in June, O'Kane said. The NRC has repeatedly inspected the plant since the release and noted considerable improvements, said William Travers, Region II administrator. There were no violations in a June inspection and two violations of the lowest severity in August. Another inspection will take place within three months. Previously, the NRC said Honeywell "took prompt and comprehensive corrective actions, exceeding those actually required" following the release. The plant did not face any civil penalties. Four people were hospitalized as a result of vapors that escaped from the plant on U.S. 45 North, and more than two dozen others were evacuated from nearby homes. NRC inspectors said Honeywell employees reconfigured the fluorination system without detailed instructions, which caused the leak. Also, the plant failed to implement some parts of its emergency response plan and did not provide sufficient information to local emergency responders. The plant voluntarily shut down for four months to make improvements, including a greater number of community warning sirens and an automated phone system that in an emergency calls people living within 1.3 miles of the center of the plant notification zone. The system calls nearest residents first and works outward, dialing 250 numbers per minute. Honeywell activates it by dialing an 800 number. ***************************************************************** 61 PE.com: Group remembers fight against 'the pits' | Inland Southern California | Inland News 25TH ANNIVERSARY: The event commemorates the start of the effort to clean up Stringfellow. 01:50 AM PDT on Sunday, October 3, 2004 By JENNIFER BOWLES / The Press-Enterprise Only at a dinner marking the 25th anniversary of a small community rising up to protect itself from the Inland region's most notorious toxic dump would the floral centerpieces proclaim: "It's the pits." Some 160 people gathered Saturday night at the Riverside Convention Center to recall the fight against the Stringfellow acid pits, a dumping ground in northwest Riverside County for nearly 35 million gallons of liquid toxic waste - including pesticides, industrial solvents, heavy metals and cancer-causing chemicals - that was closed in 1972. Heavy flooding in 1978 caused the state, fearing a break in a dam that held back the pollution, to release nearly a million gallons of the waste. It washed through Glen Avon and near a school. The pits were blamed for polluting the air, the streets and the groundwater used for drinking. The community rose up in the late 1970s and convinced the state that the pits were a problem that needed cleaning up, helping in 1982 to list it as the Inland region's first federal Superfund site. Annette Merha, now 20, remembered being bathed with bottled water in the kitchen as a young child and tagging along with her activist parents on protests. Like other residents, she suffered illnesses they attributed to the pollution. "I don't put anything past being connected to it. You never really know. But there's really nothing you can do about it but bear it and live your life," said Merha, a student at Concordia University in Irvine who attended the dinner with her parents. While those attending included attorneys, activists and Glen Avon residents, others came out of curiosity. "I'm interested in the history and all that evolved from a policy standpoint and the sort of groundbreaking battle that culminated in a Supreme Court case," said Nancy White, a retired schoolteacher from Redlands. "There's a lot of really brave people who worked for generations to come." The Supreme Court case in 1992 allowed a lawsuit against the polluters to go forward. It ended in 1994 with the jury ruling in favor of the residents, but awarded damages of less than $200,000. Many commuters drive within a mile of the Stringfellow acid pits as they pass the Pyrite Street exit on the 60 freeway. There, the pits sit nestled in a canyon in the Jurupa Mountains, capped and flanked by channels to prevent rain from spreading any more pollution. The state has dozens of wells that pump up and treat water in a six-mile plume that is contaminated with the Stringfellow pollution. The state is also devising ways to attack perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel linked to thyroid problems that was discovered in the groundwater in 2001. Reach Jennifer Bowles at (951) 368-9548 or [jbowles@pe.com] More headlines... | [http://www.pe.com/about/aboutus.html] [http://www.belointeractive.com] ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************