*****************************************************************
10/24/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.254
*****************************************************************
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 Xinhuanet: Former Iranian president criticises EU nuclear proposal
2 UK Independent: Britain over case for war
3 Canadian press: US Attack on IRAN 'Imminent'
4 HindustanTimes: Israel has not ruled out attack against Iran's nuke
5 BBC: Nuclear offer fails to sway Iran
6 Khaleej Times Online: Senior Iran MP says EU nuclear demands unaccep
7 Aljazeera: Iran: European nuclear demands “unacceptable” -
8 Korea Herald: N.K. may have 2 nuke bombs - minister
9 SF Chron: North Korea calls Powell's Asia trip a 'sleight of hand' w
10 WP: Powell Stresses 'Urgency' of Talks With North Korea
11 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: How the 6-nation talks on North Korea came to
12 US: Do Bush voters want nuclear holocaust? by Carol Wolman, MD
13 US: RGJ: Q & A with John Kerry
14 US: Democrat & Chronicle: WXXI picketers knock media
15 US: WorldNetDaily: What's a neo-crazy to do?
16 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear weapons research today means testing
17 US: The Scientist:: New President, Please
18 US: PittsburghLIVE.com: Rice assesses a troubled world -
19 US: CBS 2 - New York News: Rooney: Too Many Weapons?
20 UK The Times: Tycoon foils ‘nuclear bomb sale’ plot
21 UK The Times: CIA and Britain monitored Mao’s nuclear secrets
22 Daily Times: More Indian scientists could face US sanctions
23 Guardian Unlimited: U.N.: Arms Expert Warning Had Bad Premise
24 Daily Times: Nuclear scientist’s detention extended
25 Daily Times: India will not pass on nuclear technology, says Singh
26 Hi Pakistan: Singh urges West to remove blocks on N-tech transfer
27 IAEA: Upgrade of IAEA Safeguards Computer System
NUCLEAR REACTORS
28 US: [NukeNet] NRC takes dirty-bomb data off Web site
29 1800 Injured As 6.8 Quake Hits Japan: Nuke Power Plants A Major Con
30 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo open mike planned
31 UK The Times: Economic Outlook: David Smith: The signposts point to
32 JOURNAL NEWS: Labor dispute settled at Indian Point
33 l'express dimanche: Nuclear is back (a bit)
34 US: Salt Lake Tribune: N-plants being relicensed at record rates
35 EI: India a responsible nuclear power, ‘artificial restrictions’ una
36 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Licensing board wraps up VY hearing
37 US: Boston.com: Diversified energy options should include nuclear po
38 US: Quad-City Times: Q-C nuclear plant tightens security
39 US: Quad-City Times: Guarding the gate at Cordova
40 Guardian Unlimited: MEPs weigh up the 'nuclear option'
41 US: ONN: Barriers keep Ohio State reactor off limits to football cro
42 New Zealand News Gwynne Dyer: Warming world makes N-power look good
43 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria's Nuke Reloaded
44 US: Sun News: Agency: Water drop at nuclear station unusual
NUCLEAR SAFETY
45 US: Boeing 757 wouldn't have released radiation found at Pentagon,
46 DU Has Killed 109 Italian Soldiers!
47 Japan Times: Activist arrested for unauthorized pill sales
48 US: AFP: US Navy commissions first in new class of attack submarines
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
49 Las Vegas RJ: CABINET DEPARTMENTS: Political travel alleged
50 US: New Vision online: Uranium existence confirmed
51 RGJ: Kerry declares “Not on my watch;” says Bush lied about Yucca Mt
52 RGJ: Candidates deadlocked in Nevada
53 Japan Times: Atomic commission votes to continue policy of reprocess
54 US: NewsDay: Plan ignites debate over home-field advantage for Great
55 US: amarillo.com: Opinion: Texas shouldn't waste radioactive waste p
56 US: PE.com: Air Force clears March land that once held nuclear weapo
57 US: PE.com: Wyle lab building to be razed
58 Pahrump Valley Times: Open Meeting Law violated
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
59 amarillo.com: Some doubt claim by nuclear workers
OTHER NUCLEAR
60 [du-list] DU in the news - 24th Oct 04 (Part deux)
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Xinhuanet: Former Iranian president criticises EU nuclear proposal
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-24 00:54:14
TEHRAN, Oct. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani,
chairman of the Expediency Council of Iran, slammed Sunday a
European Union(EU) nuclear proposal, the official IRNA news
agency reported.
Rafsanjani, who was also the country's former president, made
the remarks at his meeting with South African Ambassador to
Tehran Yusuf Saloojee.
"Preventing Iran from producing its needed nuclear fuel can
serve as a black point in modern history," Rafsanjani was quoted
assaying.
"Depriving countries of their absolute rights and limiting
their use of modern technologies will endanger the future of the
world, "Rafsanjani said.
His criticism referred to a recent EU proposal by the
European trio, Germany, France and Britain, during Thursday's
nuclear negotiation with Iran in Vienna, in an attempt to
encourage Tehran to halt its fuel cycle work.
"We call on all countries, particularly members of the
Non-Aligned Movement, to confront such flagrant act of cruelty,
"Rafsanjani said.
He said the international efforts and wise solutions without
discrimination were among proper measures to stop improper use of
nuclear power.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran will do its utmost to win the
world's confidence regarding the use of nuclear energy," he
added.
According to the proposal, Iran would get access to imported
nuclear fuel and other offers, including a light-water reactor,
in return for a complete suspension of its uranium
enrichment-related activities.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said earlier
Sunday that the EU proposal was "unacceptable" and "unbalanced".
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last month
adopted a resolution, urging Iran to suspend all uranium
enrichment-related activities and fully cooperate with inspectors
to clear up all related issues.
The resolution set Nov. 25 as the deadline for Iran's nuclear
case. If Iran fails to satisfy the IAEA before this date, its
case may be referred to the United Nations Security Council for
possible sanctions.
The resolution was criticized and rejected by Iran, which
termed it as "illegal".
Tehran has been denying the US accusation of developing
nuclear weapons, asserting that this accusation is politically
motivated and Iran's nuclear research is fully peaceful. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
2 UK Independent: Britain over case for war
By Andrew Grice and Colin Brown
23 October 2004
Tony Blair deliberately misled Parliament and the public over
Saddam Hussein's weapons in an attempt to justify the war in
Iraq, the former cabinet minister Clare Short claims in her new
book.
Ms Short, who saw the detailed intelligence reports on Iraq's
arsenal, does not blame the security services for the failure to
find WMD but criticises the "spin" put on their findings by
Downing Street. Her severe criticism will add to the pressure on
the Prime Minister, who has apologised for the intelligence
reports but refuses to admit he took Britain to war on a false
prospectus.
Mr Blair faced a fresh Iraq crisis last night as the British aid
chief being held hostage was shown in a new videotape pleading
tearfully with the Prime Minister not to send troops to Baghdad.
Margaret Hassan, director of Care International in Iraq, wept as
she said she did not want to die like the beheaded engineer, Ken
Bigley.
She said: "These might be my last hours. Please help me. Please,
the British people, ask Mr Blair to take the troops out of Iraq,
and not to bring them here to Baghdad."
Ms Short's allegation against Mr Blair's integrity is made in her
book being serialised in The Independent. The former minister
says she saw the intelligence reports on Iraq's alleged arsenal
as International Development Secretary.
In An Honourable Deception?, Ms Short alleges that Mr Blair
deliberately misled the country - a charge which would, if
proven, force him to resign. Rejecting the findings of the Butler
inquiry that the Prime Minister acted in good faith, she says: "I
am afraid it is clear that the Prime Minister did knowingly
mislead."
Ms Short, who met intelligence chiefs and received written
briefings from them, says that "they never suggested something
new had happened that created a risk that had to be dealt with
urgently". She writes: "Our agencies, who told me they had much
better information from Iraq than did the US, were clear that
Saddam Hussein was dedicated to having WMD and was hiding
material from the UN, but the exaggeration of the immediacy of
the threat came from the political spin put on the intelligence
and not from the intelligence itself."
At the same time as "media spin" suggested there was a high risk
from Iraq's weapons, Ministry of Defence intelligence experts
were saying that their use was "unlikely". MI6 told her on the
eve of war that they were "extremely unlikely" to be used.
Ms Short, who resigned from the Cabinet after the war, claims
that even some Blair loyalists had doubts on the timing of the
war. Her diary reveals a discussion in the Cabinet in which Alan
Milburn, the Health Secretary at the time, and Estelle Morris,
the then Education Secretary, asked the "why now?" question,
saying: "Why him [Saddam]? What about the Palestinians?
Palestinians came up repeatedly and United Nations."
She suggests that Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and the
Chancellor, Gordon Brown, had doubts about Mr Blair's
"shoulder-to-shoulder" support for President George Bush. Her
diary records: "I asked Jack Straw if he trusted TB not to go
with the US outside the UN - he said no, but he was working on
it. I had a chat with GB - he stressed UN and Palestinians."
The book accuses Mr Blair of taking Britain to war on a
"pre-ordained timetable" which he had already agreed with Mr Bush
while denying publicly that any decision had been made.
Ms Short says that Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary,
told her after the war that the decision had been taken at least
seven months earlier. When she complained that the Cabinet had
taken no decisions on Iraq, she claims he replied "that there was
no point because the decision to go to war had been taken in
August [2002], if not earlier". She claims Sir Andrew told her
"that Blair had given his commitment to be totally with the US in
August or before".
She discloses that Gordon Brown told her in September 2002 "that
Number 10 had already asked Geoff Hoon [the Defence Secretary] to
make 20,000 troops available".
The former minister says there were two "massive failures" in
Iraq: the rush to war and "the almost criminally irresponsible
failure to prepare for the situation after an inevitably speedy
victory".
Ms Short's revelations emerged as Mr Blair faced a fresh claim of
misleading the Commons over the decision to send British troops
to reinforce American forces for the imminent assault on
Fallujah.
The Prime Minister told MPs earlier this week that the Black
Watch would be "home for Christmas". But yesterday the Chief of
Defence Staff, General Sir Michael Walker, said other British
troops are likely to stay in the American-controlled area of Iraq
into the new year.
MPs claimed this had "blown apart" the assurances that it would
be a limited deployment, and raised fears that Britain will get
sucked into the war as the violence intensifies in the run-up to
the January elections in Iraq.
UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
3 Canadian press: US Attack on IRAN 'Imminent'
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:03:15 -0500 (CDT)
http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node.php?id=18591
US Attack on IRAN 'Imminent"
Wayne Madsen, vendredi, 22/10/2004 - 14:08
According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush
administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to
Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on
Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian
Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main
underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan.
Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom,
and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.
The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling
indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist
attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a
landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid
concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would
concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential
election.
According to White House sources, the USS John F. Kennedy was deployed
to the Arabian Sea to coordinate the attack on Iran. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld discussed the Kennedy's role in the planned attack on Iran when he
visited the ship in the Arabian Sea on October 9. Rumsfeld and defense
ministers of U.S. coalition partners, including those of Albania, Azerbaijan,
Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iraq,
Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Poland, Qatar, Romania, and Ukraine
briefly discussed a very "top level" view of potential dual-track military
operations in Iran and Iraq in a special "war room" set up on board the
aircraft carrier. America's primary ally in Iraq, the United Kingdom, did not
attend the planning session because it reportedly disagrees with a military
strike on Iran. London also suspects the U.S. wants to move British troops
from Basra in southern Iraq to the Baghdad area to help put down an expected
surge in Sh'ia violence in Sadr City and other Sh'ia areas in central Iraq
when the U.S. attacks Iran as well as clear the way for a U.S. military strike
across the Iraqi-Iranian border aimed at securing the huge Iranian oil
installations in Abadan. U.S. allies South Korea, Australia, Kuwait, Jordan,
Italy, Netherlands, and Japan were also left out of the USS John F. Kennedy
planning discussions because of their reported opposition to any strike on
Iran.
In addition, Israel has been supplied by the United States with 500
"bunker buster" bombs. According to White House sources, the Israeli Air Force
will attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr with the U.S. bunker
busters.The joint U.S.-Israeli pre-emptive military move against Iran
reportedly was crafted by the same neo-conservative grouping in the Pentagon
and Vice President Dick Cheney's office that engineered the invasion of Iraq.
Morale aboard the USS John F. Kennedy is at an all-time low, something
that must be attributable to the knowledge that the ship will be involved in
an extension of U.S. military actions in the Persian Gulf region. The
Commanding Officer of an F-14 Tomcat squadron was relieved of command for a
reported shore leave "indiscretion" in Dubai and two months ago the Kennedy's
commanding officer was relieved for cause.
The White House leak about the planned attack on Iran was hastened by
concerns that Russian technicians present at Bushehr could be killed in an
attack, thus resulting in a wider nuclear confrontation between Washington and
Moscow. International Atomic Energy Agency representatives are also present at
the Bushehr facility. In addition, an immediate Iranian Shahab ballistic
missile attack against Israel would also further destabilize the Middle East.
The White House leaks about the pre-emptive strike may have been prompted by
warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that an attack on
Iran will escalate out of control. Intelligence circles report that both
intelligence agencies are in open revolt against the Bush White House.
White House sources also claimed they are "terrified" that Bush wants to
start a dangerous war with Iran prior to the election and fear that such a
move will trigger dire consequences for the entire world.
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and
columnist. He served in the National Security Council (NSA) during the Reagan
Administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the
co-author, with john Stanton of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George
Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops,
and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at Wmadsen777@aol.com
*****************************************************************
4 HindustanTimes: Israel has not ruled out attack against Iran's nuke facilities
HindustanTimes.com
Press Trust of India Washington, October 23
Israel has not ruled out a military strike against Iran's uranium
enrichment facilities in the event of failure of diplomatic means
to persuade Tehran to dismantle them, senior military officials
and analysts said.
Israel would prefer a diplomatic agreement to shut down Iran's
uranium enrichment programme, but if Tehran was approaching a
"point of no return", it would not be deterred by the difficulty
of a military operation, a media report said on Saturday quoting
officials.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his top aides have been asserting
for months that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a clear threat to
Israel's national security and existence in the highly-volatile
region.
They have repeatedly threatened, in elliptical but unmistakable
terms, to use force if diplomacy and the threat of sanctions
fail.
"All options" were being weighed to prevent Iran from achieving
nuclear weapons capability, Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz was
quoted as saying by the local media, while his Army Chief of
Staff Moshe Yaalon declared that "We will not rely on others,"
the Los Angeles Times reported.
Iran presents "a combination of factors that rise to the highest
level of Israeli threat perception," the report quoted Gerald
Steinberg of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies as
saying.
Israel's concerns are magnified by the fact that Iran already
possesses the medium-range Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of
reaching Israel with either a conventional or non-conventional
warhead. Iran said this week that it had test-fired an upgraded,
more accurate version of the missile.
[salil@hindustantimes.com]
[http://www.hindustantimes.com]
*****************************************************************
5 BBC: Nuclear offer fails to sway Iran
Last Updated: Sunday, 24 October, 2004
[A general view of Iran's first nuclear reactor, being built in
Bushehr]
Iran denies it wants to build nuclear weapons
Iran has described as "unbalanced" a European offer of trade
concessions and nuclear technology in return for the suspension
of uranium enrichment.
But an Iranian spokesman said Tehran would continue to discuss
the proposal made by Britain, France and Germany.
The UN's nuclear agency, the IAEA, has given Iran until the end
of November to suspend its enrichment programme.
Iran says the programme is purely for peaceful purposes, but the
US accuses it of developing nuclear weapons.
Enriched uranium can be used for weapons as well as fuel.
Difficult compromise
"The European proposal is their preliminary proposition and is
not definitive, but it is unbalanced," Foreign Ministry spokesman
Hamid Reza Assefi said.
He said negotiations were continuing and would resume on
Wednesday with Iran putting forward counterproposals.
Mr Assefi said the Europeans had not asked for a lasting and
unlimited suspension of enrichment, but if they did it would be
out of the question.
The BBC's Frances Harrison in Teheran says it is hard to see how
a compromise can be reached without addressing the enrichment
issue once and for all, but it may be a question of finding the
right wording to allow Iranian negotiators to sell the deal to
their own people.
The European proposal asks Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment
activities in return for incentives and alternative nuclear
technology such as a light-water reactor, according to leaked
reports.
Closed-door talks between the three European countries and Iran,
took place earlier this week in Vienna, in what an Iranian
spokesman described as a good atmosphere.
European diplomats have said that if Iran rejects the deal, most
EU countries would back US proposals for the UN Security Council
to impose economic sanctions on Iran.
So far, two years of investigation by the IAEA have turned up no
hard evidence of an Iranian weapons programme.
*****************************************************************
6 Khaleej Times Online: Senior Iran MP says EU nuclear demands unacceptable
[http://www.khaleejtimes.com/
(AFP)
23 October 2004
TEHERAN - A senior MP on Saturday branded as inacceptable
Europe’s call for Iran to halt all uranium enrichment activities
in return for receiving certain nuclear technology, in Tehran’s
first reaction to the proposal.
“The European proposal is an excessive demand that is contrary
to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and unacceptable,”
Alaeddin Brujerdi, head of parliament’s national security and
foreign policy committee, told conservative newspaper Ressalat.
Britain, France and Germany presented Iran Thursday with a deal
to receive valuable nuclear technology if the Islamic republic
indefinitely suspended all uranium enrichment activities,
according to a document prepared by the Europeans.
Thursday’s meeting was to give Iran a last chance to come clean
before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decides on
November 25 whether Iran is cooperating with the UN watchdog on
its nuclear activities.
The United States wants the IAEA, which since February 2003 has
been investigating US claims that Iran has a covert nuclear
weapons programme, to refer Iran to the UN Security Council,
which could impose sanctions.
Under the deal offered Thursday, Iran would receive technology
including including a light-water reactor, which would produce
less fissionable material than the heavy-water reactor Tehran is
planning to build.
Iran has insisted on its right to uranium enrichment, which
makes fuel for civilian reactors but can also manufacture the
explosive material for atomic bombs.
© 2004 Khaleej Times All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
7 Aljazeera: Iran: European nuclear demands “unacceptable” -
[http://www.aljazeera.com]
10/23/2004 12:30:00 PM GMT
The Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran.
A senior Iranian MP said Saturday that the European offer to
suspend all uranium enrichment activities in return for valuable
nuclear technology was “unacceptable”.
“The European proposal is an excessive demand that is contrary
to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and unacceptable,”
Alaeddin Brujerdi, head of parliament’s national security and
foreign policy committee, told Iranian Ressalat newspaper.
Britain, France and Germany proposed to Iran an offer to receive
valuable nuclear technology if Tehran halts all activities
related to the enrichment of uranium, according to a document
prepared by the Europeans.
Thursday’s meeting was seen as Iran’s last opportunity before the
November 25 deadline set by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).
According to the offer, Iran would receive technology including a
light-water reactor, which would produce less fissionable
material than the heavy-water reactor Tehran is planning to
construct.
The United States accuses Iran of covertly developing nuclear
weapons and wants the IAEA, which had been investigating U.S.
allegations that Iran has a secret nuclear arms program, to send
Iran’s file to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Iran denies the U.S. claims and insists that it has a right to
enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
Europe, Iran to meet again next week
Europe's “Big Trio” are expected to meet with Iranian officials
next week to hear Tehran’s response to their nuclear offer,
diplomats said Friday.
In Berlin, Foreign Ministry spokesman Walter Lindner said that
Germany wanted Iran to be given every available chance to resume
talks with Europe until November 25.
"Yes, it will be in Vienna, probably in mid-week," a diplomat
familiar with the negotiations said.
He added that the meeting had a tough start as the Iranians were
"aggressive. They were a little bit recriminatory saying 'you let
us down, you betrayed us."
The three European countries had reached a deal with Iran in
October 2003 to freeze uranium enrichment in return for receiving
technology transfers.
But the agreement has soured with the Europeans demanding Iran to
suspend all enrichment activities, including making centrifuges
and the feed gas for the centrifuges which refine the uranium.
Iran says that such support activities were not included in the
deal.
One diplomat said that the Europeans had presented their
four-page offer "and pressed for full suspension."
"Iran's response was that the proposal was unbalanced and that
they would only agree to a temporary suspension since they would
do nothing that would cut off their right to enrich uranium," the
diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
The diplomat added that the Iranians were expected to come up
with a counter-proposal next week, which might call for them to
reap the incentives offered "the moment they say yes to
suspension, rather than waiting for a long-term agreement to be
worked out."
Copyright 2004 AlJazeera Publishing Limited
*****************************************************************
8 Korea Herald: N.K. may have 2 nuke bombs - minister
2004.10.25
2003-11-18 ±è´ë¸® ¼öÁ¤ -->
North Korea is thought to have at least one or two nuclear bombs,
Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung said Saturday.
¡°Our position is that North Korea extracted 10 to 14 kilograms
of plutonium in the early 1990s and possibly made one or two
nuclear bombs with the plutonium," Yoon told South Korean
correspondents here.
Yoon's comment reflects the official position of the U.S.
government on the North's possible possession of nuclear weapons,
although private and state-run think tanks in the United States
talk about the possibility of Pyongyang having made up to nine
nuclear weapons with the plutonium and enriched uranium it
secretly secured in recent years.
*****************************************************************
9 SF Chron: North Korea calls Powell's Asia trip a 'sleight of hand' with
U.S. election imminent
[http://www.sfgate.com/index/] ]
SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, October 23, 2004
(10-23) 09:59 PDT SEOUL, South Korea (AP) --
North Korea dismissed Secretary of State Colin Powell's Asian
trip as pre-U.S. election trickery Saturday and warned it will
double its nuclear deterrent force if Washington persists in
challenging the North's nuclear weapons programs.
Powell, en route to Japan, rejected Pyongyang's demands that the
United States "reward" the communist country before it will agree
to return to six-party discussions on its nuclear programs.
North Korea, which insists it needs a nuclear deterrent against a
U.S. invasion, said Saturday that talks can only recommence when
Washington drops its hostile policy toward it and promises a
"reward for freeze" on its nuclear activities.
"If the U.S. persistently pursues its confrontational hostile
policy toward the DPRK from the viewpoint of escapism, it will
only compel the DPRK to double its deterrent force, much less any
solution to the nuclear issue," Pyongyang's official Rodong
newspaper said, using the acronym for Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, the North's official name.
On his weekend trip, Powell intends to consult with Japan, China
and South Korea on how to assure the North that Washington is not
interested in attacking the country and how to revive the stalled
multilateral talks.
The six-party negotiations include the two Koreas, the United
States, Russia, China and Japan. Three rounds of talks, held in
Beijing, have yielded little progress. A fourth round was set for
September, but North Korea refused to attend.
The nuclear negotiations started after U.S. officials said North
Korea admitted to running a secret atomic program in violation of
international agreements. That prompted President Bush to say
North Korea was part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and prewar
Iraq.
Some U.S. intelligence analysts say North Korea may have up to
six nuclear weapons instead of the one or two the Central
Intelligence Agency estimates.
North Korea says it has several plutonium-based nuclear weapons
and denies U.S. allegations it has a secret uranium-based nuclear
weapons program.
On Saturday, Pyongyang sneered at Powell's trip, with a spokesman
from the North's Foreign Ministry describing Washington's
diplomatic effort as a "sleight of hand in the run-up to the
(U.S.) presidential elections."
The North also demands that the six-nation talks address its
allegations that South Korea may have been developing nuclear
weapons. Seoul denies the accusations, although it recently
admitted its scientists had conducted secret nuclear experiments
in the past.
"The resumption of the six-party talks depends on whether the
U.S. is ready to fully consider the demands raised by the DPRK,"
the Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
Washington has said it would provide economic benefits to the
North once Pyongyang has demonstrated a credible commitment to
permanent and verifiable disarmament.
The visit could well be Powell's last to East Asia, falling as it
does within two weeks of the U.S. presidential election. The
timing of his trip could be intended as an attempt to show
resolve on one of the U.S. government's most difficult foreign
policy issues.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry contends that
the government has mishandled the North Korean problem and should
have embraced former President Clinton's policy of direct talks
with Pyongyang rather than the six-nation talks.
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ |
*****************************************************************
10 WP: Powell Stresses 'Urgency' of Talks With North Korea
(washingtonpost.com)
By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 25, 2004; Page A12
TOYKO, Oct. 24 -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in Asia to
prod North Korea to return to talks on ending its nuclear
programs, said that although there is still time to resolve the
impasse, "there is a sense of urgency."
In a three-day swing through East Asian capitals, Powell is
seeking to persuade U.S. allies to put additional pressure on
North Korea. Japan's foreign minister, Nobutaka Machimura, told
reporters after meeting with Powell that Japan would use a
planned dialogue with North Korea next month on the subject of
abducted citizens to urge its return to the bargaining table.
[ BORDER=] Secretary of State Colin L. Powell bids farewell to
Japanese Foreign Minister Machimura in Tokyo. (Itsuo Inouye --
AP)
Even more critical to the effort is China, North Korea's main
benefactor. Powell arrived in Beijing on Sunday evening to
prepare for meetings with Chinese officials Monday.
Powell's deputy, Richard L. Armitage, bluntly told a Chinese
official in Washington recently that China needed to view itself
not as a mediator but as a participant in the effort against
North Korea, according to an official familiar with the
conversation.
In April, Vice President Cheney visited the region and declared
that "time is not necessarily on our side" in dealing with the
North Korean threat. He asserted that the Pyongyang government,
given its record, could peddle nuclear technology to terrorist
groups. Moreover, he warned that "we [may] have a nuclear arms
race unleashed in Asia."
Asked Sunday about Cheney's statement, Powell said: "We are not
out of time. . . . We are all pressing hard, there is a sense of
urgency. But President Bush has made it clear that he intends to
use diplomacy and political activity, working with our friends
and neighbors in a multilateral way, to solve this problem."
Yet, in an interview later with Japanese journalists, Powell
harshly criticized North Korea, calling it a "terrorist state"
for abducting Japanese citizens and saying it "shows a disrespect
for human rights."
Machimura said Japan was "very much concerned with reports and
views that the North Koreans have possibly established a nuclear
weapons program." But he rejected Cheney's notion of a nuclear
arms race, saying Japan's commitment to not possessing nuclear
weapons would not change, because the country is protected by a
U.S.-Japan mutual security treaty. He added that "we have had
some concrete discussions" about ballistic missile defense.
North Korea has refused to return to talks, last scheduled for
September. Many analysts say they believe the Pyongyang
government is waiting for the results of the U.S. presidential
election. But North Korea has also cited what it calls the Bush
administration's "hostile policy," pointing to a naval exercise
this week off the coast of Japan and Bush's signing of a bill
targeting North Korean human rights.
In the naval exercise, ships from the United States, Japan and
other countries will practice halting a vessel as if it contained
chemical weapons. The bill approved by Bush last week establishes
a special envoy for North Korean human rights and calls on the
administration to make human rights an issue in talks with the
Pyongyang government.
North Korea has complained bitterly about both issues, saying
U.S. actions have forced it to bolster its "nuclear deterrent."
Powell insisted that "neither of these actions are hostile
actions."
The Washington Post
Company: Information [http://washpost.com/] | Other Post Co.
*****************************************************************
11 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: How the 6-nation talks on North Korea came to be
[http://joongangdaily.joins.com]
Octorber 25, 2004 KST 12:14 (GMT+9)
4th in a series
October 25, 2004 ¤Ñ Two years ago almost to the date, as a new
nuclear crisis involving North Korea's arms development began to
grip the peninsula, a war of words broke out between the top
unification policymakers from Seoul and Pyeongyang.
Jeong Se-hyun, South Korea's unification minister at the time,
was in the North Korean capital, meeting with Kim Yong-nam,
chairman of the North's Supreme People's Assembly, who is
regarded as the country's head of the state.
Mr. Kim insisted discussions on nuclear arms control could only
take place between Washington and Pyeongyang and dismissed
Seoul's effort to involve itself.
But citing the inter-Korean accord of denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula, Mr. Jeong said pointedly that a program in the
North to enrich uranium was a clear violation of two Koreas'
agreement.
"We will raise this issue repeatedly, until the nuclear problem
is resolved," Mr. Jeong said. "North Korea had agreed to include
the principle of resolving the nuclear issues in the Pyeongyang
Declaration between North Korean and Japanese leaders [on Sept.
17, 2002]. How can you say that you cannot even discuss this
matter with the South?"
Mr. Kim replied the North was ready to solve the nuclear
standoff if the United States would drop policies Pyeongyang
considered hostile.
According to Seoul officials, Mr. Jeong originally intended to
meet with the North's top leader, Kim Jong-il. But the North
said the highest leader was not in town.
The ministerial talks bogged down with the North resisting any
accommodation. The three-night, four-day visit was prolonged by
a day and then on Oct. 23, the two Koreas issued a joint
statement.
Referring to the June 15, 2000, meeting between Kim Jong-il and
President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea, the statement said: "The
South and the North agreed to make common efforts to guarantee
peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, consistent with the
spirit of the June 15 Joint Declaration, and to actively
cooperate to resolve all problems through dialogue, including
the nuclear issue."
It was viewed by Seoul officials as a meaningful step, but the
declaration failed to include a promise from the North to
resolve the nuclear issue.
North talks to South
Still, North Korea, for the first time, had discussed nuclear
issues with the South and agreed to put the discussion's outcome
in writing. The ministerial talks also became recognized in the
international community as a path to address the nuclear crisis.
After the talks, North Korea's position on its highly enriched
uranium program became clearer. On Oct. 25, an official
statement from Pyeongyang was issued. The Foreign Ministry
pronouncement was similar to what North Korea's Kang Sok-ju had
told the U.S. envoy James Kelly three weeks before. The North
said its nuclear arms efforts were a response to hostile U.S.
policy. It claimed that the North could build nuclear weapons.
Pyeongyang said it was willing to resolve the issue through
talks and demanded a non-aggression treaty with Washington.
The statement effectively made public that the North was
engaged in a program to enrich uranium for arms purposes and
that it was willing to use it as a negotiating card.
The timing was sensitive, Seoul officials later said.
On Oct. 26, U.S. President George W. Bush and then-Chinese
President Jiang Zemin held a press conference at Mr. Bush's
ranch in Texas. Mr. Bush said the two countries would work to
see that the Korean Peninsula was free of nuclear arms. Mr.
Jiang also said the peninsula must be nuclear-free.
The United States now had the active participation of China in
the effort to resolve the nuclear threat in Korea. Beijing would
later support the U.S. position that the nuclear crisis was not
a bilateral issue between Pyeongyang and Washington, but a
multilateral problem concerning countries around the peninsula.
But Beijing took a lead role. "China hosted the three-way talks
with the United States and North Korea in 2003 and more sessions
of six-nation talks by bringing in the South, Japan and Russia,"
a South Korean official said. "That began from this summit."
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit followed on Oct.
27, 2002, in Mexico, and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung met
with his U.S. and Japanese counterparts.
South Korean officials said they were surprised because he
showed extreme caution. Instead of his well-known off-the-cuff
style of speaking, Mr. Kim calmly read a prepared statement. His
aides said that was rare.
Mr. Kim said South Korea would seek a peaceful resolution of the
matter, but it could not accept the North's a uranium-enrichment
program. The president called on the international community to
help remove one of the vestiges of the Cold War.
No U.S. threat
The United States, meanwhile, made clear that it had no
intention of invading North Korea. Mr. Bush said the peaceful
resolution of the crisis was in the mutual interests of China
and the United States.
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan said his country would
seek dialogue with Pyeongyang on its nuclear program while
holding out a carrot that talks could lead to the eventual
normalization of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
But he made clear better ties depended on resolving the nuclear
question.
The three leaders also issued a joint statement that they would
cooperate closely to end the crisis peacefully. Outcomes of
other international talks were similar. How the international
community would resolve this issue was roughly laid out only 10
days after it was revealed that North Korea had a clandestine
nuclear program.
Other steps followed quickly. Washington began considering
cutting its fuel aid to the North as U.S. officials said the
North would receive no rewards for bad behavior.
As Washington considered its moves against the North, tensions
began mounting on the Korean Peninsula.
by Oh Young-hwan, Jeong Yong-su myoja@joongang.co.kr>
[http://joongangdaily.joins.com/faq.html]
*****************************************************************
12 Do Bush voters want nuclear holocaust? by Carol Wolman, MD
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:52:43 -0700
Do Bush voters want nuclear holocaust?
Christian Bush voters see Bush in a Biblical context. They have a twisted
interpretation of prophecies about the end-time, in which Bush is carrying
out a heavenly mandate to rid the world of evil in preparation for the
Second Coming. In their scenario, life as we know it will end in a fiery
holocaust, which they call Armageddon. The Bush voters will be beamed up
to heaven via the Rapture, and the rest of us will perish in the lake of
fire, along with all the plants and animals on earth.
Meanwhile, it doesn't matter if they continue to drive their SUV's. It
doesn't matter that we are spreading hatred, fear and radioactive material
across the globe in order to maintain our own sense of specialness.
Bush's destructiveness is explained as a purification preparing for
Armageddon. His tax cuts for the rich are explained as rewarding of
righteousness- they help Bush, he helps them.
Jesus addressed this parable
to those who were convinced of their own righteousness
and despised everyone else...
whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Luke 18: 9, 14
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/102404.htm
The threat of nuclear holocaust does hang over us. Bush's policies are
driving us toward a fiery end. Kerry's policies would pull us back from
the brink, and reverse course.
Only the spiritual fire of Jesus Christ can defeat the forces of
destruction, and prevent the material fire of nuclear war. If Bush is not
Christ's agent, Bush must be serving the other guy, the man of
lawlessness. He certainly acts as though he is above the law.
I'm not the one who put the Bible at the center of this election, but as
long as it is, let's label people correctly. If Bush voters understood
that he is serving Satan, he would lose the election, no matter how many
dirty tricks his party pulls. You can't hide a landslide.
Bush calls himself the war president. Jesus is the Prince of Peace.
In His name, Carol Wolman
*****************************************************************
13 RGJ: Q & A with John Kerry
||| Home [http://www.rgj.com/] | ||| List of
Q &A with John Kerry Senator cites stand on mining, Yucca
Anjeanette Damon [adamon@rgj.com] RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
10/22/2004 11:44 pm
U.S. Sen. John Kerry sat down with the Reno Gazette-Journal and
the Las Vegas Review-Journal for a short interview after his
speech Friday. The following are excerpts from that interview.
How would you raise the $600 million for your parks program out
of the mining industry? (Kerry has proposed raising $600 million
to improve the country’s national parks by reforming the 1872
Mining Law. Republicans have accused Kerry of proposing an 8
percent royalty fee to mine public lands. Kerry has never
proposed that specific figure.)
We have to look at how we are going to go about reforming the
mining act. The mining association has said it needs to be
updated. The Bush administration said it needs to be updated.
What I intend to do is work with the mining association, to work
with Harry Reid and to take a look at it. We may not be able to
get that amount out of it. We may have to do it through other
means, also. But I’m not going to lose jobs and I have no
intention of raising it 8 percent. I have no idea where that
comes from. I don’t have any percentage in mind, none, at all.
What I intend to do is sit down with folks and see what steps we
need to take to update this. This is a pretty generally accepted
principal that the law needs updating. How you do it is up to
being reasonable and finding the common ground.
You obviously made some comments about Yucca Mountain in your
speech, but sometimes poll results suggest maybe the public isn’t
as concerned in Nevada about that issue as they are about other
issues.
I’m just giving a position. I spent three minutes on that. I
spent a lot of other time on health care, education and national
security, jobs and the other issues. I think I have a better
program across the board. Nevada depends on tourism and people
have to have money in their pockets to be tourists. The income of
Americans has gone down under George Bush. Jobs have gone down
under George Bush — 1.6 million jobs lost. I have a better plan
for our economy. Number one, I will restore fiscal
responsibility. Number two, a lot of folks in Nevada are retired.
They depend on social security. George Bush is going to blow a
hole a mile wide in social security. It is his plan to privatize
it. He has never shown America where he gets $2 trillion to make
up the difference of letting people go out and invest in the
stock market. Third, a lot of Nevadans don’t have any health
care. A lot of them have lost it. The fact is I have a plan to
provide affordable health care to Nevadans. Finally I will make
America safer. North Korea is more threatening today than it was
before. George Bush has allowed that to happen. His foreign
policy has been reckless. I think I have a much better program on
every issue that matters to Nevada.
What’s your plan if this election goes to the courts?
It’s not going to go to the courts. We are going to win this
election and I don’t think it is going to go to the courts. The
American people will come out in record numbers and they are
going to decide this election. I want to guarantee, that anybody
that is worried about voting, we have 10,000 lawyers that are
part of the team nationally that are guaranteeing that people are
going to vote. That is why I’m very confident, because we put
together ahead of time the legal team necessary to guarantee
people’s rights to vote. And that’s why I believe it won’t go to
the courts.
You’re spending a lot of time out West in this election, what are
you going to do in the last few days to convince people in these
states that they should go your way with their electoral votes?
I am just going to look people in the eye and tell them the
truth. George Bush has the worst jobs records of 70 years and I
can do a better job of putting America back to work. And I will
restore fiscal responsibility. George Bush has blown it out of
the door. The fact is he got rid of the pay-as-you-go rule. He’s
built the biggest deficit in American history by giving wealthy
Americans the tax breaks. The question for people of Nevada is do
you want a president who is always siding with the wealthiest
people or do you want somebody who can champion the middle class
and fights for fairness, helps kids go to college, helps mothers
taking care of their kids with child care, provides health care
to Americans. That is the choice in this race.
Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.
*****************************************************************
14 Democrat & Chronicle: WXXI picketers knock media
Sunday, October 24, 2004 [Rochester, NY]
Staff reports
(October 23, 2004) A handful of people protested outside WXXI
Public Broadcasting on Friday, saying its stations and other
media outlets have failed to properly cover the military's use of
depleted uranium weapons.
Some veterans and other critics say shells made with depleted
uranium, used in Iraq and Afghanistan, pose a grave health risk
to troops and civilians.
The Defense Department, in a number of studies, says soldiers
have not been put at risk by the munitions, which can leave
radioactive residue when they explode.
Jim Barlow of Hilton, who organized the protest, which drew three
other supporters, said the commercial media has given the issue
short shrift.
He chose to picket WXXI's State Street office because he believes
publicly funded WXXI has a greater responsibility to report on
issues of public interest.
"This is the first place we look to for the full story," he said.
[http://www.democratandchronicle.com
Copyright 2004 Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.
*****************************************************************
15 WorldNetDaily: What's a neo-crazy to do?
[WorldNetDaily]
SATURDAY OCTOBER 23 2004
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
John Kerry has declared nuke proliferation to be the single most
serious threat to our national security and has essentially
accused Bush of making that threat worse by his actions with
respect to North Korea, Iraq and Iran and by his undermining of
the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The NPT entered into force in 1970, and at the 1995 Review
Conference the parties to the NPT decided that the treaty would
remain in force indefinitely.
As of Bush's inauguration, of the 182 signatories to the NPT that
had foresworn nukes, perhaps 30 were actually deemed
technologically capable of producing nukes within a short time
after withdrawing from the NPT.
That's because, in return for their forbearance, the NPT
recognizes their "inalienable right" to enjoy all the benefits of
"nuclear energy" applied for peaceful purposes.
To prevent non-peaceful applications of those shared benefits,
the NPT established a "safeguards" regime to be administered by
the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA.
Iran began exercising its "inalienable right" while the Shah was
in power. However, since his fall, the United States – in
violation of its NPT commitments – has been attempting to keep
all other NPT signatories from honoring theirs.
Now that Iran has signed an Additional Protocol to their
Safeguards Agreement, the IAEA has the authority to go anywhere
and inspect any activity to ensure that Iran has actually made
all NPT-proscribed materials, equipment and activities subject to
their Safeguards Agreement.
Were the IAEA inspectors to report to the IAEA Board of Governors
that they had evidence that Iran was employing – as the
neo-crazies allege – certain proscribed materials and equipment
in non-peaceful applications, then the IAEA board could deem that
employment to be a violation of the NPT and refer the matter to
the U.N. Security Council for possible action.
To the dismay of the neo-crazies, the IAEA inspectors have found
no such evidence and have made no such reports. In fact, the IAEA
inspectors have reported to the IAEA board that several alleged
NPT "violations" have been resolved in Iran's favor, including
the laser enrichment experiments, the uranium conversation
experiments and the sources of the trace amounts of enriched
uranium found on imported equipment.
Drat! No evidence, no report to the IAEA board. No report, no
IAEA referral to the Security Council. No referral, no Security
Council sanctions – or worse – applied to Iran.
What's a poor neo-crazy to do?
Well, how about "end-running" the NPT?
You see, irrespective of any treaty, the U.N. Charter empowers
the Security Council to determine whether a nation-state's
actions or activities pose a threat to international peace – or
constitutes an act of aggression – and to decide what measures
should be taken – including military action by member states – to
maintain or restore international peace and security.
In 1991, Bush the Elder got the Security Council to determine
that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait constituted an act of aggression
and to authorize Kuwait and other member states – such as the
United States – to employ "all necessary means" to restore peace
and security to the Persian Gulf region.
In 2002, Bush the Younger tried to get the Security Council to
determine that Iraq had – or soon would have – nukes and,
therefore, posed a threat to international peace. Bush failed to
get a Security Council resolution to employ "all necessary means"
to maintain the peace because the U.N. inspectors reported
directly to the Security Council that they could find no evidence
that Saddam was a threat and that he had made no effort since
1991 to even develop a capability to produce nukes or chembio
weapons.
Now, in 2004, having failed to get the IAEA board to refer Iran's
alleged "violations" of the NPT to the Security Council for
possible action, Bush the Younger intends to bring Iran's alleged
nuke programs before the Security Council directly, hoping for a
determination that Iran poses a threat to international peace,
authorizing Iraq and other member states – such as Israel – to
employ "all necessary means" to maintain peace in the region.
Fat chance.
Before determining that Iran's safeguarded nuclear programs pose
a threat to peace in the Persian Gulf region, the Security
Council is much more likely to determine that Israel's
unsafeguarded nuclear programs pose a far greater threat.
China has promised to veto any Security Council resolution
imposing even sanctions on Iran, much less one authorizing
military action.
Of course, the U.S. – under Bush or Kerry – would veto a Security
Council resolution involving Israel. We always do.
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.
[WorldNetDaily.com]
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
*****************************************************************
16 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear weapons research today means testing tomorrow
Opinion
[http://www.sltrib.com]
Article Last Updated: 10/23/2004 02:49:44 PM
Jim Matheson
There's an ongoing debate on resumed nuclear weapons testing.
Some have suggested that research and development of new nukes
can somehow be accomplished without actual testing before the
weapons enter our nuclear arsenal. I disagree with this claim
because scientific experts have laid out a clear argument for
why new nuclear weapons research will lead to testing.
For the past two years, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has been insisting that Congress fund new
nuclear weapons research. Congress knuckled under to the
pressure last year by lifting a decade-old research ban and
funded enhanced test site readiness and research on two new
nuclear weapons programs, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
(RNEP) and the Advanced Concepts Initiative (ACI). I opposed all
of these measures.
Supporters of these new weapons claim that they won't need
to be tested, referencing the RNEP. Let's keep in mind that
funding is also going toward completely new designs, via the
Advanced Concepts project, which experts say can't just be
computer simulated. The highly respected National Academy of
Sciences has already said that nuclear weapons testing "would be
essential to certifying the performance of new designs at the
level of confidence associated with currently stockpiled
weapons."
NNDS publicly denies plans for resuming testing. However, a
leaked October 2002 Nuclear Weapons Council memo states, "it
would also be desirable to assess the potential benefits that
could be obtained from a return to nuclear testing." The intent
is clear.
This year, the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee that
oversees NNSA finally became suspicious of "superficial
assurances that the RNEP activity is only a study" and refused
to provide additional funding. A nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service report bolsters concerns about NNSA's plans,
stating: "The FY2005 budget request document seems to cast
serious doubt on assertions that RNEP is only a study."
The subcommittee's bipartisan report further added that
NNSA's objective "was to advance irrespective of any reservations
expressed by Congress." Do we really want to trust this agency?
Right now, the U.S. Senate is poised to provide $66.5
million for two new weapons programs and enhanced test site
readiness. Think about how many night-vision scopes, up-armored
Humvees and body armor for our troops we could buy instead.
America has the finest military in the world. I believe our
troops deserve the most advanced, cutting-edge equipment and
training. That is why I listen to the experts who say new
nuclear weapons are a risky, impractical and expensive diversion
from urgent national security needs.
The prospect of renewed testing strikes fear in the hearts
of thousands of Utahns. Yes, the days of above-ground testing
are gone, but it's not enough that a device be buried.
More than 900 underground tests took place at the Nevada
Test Site. The 1989 Office of Technology Assessment Report says,
"Since 1970, 126 tests have resulted in radioactive material
reaching the atmosphere."
Here's the bottom line: Experts say if new nuclear weapons
are developed, they would likely need to be tested. Underground
testing is not foolproof. It is wrong to use Utahns or
Americans, least of all our soldiers, as guinea pigs. Let's not
go down this road again.
---
Democrat Jim Matheson is seeking re-election to the U.S.
House of Representatives from Utah's 2nd District.
© Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
17 The Scientist:: New President, Please
[EDITORIAL]
Volume 18 | Issue 20 | 4 | Oct. 25, 2004 Previous | Next
New President, Please
By Richard Gallagher [rgallagher@the-scientist.com]
Few voters in next week's US presidential election will embrace
absolutely everything that either candidate stands for, or, for
that matter, reject absolutely everything. Nevertheless, a change
must be made, judged on a few key issues. The most pressing
issues include the quagmire that is Iraq, national security,
healthcare provision, and the economy. But science should not be
too far behind, and anyone with the best interests of science at
heart will have no hesitation in selecting John Kerry over George
Bush.
Over the past four years President Bush's administration has
weakened science in the United States across the board.
Scientific advice for decision- making has been downgraded, as
seen in the record delay in choosing a scientific advisor and the
subsequent devaluation of the position. The pipeline of new
scientific talent from overseas has been constricted and support
for research has been reduced, with a few notable exceptions such
as biodefense. NIH's budget increased by just 2.5% in 2004; such
measly growth will negate the recent doubling of the budget very
quickly.
Sometimes the damage has been done due to political expediency,
at other times religious belief, and at still other times it has
been the fall-out from quite unrelated policies. One cannot point
to a single knockout blow to science, but the accumulation of
multiple digs and jabs has taken its toll.
Brazen political maneuvering is the greatest cause of concern.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (USC) cataloged "distortion of
scientific knowledge for partisan political ends" across multiple
areas of policy, including the dismissal of qualified scientists
from advisory committees, the disbandment of other committees,
censorship and political oversight of government scientists, and
revision of Acts to constrain scientific input.1
The high-visibility campaign conducted by UCS has been necessary,
but it carries the danger of further undermining science. One
risk is the counterclaim that it is the scientists themselves who
are playing politics; another is that a stiff price will be paid
if President Bush secures a second term. At a recent forum,2 Bob
Walker, former chair of the House Science Committee and now
representing the president's campaign, explored both themes in
the following, almost McCarthy-esque, remark: "Science does
itself a disservice when in fact it mixes those two things
[politics and science] in a way that can engender a push-back at
some point in the future."
Ironically, the best-publicized science issue of the campaign is
of a higher- minded tone. The generation of new embryonic stem
lines, to which the president is implacably opposed, has become a
talking point following the death of Christopher Reeve, a
champion of stem cell research. Whether you agree or disagree
with Bush's position (I personally disagree), he comes to it as a
result of deeply held religious convictions, which deserve
respect. And in practice, since there are no plans to block
funding from nonfederal sources, the issue of stem cell lines is
an important but not momentous one.
Far more pressing is the restraint on immigration of scientists.
The current administration's policies that are aimed at
protecting the country from terrorists make visas much more
difficult for researchers to obtain and to cause those who do get
them to feel less than welcome. As a result, the flow of
scientific talent (particularly raw young talent from developing
countries) has slowed dramatically, placing this country's
position as the scientific superpower in serious jeopardy. Down
the line it will also hit the economy, as scientific and
technological creativity are major drivers of economic
development.
How to create the optimal policy that expedites desirable
visitors while excluding undesirable ones remains unclear. What
is clear is that on this, as on other science issues, George Bush
has performed poorly. I can only hope that we will get the
opportunity to find out if John Kerry can do better.
Further coverage: Analysis of the respective science policies of
Bush and Kerry can be found on page 7; for a perspective on the
Bush-science schism, see Letters on page 10; and an update of the
debate in California on stem cells is on page 12.
Richard Gallagher, Editor (rgallagher@the-scientist.com)
References 1.
www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449
2. www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/1001forum.shtml
© 2004, The Scientist LLC, All rights reserved. Previous | Next
*****************************************************************
18 PittsburghLIVE.com: Rice assesses a troubled world -
By Bill Steigerwald TRIBUNE-REVIEW Saturday, October 23, 2004
Editor's note: Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national
security adviser, sat down with the Trib editorial board Thursday
for a wide-ranging question-and-answer session about national
security issues. Today's portion of the interview deals primarily
with the nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea, the state
of America's intelligence agencies and America's role in the
Middle East and Africa.
Q: Considering that we went to war in Iraq because of the threat
of nuclear weapons, what are we doing in terms of Iran and North
Korea?
A: Let me take each one separately, because they are somewhat
difference cases, though in both cases it was the president that
blew the whistle on them. I can tell you that in the early
discussions with most countries about Iran we were talking to
people who just wouldn't listen. They wouldn't believe that the
Iranians were up to anything. The Russians were in a full-scale
building of the Bushehr civilian nuclear reactor. They had other
projects with the Iranians. They kept talking about "Well, they
have a right to energy" and so forth.
So a combination of the U.S. raising the consciousness of that
issue and starting to put out information, and fortuitously, an
Iranian group in opposition .... were able to get everybody
focused on Iran. And now the Iranians are defensive about their
nuclear program. It's fairly early still in that process. I don't
mean to suggest that we have all that much time, because nobody
knows exactly how far along the Iranians are in, say,
reprocessing or enriching of uranium. But because the world is
focused on them, I think we have made it harder for them to get
outside help.
So things are moving on the Iranian front. We just need to be
tough as an international community. And the Iranians need to be
referred to the Security Council if they don't live up to their
obligations. And we're telling everybody that -- they've just got
to be referred, because they have to know that world is serious.
Q: And North Korea?
A: The North Koreans signed the Agreed Framework in 1994 ...
(but) before the ink was dry, they were pursuing an alternative
route to a nuclear weapons program, a highly enriched uranium
route.... We're not going back to that kind of bilateral
agreement. It doesn't have enough teeth. Instead, we have the
six-party talks, which puts at the table all of North Korea's
neighbors and most especially China, which has real leverage,
because the North Koreans could not survive without Chinese
economic assistance. You have a chance now to -- with a unified
voice, which we have -- to tell the North Koreans, "If you want
entry to the international system at any level, then you're going
to have to give up your nuclear weapons programs verifiably and
irreversibly."
So far, the North Koreans have come to the meetings and have been
less than responsive. But there is a lot of pressure on them. I
think in the long run, they will do that. Now you never take any
option off the table, but I think both of these countries have a
good chance to be resolved diplomatically, a very good chance.
The fact that you did not let Iraq off the hook in terms of its
obligations, shows that you are serious about these issues. And
that was the piece that was missing prior to 2003.
Q: How do we know that our intelligence, especially in North
Korea, is good, given what we did not learn in Iraq?
A: It's very tough, because this is a more closed society. The
only thing about the North Koreans is that they don't seem to be
all that determined to keep everything secret.... In a funny way,
it's a much more closed society, but they tend to boast, because
they have learned a kind of bullying behavior over the last 20
years or so, where they bully, and the world says, "Oh, what can
we do for you?" And they threaten, and the world says, "Oh, what
can we do for you?" Lately, they've run up against a world that
when they do that, we say, "Well, get rid of your nuclear weapons
programs and then we can talk about what we can do for you." And
that's a different dynamic.
Q: Can you talk about Darfur, the western region of Sudan where a
civil war has left 70,000 dead from starvation and disease? Why
should we care what's going on there? What should we do about it?
A: I think we have to care because it has to offend our moral
sensibilities -- what is going on there -- as a first course.
That kind of behavior by a government and the refugee population
that it's produced and the potential for even greater
displacement and death is just something that I don't think the
world can turn a blind eye to. It's also the case that a stable
and more just Sudan would significantly help that region to avoid
the kind of wars that are raging all around it.
If you could do something about Sudan ... you begin to see the
potential for a more stable region reaching from the Maghreb down
to Sudan. I think it is important. Now what we're doing about it:
it is an international effort. The United States has led that
international effort. I do think the U.N. Security Council
resolution has had a good effect, in that the humanitarian access
is now greater than it was several months ago. All of the
nongovernmental agencies will tell you the access is easier. They
are able to feed more people, treat more people. We opened up a
route from Libya, which helped a lot in that regard.
But the security situation remains really very dire. The African
Union has put some peacekeepers on the ground. We're trying to
get more monitors and peacekeepers in. The United States will
assist in getting them onto the ground. The government of
Khartoum, there has to be a lot of pressure on them to disarm the
Janjaweed (Arab militia). In the final analysis, some kind of
peace accord is going to be necessary.... There's a lot of
activity. I can't tell you that anybody is satisfied that we have
resolved the problem, but the good news is that I do think the
international community is engaged there in a way that it was not
several months ago and that is really thanks to American
leadership. I think Colin Powell's going there had a kind of
galvanizing effect.
Q: What about some other countries -- Syria, for example. There
were reports earlier this week that somebody was firing on our
troops from across the Iraqi-Syrian border.
A: The Syrians have not been very helpful, is one way to
understate the case. There were good talks recently between the
Iraqis and the Syrians about border cooperation. And our military
people say that some good things are happening. It is a long and
permeable border, which has been a smuggling route for centuries
and is not very easy to cut off. There has been some cooperation,
but some pressure has to be brought on the Syrian government.
That's why the president signed the Syrian Accountability Act. I
think it got their attention.
The resolution that we sponsored with the French on Lebanon got
the Syrians' attention. In part, they were a little startled that
the Americans and the French teamed up to do this. They had
always thought that the French would turn a blind eye to what
they were doing, but they didn't. The Syrians, I think, will feel
more and more pressure as Iraq progresses. In effect, it's not
just Syria but even Iran, with a new neighbor in Iraq and a new
neighbor in Afghanistan, I think, that understands that the
geo-strategic picture is beginning to change.
It's again one of the reasons victory in Iraq is so critical.
That whole region, if Iraq is not a success, will be much much
worse than it is now. It was going to get worse. It was only a
matter of how fast it got worse. If we succeed in Iraq, and I
believe that we can succeed in Iraq, then the dynamics in that
region are going to change pretty dynamically. In that region,
you have to have a shock to the system, some kind of
game-changing event, and I think Iraq is really that
game-changing event.
Q: How about Egypt?
A: Egypt is a problem of another kind, which is that reform in
Egypt really needs to get under way. They have just got a new
prime minister. People who've met him find him quite impressive
and quite determined to make economic reforms that have
languished for some time. I sure hope so, because this is an
economy that is basically stagnant. What the Egyptians are going
to have to realize is that in order to make those economic
reforms work, they are also going to have to have some kind of
political liberalization.
Q: Libya and Venezuela are both important oil-producing nations.
What's going to happen there?
A: Well, Libya is an interesting place. It's still run by Moammar
Gadhafi. We haven't lost our head and decided that Libya is
moving quickly toward democracy. You needn't worry about that.
But he has made some remarkable decisions recently. The decision
to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction program was a
really good decision and it has opened up for Libya links and
contacts with the rest of the world that were just not possible
prior to that. I think you're going to see the commercial
development in Libya start to really pick up, including our own
commercial activity there.
We still have a problem with the Libyans. They're still on the
terrorism list. And until we can resolve a number of outstanding
issues, we aren't going to remove them from the list on
terrorism. But Libya has the potential to move from one of the
most destabilizing forces in that region to an actual stabilizing
force.
You could see it happening. You see what happened with Darfur and
the opening up of the route. You see what happened with weapons
of mass destruction. It's still always going to be a bit
mercurial, because there's really only one voice that matters and
it's Colonel Gadhafi. We haven't yet gotten to the discussions of
political liberalization in Libya, but in international politics
it's always important to say, "Is the trend positive or is the
trend negative." Here I think the trend is probably positive.
In Venezuela, I can't make that argument. I think President Hugo
Chavez is a real problem. I think he will continue to find ways
to subvert democracy in his own country. He will continue to find
ways to make his neighbors miserable. He will continue his
contacts with Fidel Castro, maybe giving Castro one last fling to
try to affect the politics of Latin America, which is not a good
thing. He's involved in ways in Colombia with the FARC (Marxist
rebels) that are unhelpful.
The key there is to mobilize the region to both watch him and be
vigilant about him and to pressure him when he makes moves in one
direction or another. We can't do it alone. This is a region
where if we try to do it alone, we actually probably strengthen
him. But the OAS (Organization of American States) can do a lot.
We're hopeful that the recognition that he's not following a
democratic course will help mobilize the OAS to do that. They
have done it before -- with Peru they did it. Watching his
activities and making it costly at least politically for Chavez
to carry out anti-democratic activities either at home or in the
region is really about where we are.
Q: Is China going to be a threat? Is it really our enemy
long-term?
A: Well, I can't give you a crystal-ball prediction on China. I
can tell you that just the fundamentals suggest that China is
going to be a major influence either for good or bad in
international politics. There isn't a kind of "neutral China" out
there. It's too big, too important. It's becoming too important a
player in the international economics environment.
Whenever I did courses in policy, my students would say, "Will
China be a force for good or for bad in international politics?"
I would say, "It's an interesting analytic question. The policy
question is, 'How we increase the chances that China is an
influence for good, not bad?'"
There are a number of policy steps that we could take. First of
all, we have a really good relationship with China -- probably
the best relationship we've had in our history, because it's
based on some clearly shared interests, like a non-nuclear North
Korea. The Chinese are finally understanding on nonproliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, on terrorism, and issues like
that. But there are a number of things we don't share views in
common with China. We have more straightforward than you might
imagine discussions about human rights and religious freedom with
Chinese, because the president has insisted on it. We have with
the Chinese some very good things that are going on economically.
Our commodities people are pretty happy, because the Chinese
market is buying a lot of commodities. But it is not really a
very open market and with the very powerful force that it is in
areas like textiles, there are times when we have to enforce our
rules so that our people are not unfairly disadvantaged.
So this open and honest relationship with the Chinese, that
emphasizes areas of cooperation but does not try to hide or brush
under the rug areas of competition or conflict, I think, is the
only way to deal with a burgeoning big power like China.
Q: It'll start an international incident if you don't mention
Russia.
A: Russia? Two seconds on Russia. It is a very different place
than the Soviet Union, and sometimes when I read about what's
going on in Russia, it'd be hard to tell. We need not to pretend
that it has gone back to Soviet days, it hasn't. Amazing things
are happening in the economy, including a lot of liberalization
of the economy. People are taking out 30-year mortgages.
(President Vladimir) Putin is telling people they're going to
have to pay for their health care, so it's a pretty remarkable
story.
But on the political front, there are really concerning things
there. Because what is happening in Russia -- which is an
"unconsolidated democracy," meaning that a lot of the pluralism
is there, but the institutions are not -- is that the presidency
is just getting stronger and stronger at the expense of
everything else, whether it's the governors whom will no longer
be elected, or the independent media -- particularly the
electronic media, which basically doesn't exist any more
nationwide; to the judiciary, which is really not independent; to
the Duma, which doesn't, as far as I can tell, do anything.
I've had this conversation myself with the Russians. I've had
this conservation with Putin. The problem is that democracy
depends on institutions that can challenge power, that are
balancing of those in power and that can challenge to unseat
power -- and if you don't have those basics, you don't have
democracy. But it's a long struggle to take a country that for
300 years existed in a particular way and build a democracy. Our
role is to continue to make clear to the Russians that what they
are doing will have an effect on the deepening of U.S.-Russia
relations. We'll have good relations. We can cooperate on all
kinds of things. But the kind of deepening that people had hoped
for -- including Russian integration with NATO ... and all of
that -- is at risk here, because that depends on democratic
development.
Bill Steigerwald can be reached at bsteigerwald@tribweb.com
[bsteigerwald@tribweb.com] or (412) 320-7983.
Images and text copyright © 2004 by The Tribune-Review Publishing
PittsburghLIVE. Feedback | Report a Bug | Advertise with us |
*****************************************************************
19 CBS 2 - New York News: Rooney: Too Many Weapons?
+ Homepage [http://cbsnewyork.com/homepage/]
Sunday, Oct. 24
+ A Few Minutes With Andy Rooney
Oct 24, 2004 7:57 pm US/Eastern
NEW YORK (CBS) Our military budget now is $447 billion. A
billion is 1,000 million. Sometimes it seems to this old
$250-a-month sergeant as if we're buying too many weapons for
wars we no longer fight. Maybe our purchasing agent in the
Pentagon ought to be replaced.
Our military leaders work pretty much in secret. They say they
don't want our enemies to know, but sometimes, I think they don't
want us to know, either.
Look at some of the weapons we have and then look at the wars we
fight.
We have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out civilization. No one
should have any, but I'm enough of an American to be glad we do.
We have a lot of unnecessary stuff, though.
The Air Force flies 30 different kinds of airplanes. That's good
for the airplane industry, not so good for the rest of us who
have to pay for them. Twenty different planes wouldn't have been
enough? The Stealth bomber costs $1 billion, $1 million.
The Pentagon ordered 21. How would you like to have what one
Stealth Bomber costs to pay teachers in your local school?
There is a multi-billion-dollar boneyard for not-very-old
airplanes in Arizona. They never flew much, and they'll never fly
again. You're looking at a $100 billion-dollar parking lot you
paid for.
The Pentagon doesn't scrimp on the Navy either. Over the years,
we built 69 battleships, even though battleships never did much
except get sunk. The last one cost $3 billion. The good news is
the Navy no longer uses battleships.
These are mothballed now, just rusting away. We have nuclear
submarines for sneaking up on enemies under water. One nuclear
submarine costs $1.6 billion. We have 50.
DIVE. DIVE. They don't dive in sand.
The Army has 8,000 Abrams tanks. How effective was one of these
$3 million vehicles in Baghdad?
We captured prisoners and couldn't question them because no one
spoke their language. With what we paid for one tank, we could
have taught several hundred people to speak Arabic.
The most effective weapon we have in war is still that poor
dogface crawling forward on his stomach with a rifle in his hand.
The Pentagon might consider spending more money on our soldiers
and on better intelligence, and less on billion-dollar weapons
that are as out of date as the bow and arrow.
(MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc., All Rights Reserved.)
*****************************************************************
20 UK The Times: Tycoon foils ‘nuclear bomb sale’ plot
October 24, 2004
David Leppard
THE London-based Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky has claimed
that the intelligence services helped to foil a plot by Chechen
terrorists to sell a nuclear device on the international black
market.
Berezovsky last week described the curious events that led to him
tipping off the authorities about the plot.
The exiled Russian oligarch, who according to The Sunday Times
Rich List is the 14th richest man in Britain, said that he had
contacted British and American intelligence after being
approached by a Chechen at his home in Surrey.
The Chechen said he was acting as an intermediary for a man who
wanted to sell a nuclear bomb concealed in a suitcase for $3m
(£1.6m).
The tycoon arranged for a member of his staff to meet the Chechen
at the Bristol hotel in Paris. The two-hour meeting was taped on
Berezovsky’s instructions and the tycoon handed the tape to the
CIA at the American embassy in London.
A senior Whitehall security official confirmed that MI5 was aware
that Berezovsky had approached the authorities on several
occasions “offering to assist in investigations into the supply
of illicit nuclear and radiological materials”.
“He has made these allegations to the authorities in private, but
we can’t discuss the details,” the official said.
After the Beslan school siege last month, for which Shamil
Basayev, the Chechen warlord, claimed responsibility, the
possibility that rebels in the breakaway republic may be able to
acquire a small nuclear device is causing alarm among senior
officials in Moscow and the West.
Two years ago American officials revealed their fears that
Chechen rebels had stolen radioactive materials, possibly
including plutonium, from a Russian nuclear power station in the
southern region of Rostov.
The disappearance of the materials from the Volgodoskaya nuclear
power station, near the city of Rostov-on-Don, heightened fears
that weapons-grade material, including caesium, strontium and
low-enriched uranium. had been obtained by Chechen terrorists.
The theft was reported by Russian officials to the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which told the US energy department.
Speaking for the first time about the plot, Berezovsky said that
he had been approached in 2002 by a Chechen living in Paris whom
he knew as Zakhar.
The Russian tycoon had previously helped Zakhar by giving him
$5,000 when the two men were in exile in Paris. He said: “I
didn’t hear from him again until he rang me when I was in England
and said he had enormous, very important information about
nuclear weapons.
“I informed the American embassy in London. I told them it could
be serious or it could be a provocation.” Berezovsky asked Yuli
Dubov, a business associate and fellow exile, to investigate the
background to the plot. Dubov said that Zakhar had claimed that
the portable bomb was one of several made by Soviet scientists
during the early 1990s.
“One of them disappeared during the mess of the early 1990s,”
Dubov wrote in a report. “The person who holds this suitcase with
a bomb wants to sell it and he (Zakhar) is empowered to act for
him.
“Zakhar approached Berezovsky. The price asked for it is not
large, only $3m. The idea is that Berezovsky pays $3m and advises
on whom the A-bomb should be delivered (to). Zakhar will then
organise everything in the best possible way.”
During a subsequent meeting, arranged at the behest of the CIA in
London, Zakhar was asked by Berezovsky’s aide to provide evidence
that the nuclear device existed. But Zakhar, by this time
suspecting a trap, failed to do so. Berezovsky said that he
reported the matter to British intelligence through an
intermediary.
That was end of the affair, as far as Berezovsky was aware. It
could have been a hoax and he does not know whether the
intelligence services tried to retrieve the nuclear device. The
plot is the latest in a series of strange incidents to involve
Berezovsky, who was granted political asylum by David Blunkett,
the home secretary, last year.
Once Russia’s most influential tycoon, Berezovsky, 58, has a £1.8
billion fortune and recently bought a Surrey estate for £10m from
Chris Evans, the radio DJ. He was forced to flee Russia after
falling out with President Vladimir Putin.
Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk
*****************************************************************
21 UK The Times: CIA and Britain monitored Mao’s nuclear secrets
October 24, 2004
Michael Sheridan, Hong Kong
THE CIA obtained “excellent samples” of airborne debris from
China’s first nuclear test explosion in a cold war espionage coup
that was confirmed for the first time last week.
A specially fitted British Canberra bomber flying out of Hong
Kong and a team of Tibetan exiles trained as CIA agents may also
have played a part in one of the most successful operations ever
staged against a communist power.
The CIA has disclosed the extent of its spying on China’s nuclear
programme in 71 documents declassified under the Freedom of
Information Act. The papers also reveal a frightening lack of
knowledge about who controlled China’s nuclear arsenal and how it
might have been used.
The Chinese nuclear programme was an important theme in US
national intelligence estimates from 1948 and 1976. An assessment
of August 26, 1964 gave a warning that “on the basis of new
overhead photography” the CIA believed China was completing a
test site at Lop Nor in the western deserts of Xinjiang province.
John McCone, the CIA’s director, took the information to London
where he found a ready audience. Britain had already told the
Americans of confirmation from Mao Tse-tung himself that the
Chinese were trying to build the bomb.
“We are preparing to make some,” Mao told Viscount Montgomery of
Alamein, who called on him in Beijing. “It is something to scare
people, absorbing a lot of money but useless.”
Montgomery alerted intelligence officials in Britain, where the
authorities swung into action alongside the CIA.
The joint intelligence committee (JIC) ordered a specially fitted
Canberra bomber to be sent to Hong Kong and offered to cover air
sampling of an arc of territory between Hong Kong and Singapore,
according to Richard Aldrich, the historian.
“Our chances of getting the fullest available information from
the Americans would be very much helped if we took a hand in the
information collecting effort,” read a Ministry of Defence
document quoted by Aldrich in a recent book.
At the same time a CIA operation was in progress to drop Tibetan
exiles as spies and saboteurs into their mountain homeland, which
was already under Chinese occupation. One of their tasks was to
plant remote sensors on the plateau south and east of Lop Nor.
On October 16, 1964 the Chinese detonated their first nuclear
device, heralded by a blast of triumphant propaganda. However,
Mao would have been disconcerted to learn that by January 27,
1965 the CIA was able to tell President Lyndon Johnson almost
everything about his bomb.
“Our analysis of excellent samples of the test debris indicates
that the Chinese communists’ first nuclear detonation was a well
prepared scientific experiment,” read a top-secret national
intelligence estimate.
It identified the bomb as a Hiroshima-type implosion device using
uranium 235. There is no clue in the published CIA documents,
sections of which remain blacked out for security reasons, of how
the agency obtained the samples.
Evidence now available elsewhere, however, suggests that both the
British and Tibetans played their part in capturing the tell-tale
particles.
China’s nuclear operations were to preoccupy American and British
agents in Hong Kong through the chaotic years of Mao’s cultural
revolution and after his death.
Yet by the 1970s, as Richard Nixon prepared for a historic trip
to China, the CIA had to admit that while it knew a lot about
Chinese nuclear missiles and bombs, it had almost no idea of how
and when they would be deployed.
“They may not have developed much doctrine beyond the conviction
that possession of such weapons was essential if China were to
join the ranks of the leading military powers,” read an
assessment sent to Nixon in 1971. “We have no way of knowing.”
The Americans were confident, however, that China had no wish to
start a nuclear war. Its small force was essentially a deterrent,
the CIA told Nixon, but “we do not know how the Chinese would
proceed should deterrence fail”.
Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk
*****************************************************************
22 Daily Times: More Indian scientists could face US sanctions
Monday, October 25, 2004
ISLAMABAD: While India struggles hard to get a reprieve for its
two scientists, YSR Prasad and C Surender, the former heads of
the state-run Nuclear Corporation of India alleged to have links
with Iran’s nuclear programme, the US media has reported that
more Indian scientists could face sanctions.
According to Reuters, the US administration is considering
imposing sanctions on one to three more Indian “entities” for
aiding what Washington insists is a nuclear weapons programme.
The Indian scientists are believed to have passed on to Iran the
technology of producing tritium, a radioactive isotope used in
developing an atomic bomb.
US authorities insist that Mr Prasad and Mr Surender have helped
Iran achieve its nuclear ambitions. Washington Times says the
Bush administration will not only maintain the sanctions on the
two Indian scientists, but has further approved additional curbs
that could be imposed on New Delhi “in near future” in response
to “other Indian transfers of weapons-related goods to Iran”.
Reuters quoted a senior US official as saying that the Bush
administration might reconsider sanctions against the two Indian
scientists if Delhi proffered “significant and convincing proof”
that they were not involved in Iran’s nuclear programme.
The US official, who asked not to be named, cautioned against
predicting that the sanctions, which bar the men from doing
business with Washington, would be lifted or waived. He told
Reuters: “The Indians are being given a chance now to clarify,
rebut, and give us any information and we promise we’ll consider
it.”
The issue was to be raised during US Assistant Secretary of State
Christina Rocca’s visit to New Delhi this week, but the Indians
did not discuss it with Ms Rocca.
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved [http://www.wcis.com.pk]
*****************************************************************
23 Guardian Unlimited: U.N.: Arms Expert Warning Had Bad Premise
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Sunday October 24, 2004 6:31 PM
AP Photo BAG105
By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent
Arms hunter Charles Duelfer's report, in concluding Iraq might
have resumed weapons-building ``after sanctions were removed,''
left out the crucial fact that the U.N. Security Council had
planned controls over Baghdad for years to come, U.N. officials
say.
The council, led by the United States, had decreed that
inspections and disarmament of Iraq were to be followed by tough,
open-ended monitoring.
``It's been a little disturbing,'' said Demetrius Perricos, chief
U.N. weapons inspector. ``All the arguments say that when
sanctions ended, Saddam Hussein would have had a free hand. By
the council's own resolutions that wasn't so.''
In his Oct. 6 report, CIA adviser Duelfer discredited President
Bush's stated rationale for invading Iraq, saying his Iraq Survey
Group found no weapons of mass destruction there. But he
suggested Iraq might still have posed a threat.
Saddam ``wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability - which was
essentially destroyed in 1991 - after sanctions were removed,''
the report said, though it added that no such formal plan was
uncovered.
This Duelfer finding became a new focus for the Bush
administration. Vice President Dick Cheney told one audience on
Oct. 7, ``As soon as the sanctions were lifted, (Saddam) had
every intention of going back'' to building weapons.
An academic expert on the Iraq inspections regime was among those
disputing this, noting that lifting the U.N. embargo would not
have opened that door. ``This is not the case under Resolution
687 and later ones,'' said Yale University's James S. Sutterlin.
Years of Security Council resolutions preceding the 2003
U.S.-British invasion mandated that U.N. arms monitors would
remain in Iraq once Baghdad's WMD programs were shut down - as
Duelfer acknowledged they were in the 1990s. With unusual powers
and the best technology, the monitors in this second stage would
``prevent Iraq from developing new capabilities,'' said a
blueprint for the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification (OMV)
program.
Resolutions also stipulated that U.N. trade sanctions would not
be lifted until the ongoing monitoring program was in place - and
lifted then only for civilian goods.
The Security Council, where Washington has a veto, would decide
how long to keep monitoring in place. Perricos said it was
expected to last years. ``You couldn't have disarmament and stop
monitoring afterward,'' he told The Associated Press.
In 19 pages of ``Key Findings,'' however, while raising the
prospect of future threats, the Duelfer report ignores this plan
to prevent them.
The CIA and Duelfer had no comment this week when asked why the
role of Ongoing Monitoring and Verification went unacknowledged.
Official U.S. statements consistently disregarding this follow-up
stage in Iraq arms control seem to have had an effect. ``Most
people don't understand that there was to be a permanent
monitoring system in place to deter any return to WMD,'' said
Jean Krasno of the City University of New York, co-author with
Sutterlin of the 2003 book ``The United Nations and Iraq.''
In 2002, the Bush administration had demanded and voted for
renewed U.N. inspections in Iraq. Then, in the lead-up to war, it
publicly questioned their effectiveness, even as U.N. experts
were conducting 700 inspections and finding no WMD.
In early 2003, the inspectors said they could formally certify
Iraqi disarmament with several more months' work, after which
long-term monitoring would take over. In preparation, they set up
a northern office in Mosul and bought $5 million of high-tech
surveillance cameras.
The U.S. attack then aborted the U.N. work.
The monitoring program would have covered hundreds of sites, from
Iraq's nuclear complex to pesticide plants and breweries that
might concoct chemical or biological weapons. It was originally
envisioned as a $70-million-a-year operation with a staff of 350.
The inspectors would have been armed with sensors, sampling
devices and remote video systems, and would have continued
on-site inspections and interviews of ex-weapon scientists. They
also would have monitored sites via aerial surveillance, had the
right to inspect vehicles, and monitored Iraqi imports of
civilian goods with potential military uses.
David Kay, Duelfer's predecessor as chief of the CIA weapons
hunt, told AP that ``OMV was discounted'' because it was believed
``that the Iraqis over time would find out how to manipulate the
cameras, sampling methods, occasional visits.''
The U.N. experts disputed this. Inspector spokesman Ewen Buchanan
noted, for example, that the remote cameras could even broadcast
to analysts that they've been tampered with. Besides, the
arms-control specialists said, Kay was discounting a system that
the world now knows disarmed Iraq without going to war.
``What happened in Iraq was that an international body of the
U.N. went over, did the job and came out with results,'' Perricos
said.
Ronald Cleminson, a veteran member of the U.N. commission that
oversaw Iraq's disarmament, said he believes U.S. officials
intentionally played down U.N. effectiveness and future
monitoring plans. Otherwise, ``they could not have set up a
scenario with which one goes to war,'' said the retired Canadian
intelligence officer.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
24 Daily Times: Nuclear scientist’s detention extended
| Monday, October 25, 2004
By Mohammad Imran
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Review Board on Saturday extended the
detention period of Dr Farooq, director general of the Khan
Research Laboratories (KRL), by 90 days. Farooq is in state
custody on charges of nuclear proliferation.
The review board consisting of two judges of the Supreme Court,
Justice Hamid Ali Mirza and Justice Falak Sher, and one judge of
the Sindh High Court, Justice Sabeehuddin, reviewed the detention
of Mr Farooq, sources said. The board has been constituted under
Article 10(4) of the constitution, the sources added.
“The state authorities maintained before the board that an
extension in the detention period was essential as further
investigation was required,” sources said.
Sources said that state authorities claimed to have proof of Dr
Farooq’s involvement in nuclear proliferation activities, but
maintained that further investigation was still required. The
government said that Dr Farooq was being interrogated for
jeopardising national security and violating the Security of
Pakistan Act, 1952, sources added.
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by
WorldCALL Internet Solutions [http://www.wcis.com.pk]
*****************************************************************
25 Daily Times: India will not pass on nuclear technology, says Singh
| Monday, October 25, 2004
* Foreign Ministry says sanctions by US are based on ‘faulty
evidence and must be revoked’
NEW DELHI: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Saturday
his nuclear-armed nation would not pass on sensitive
technologies, weeks after the United States imposed sanctions on
two Indian nuclear scientists.
“India will not be the source of proliferation of sensitive
technologies,” Singh was quoted on state television as saying in
Kalpakkam in southern Tamil Nadu state, which houses a nuclear
power station and a research facility.
“We will also ensure the safeguarding of those technologies that
we already possess,” Singh said at a function to celebrate the
golden jubilee of India’s Department of Atomic Energy. Neither
India nor neighbouring Pakistan are signatories to the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), despite Western prodding to sign.
Concerns over their nuclear capabilities have been heightened by
tensions between the countries, which came close to war twice
between 1999 and 2002.
The United States imposed sanctions on two former chiefs of
India’s state-run Nuclear Power Cooperation (NPC) in late
September, accusing them of passing nuclear technology to Iran,
accused by Washington of trying to develop nuclear weapons.
New Delhi considers Iran an important Middle East ally. New Delhi
has protested against the sanctions, and Washington said earlier
this week it would consider lifting them if India showed
“significant and convincing” proof the scientists were innocent.
The Indian Foreign Ministry said on Saturday the curbs were based
on “faulty evidence and must be revoked”. US officials have said
Washington was considering imposing curbs on one to three
additional Indian “entities” for aiding Iran’s weapons programme.
Tehran denies it is making atomic weapons, saying its nuclear
programme is peaceful.
“Constraining those who are responsible amounts, in fact, to
rewarding those who are irresponsible,” Singh said.
Ties between the United States and India have improved, with the
world’s largest democracy attracting US attention for its booming
technology and large commercial market.
Last month, the United States removed decades-old restrictions on
equipment for India’s commercial space programmeme and nuclear
power plants.
But US concerns about India’s nuclear record and ties to Tehran
continue to create diplomatic sparks. reuters Home |
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by
WorldCALL Internet Solutions [http://www.wcis.com.pk]
*****************************************************************
26 Hi Pakistan: Singh urges West to remove blocks on N-tech transfer -->
October 25 2004
KALPAKKAM: India on Saturday urged the West to remove blocks on
the transfer of critical nuclear technology, offering an
assurance that New Delhi had effective tools to prevent
proliferation.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also said India, which declared
itself a nuclear state with a string of weapons tests in 1998,
was determined to carry on with its atomic energy programmes to
augment the country’s ailing conventional power sector.
"India will not be the source of proliferation of sensitive
technologies. We will ensure that those technologies, which we
already possess, will be effectively safeguarded," he said at a
nuclear facility in this southern Indian city.
"While we are determined to use our indigenous capability to
fulfill our national interest, we are doing so in a manner that
is not contrary to the larger goal of nuclear non-proliferation,"
Singh said.
Singh criticised the tray of US-led sanctions, which were slapped
on rivals India and Pakistan after their tit-for-tat nuclear
tests, saying such restrictions harmed development. "Technology
denial and closing avenues for international cooperation in such
an important field is tantamount to denial of developmental
benefits to millions of people, whose lives can be transformed by
the utilisation of nuclear energy and relevant technologies," he
said.
Singh did not name Pakistan but made reference to recent
disclosures of proliferation from the neighbouring country.
"India remains faithful to the ‘atom-for-peace’ policy despite
the well-known and glaring examples of proliferation which have
directly affected our security interests. "(And) constraining
those who are responsible and rewarding those who are
irresponsible — the international community should face up to the
implications of the choice," he said in Kalpakkam, the hub of the
country’s civilian nuclear programme.
Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
27 IAEA: Upgrade of IAEA Safeguards Computer System
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
[IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
[Inspectors on the field] 22 October 2004 | The computer system
that IAEA inspectors use to track, analyse and verify a country's
nuclear activities badly needs an overhaul. The IAEA is calling
on its Member States for extra budgetary contributions to cover
shortfall in the financing of the system upgrade, which is needed
to allow inspectors immediate, secure online access to safeguards
information. Full Story »
Aquatic Forum Examines Health of Oceans, Seas & Rivers
18 October 2004 | As a freshwater crisis looms, and the world´s
oceans become increasingly polluted, what lies ahead for the one
billion people living without clean drinking water, and the
millions whose livelihoods depend on the sea? Full Story »
IAEA Chief Calls for Stronger Global Security Framework
7 October 2004 | IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei spoke of
the nuclear threat and the urgent need for countries to seize a
window of opportunity for strengthening the world´s security, in
an address 6 October 2004 to the Pugwash Conference on Science
and World Affairs in Seoul. Full Story »
States Back Steps to Reinforce IAEA's Work in Key Nuclear Areas
7 October 2004 | Resolutions adopted by the IAEA General
Conference which met in Vienna 20-24 September support measures
that strengthen and reinforce IAEA activities in key areas such
as safeguards, technical co-peration and nuclear safety. Read
Resolutions :: See Full Coverage »
China Hosting Global Experts at IAEA Nuclear Safety Conference
30 September 2004 | 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.
Full Story »
More Top Stories »
Inside IAEA.org
Stories and Features
IAEA Board of Governors Elects Officers for 2004-2005 27
September 2004 | The newly-constituted IAEA Board of Governors
for 2004-2005 has elected its officers. The Chair of the Board of
Governors is the Ambassador and Permanent Representative from
Canada, Ms Ingrid Hall. More »
Nuclear Fuel Cycle at Centre of IAEA Scientific Forum 21
September 2004 | Leading experts, including Nobel Prize winner
Carlo Rubbia, opened the IAEA Scientific Forum on Tuesday, 21
September. The focus of the two-day session is on the nuclear
fuel cycle - including presentations on advanced fuel cycles and
reactor concepts, waste management issues and the research
reactor fuel cycle. Full Story »
China Boosts Support for IAEA Development & Security Initiatives
20 September 2004 | Marking 20 years of cooperation with the
IAEA, China announced today that it would donate US$1 million to
the IAEA's special funds for technical cooperation and enhanced
nuclear security. Head of the Chinese Delegation, Mr. Zhang
Huazhu, made the announcement in his statement to the General
Conference. Press Release »
Stories Archive » Books and Publications
[IAEA Bulletin 46/1 cover] Energising the Future: The Power of
Innovation This edition of the IAEA Bulletin looks at a range of
energy issues fuelling debates, decisions, and dreams. Read more
»
More Publications » Events Calendar
18-22 October 2004
International Conference on Topical Issues in Nuclear
Installation Safety: Continuous Improvement of Nuclear Safety in
a Changing World,
[http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/Announcements.asp?ConfID=1
20] Beijing, China
25-29 October 2004
International Conference on Isotopes in Environmental Studies -
Aquatic Forum ,
[http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/Announcements.asp?ConfID=1
18] Monte-Carlo, Monaco
1-6 November 2004 20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference
[http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/Announcements.asp?ConfID=1
16] , Vilamoura, Portugal
More Events » : IAEA Meetings »
[http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/Meetings2004.asp]
Latest Feature
[Algal Bloom] Reports exploring the effects of red tide, the road
of red tape and how Chile's fishing communities are coping with
the dual challenge. More » Site Shortcuts Go straight to... IAEA
Documents IAEA General Conference IAEA Meetings
IAEA Press Releases IAEA Programme & Budget IAEA Programme Sites
IAEA Publications Nuclear Sciences & Appl. Nuclear Safety &
Security Nuclear Energy Safeguards Technical
Cooperation Jobs @ IAEA
[..] Latest Vacancy Notices »
[48th IAEA General Conference] Resources for...
[for Journalists] Journalists
[Member States] Member States
[for Students] Youth
syndicate IAEA news] This site has an RSS
[http://www.mnot.net/rss/tutorial/] News Feed. Copyright
2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431)
2600-0; Facsimile (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: Official.Mail@iaea.org
[Official.Mail@iaea.org] Disclaimer
*****************************************************************
28 [NukeNet] NRC takes dirty-bomb data off Web site
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:51:47 -0700
http://pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1098609613111490.xml
NRC takes dirty-bomb data off Web site
Sunday, October 24, 2004
BY GARRY LENTON
Of The Patriot-News
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has taken eight or nine documents
off its Web site, acknowledging they contained information that could be of
value to terrorists.
And more of the same kinds of documents, which pinpoint the location of
weapons-grade radioactive materials that could be used in a nuclear device
or dirty bomb, might also be removed from the public records database, the
agency said.
The NRC also decided to stop posting documents to the Web until they have
been reviewed by staff.
"We are developing a criteria for what should be released [to the public]
and what should be withheld," said Beth Hayden, a spokeswoman for the NRC.
The action comes two weeks after The Patriot-News reported that the NRC's
Web site included documents showing the exact location of nuclear materials
used at colleges, universities, hospitals and research facilities. Some of
the records included floor plans showing the building, office number, and
location of storage vaults, even which doors were locked.
The documents provided information about plutonium, uranium, strontium,
cesium and cobalt.
When told of the discovery by a reporter, an NRC official responsible for
safeguarding information admitted that portions of the records should not
have been made public.
Joel Lubenau, a former senior assistant to two NRC commissioners and now a
consultant for the Monterey Institute for International Study, praised the
agency for taking the step.
"Better late than never," said Lubenau, who lives in Lititz, Lancaster County.
Lubenau, who specializes in stopping the proliferation of nuclear
materials, urged the NRC to move quickly to review its records. "My only
question would be, 'What is your time frame for doing this?'" he said.
"What resources will you need and from what program will they be taking
resources away?"
Scott Portzline, the Harrisburg resident who discovered the records on the
NRC's site, said he was encouraged by the agency's move, but also frustrated.
"It's regrettable that they had to be embarrassed into this situation,"
said Portzline, who has spent years studying nuclear security issues. "The
NRC has had to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way to
improve security at nuclear plants and in its documentation."
Since the 9-11 attacks, the NRC has imposed stricter security requirements
on the nuclear industry. Guard numbers have been increased, weaponry
upgraded, and the level of attack plants must be able to defend against was
toughened. But it took the agency nearly three years to implement some of
those changes.
In the days after 9-11, the agency focused its attention on the high-risk
targets, the nuclear plants, the NRC's Hayden said. Now, it is turning
greater attention to what it calls "second level" information, information
that when used together may be helpful to terrorists, she said.
A task force could be convened to study the documents currently being made
public, Hayden said.
The records identified by Portzline, The Patriot-News, and subsequently by
NBC News, were routine applications to renew licenses to use radioactive
materials. The NRC, which regulates and licenses the use of radioactive
materials, tracks more than 21,000 users.
Most possess only small amounts of materials for use in research, medicine,
or industry. Alone, they are not enough to pose a threat. But most of the
institutions that use the materials are not highly protected, as nuclear
plants are. Security experts worry that terrorist groups could steal enough
radioactive materials from several locations to build a dirty bomb.
The NRC is working to provide licensees, such as the Penn State Milton S.
Hershey Medical Center and Penn State University, with guidelines on what
information to leave out of applications, Hayden said.
In the meantime, the NRC must decide which information is in the public
interest to reveal and which is not.
The letters removed from the Web site might eventually be returned, but
with pages missing, Hayden said.
"We do have to keep openness in mind," Hayden said. "The ideal would be to
keep out sensitive portions and return the rest to the Web site."
GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 or glenton@patriot-news.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
29 1800 Injured As 6.8 Quake Hits Japan: Nuke Power Plants A Major Concern
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:55:09 -0400
Dear All,
Please see this site written by
Aileen M. Smith & C. Douglas Lummas on NPPs and
earthquakes in Japan:
http://www.mothersalert.org/earthquake.html Good
links at:
http://www.mothersalert.org &
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Japan-Earthquake.html?oref=login
----- Original Message -----
From: satomi oba
To: ATOMSTOPP ; wise-intern@antenna.nl ;
abolition-caucus
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 9:11 PM
Subject: [abolition-caucus] Earthquake in Niigata
Dear friends,
You may have heard the terrible earthquake that
hit Niigata yesterday evening (Japan time).
I am fine, and there is no damage in Hiroshima by
the earthquake, but we are shocked at the news.
All the TV networks are broadcasting the report
from Niigata Prefecture.
See below, please.
http://home.kyodo.co.jp/all/display.jsp?an=20041024026
Ten typhoon hit Japan islands this summer- autumn,
leaving terrible damages including human casualty
in many parts of Japan. There was heavy rain and
flood in Niigata in July, too, and the local
people were still suffering from the damages when
they were hit by the three strong shake yesterday.
15 people were killed and more than 1000 were
injured so far, but I don't know what will be the
final figure.
There are seven nuclear reactors (BWR, and ABWR,
Tokyo Electric Power Company) at
Kashiwazaki -Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, some ten
kilometers from the epicenter. Six of them are
reportedly running in spite of the big earthquake.
I feel very sorry for the people left in fear and
difficulties, and am afraid that the same or worth
could happen in any part of Japan in a near
future. Especially, the most concerned nuclear
power plant is Hamaoka NPP (BWR, Chubu Electric
Power Company) located almost on the border of the
four moving plates., Geologists warn that the area
is the most likely to be hit by a tremendous
earthquake in 30 years or so.
It is unthinkable that on October 22 the Atomic
Energy Commission decided continuing the national
nuclear policy plan, which recommends reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel rather than burying it. The
Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant in Aomori Prefecture
scheduled to start uranium testing very soon is
located on the coast of the Pacific. Not far from
the coast line of Rokkashomura, there is a huge
active fault on the seabed that might cause a
gigantic earthquake. The Japanese citizens' groups
are trying to stop the dangerous plan for
reprocessing.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards,
Satomi Oba
Plutonium Action Hiroshima
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Japan-Earthquake.html?oref=login
Japan Earthquakes Kill 19, Injure 1, 800
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 24, 2004
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Track news that interests you.
Filed at 9:54 a.m. ET
OJIYA, Japan (AP) -- Tens of thousands of Japanese
huddled in emergency shelters Sunday after a
series of earthquakes in northern Japan flattened
homes, toppled bridges and derailed trains,
killing at least 19 people and injuring as many as
1,800. Eight people were believed missing.
A 6.8-magnitude quake rocked the largely rural
Niigata prefecture Saturday evening, rattling
buildings as far away as the Japanese capital.
Several strong quakes followed through the night,
and aftershocks continued to jolt the area Sunday.
The Japanese government said 19 people were killed
and 655 were injured, while public broadcaster
NHK, citing hospital data, said 21 people were
killed and more than 1,800 were injured. The dead
included five children, the youngest a 2-month-old
infant.
The quakes tore apart highways, bursting water and
sewage mains and knocking out power to nearly
300,000 homes. Some 61,000 people -- many of them
elderly -- had to be evacuated. Officials handed
out blankets as a guard against chilly nights and
flew in bottled water.
Japan's military used helicopters to airlift
stranded villagers from a riverside hamlet,
Shiotani, that was cut off when the bridge
connecting it to Ojiya was toppled. Several other
villages were isolated, including Yamagoshi, a
mountain village of 600, where a landslide swept
away the only road and upended homes and cars.
Residents awaited airlifted food and other
supplies.
Takejiro Hoshino, 75, lost his 12-year-old
grandson when their house collapsed.
``I got out and then we all went back to try to
save the others, but it was too late,'' Hoshino
said.
The injured overwhelmed small local hospitals,
where patients were being treated in the hallways.
The earthquake was the deadliest in Japan since
the 1995 earthquake in the western city of Kobe,
which killed more than 6,000 people.
``Carrying out rescue efforts is the most
important task right now,'' Tsutomu Takebe,
secretary-general of the ruling Liberal Democratic
Party, said on a talk program aired by NHK. ``The
government is making all the effort to assess the
extent of the damage.''
With temperatures expected to drop to 55 degrees,
some 60 people crowded into the lobby of the
Nagaoka City Hall to take advantage of the
heating, bringing thin foldable mattresses or lawn
chairs from home.
``I don't have any water, electricity or gas in my
apartment, so I have no choice but to be here,''
said Naomi Matsuki, a Nagaoka resident.
Aftershocks were another concern.
``I live on the top floor, so I really felt it
wasn't safe to stay at home,'' said Matsuki. ``But
I have no idea when I'll be able to go back, so
I'm very worried.''
Japan's Meteorological Agency registered 280
aftershocks -- most too weak to be felt -- and
warned that another temblor of similar power could
rip across the region over the next week.
Two trains derailed, but no injuries were
reported. One was a bullet train, the first to
jump its tracks since Japan began running such
trains in 1964.
The first quake hit at 5:56 p.m. Saturday and was
centered in Ojiya, 160 miles northwest of Tokyo,
the Meteorological Agency said. At least a half
dozen more tremors hit intermittently over the
following hours, including magnitude-6.2 and 5.9
quakes, cutting a swath of destruction across
Niigata prefecture.
Sewage and water mains burst, gas and telephone
services were down. Homes in 36 cities, towns and
villages in Niigata prefecture had no water. Close
to 124,000 homes were still without power Sunday
afternoon, Tohoku Electric said on its Web site. A
major nuclear power plant operated by Tokyo
Electric in Kashiwazaki, however, was operating
normally.
Akiko Sato was one of about a dozen people in
tuxedos or formal dresses who sought refuge at
Ojiya city hall.
``We were on our way back from a wedding,'' Sato
said. ``We had to spend the night in our bus. We
were just supposed to pass through. I'm
exhausted.''
A magnitude 6 quake can cause severe damage to
homes and other buildings if centered in a heavily
populated area.
The temblors came just days after Japan's
deadliest typhoon in more than a decade left 79
people dead and a dozen missing. Japan, which
rests atop several tectonic plates, is among the
world's most earthquake-prone countries.
*****************************************************************
30 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo open mike planned
| 10/23/2004 |
On Wednesday, a state agency will hear what residents think about
PG&E's proposed rate increase, which would pay for essential
upgrades to the nuclear power plant
David Sneed The Tribune
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. wants electricity users to foot a
$700 million bill to replace major components at Diablo Canyon
nuclear power plant.
The public will have a chance Wednesday to tell state regulators
whether that is a good idea.
PG&E has asked the California Public Utilities Commission for
permission to raise electricity rates by 2 percent to cover the
cost of replacing all of the plant's steam generators.
The rate increase would begin in 2009 or 2010, after the steam
generators are replaced, and will diminish over time as the cost
of the work is recovered. If the replacements are not authorized,
the plant would be forced to shut down by 2014.
The CPUC is preparing a report examining the environmental
concerns of the steam generator replacement and is examining
whether other sources of electricity, such as natural gas-fired
plants and new transmission lines, could replace the nuclear
plant, said Terrie Prosper, an agency spokeswoman.
At the hearing Wednesday, CPUC officials will explain the
replacement project and then take questions and comments from the
public, said Bob Exner, replacement project manager with PG&E.
Critics of nuclear power are hoping to pack the meeting with
people urging the agency to use the money to create alternative
energy sources. PG&E officials say it would cost ratepayers $1.2
billion more to create replacement power.
"The CPUC, like the Coastal Commission, listens to people more
than any other state agency," said Rochelle Becker, an activist
with the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.
The agency is expected to rule on the rate increase in January or
February, Exner said.
If the increase is approved, the agency will prepare an
environmental impact report on the steam generator replacement by
April. If denied, the CPUC will identify other sources of
electricity to replace the power plant.
Plugged up
Steam generators are huge bundles of tubes that transfer heat
from the plant's nuclear reactors to the electrical generators.
As the plant ages, the tubes crack or deteriorate and must be
plugged before they contaminate the steam-generation side of the
plant with radioactivity.
Federal regulations allow 15 percent of a unit's tubes to be
plugged before the unit must be shut down. Plugging also reduces
the plant's efficiency.
Under current projections, the plant would have to be shut down
by 2014 if the steam generators are not replaced. Plans call for
them to be replaced during refueling shutdowns in 2008 and 2009.
The steam generators are massive, weighing 360 tons each. They
are taller than a six-story building and are 16 feet in diameter.
Each unit has four steam generators for a total of eight for the
entire plant.
The new generators would be barged into either Port San Luis or
the plant's cooling water intake cove. PG&E has not decided which
option to use.
Out with the old
The old steam generators are radioactive because small debris
from the reactors builds up within the tubes. The old generators
would be stored in a concrete building specifically constructed
behind the power plant to house them.
They would be wrapped in plastic material to prevent the loss of
loose radioactive material. The concrete walls of the building
would be sufficient to stop gamma rays, the form of radiation
that has the most penetrative power.
Transportation of the old generators to the storage facility
would take about a week and a half per unit. During that time, an
exclusion zone will be established around the generators and
employees who must work in proximity to them will wear radiation
measuring devices to make sure they do not receive unhealthy
levels of radiation.
The old generators would be stored in the building until the
plant is decomissioned. They would be disposed of with all the
plant's other radioactive components.
The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission will oversee the
radiological safety and security aspects of the replacement
project and the storage of the old generators.
Total cost of the project is as much as $706 million with more
than $100 million of that going to Westinghouse, the prime
contractor. The new steam generators will be manufactured in
Spain by the firm ENSA. No U.S. companies manufacture these
components.
Who should pay?
The replacement project is opposed by Mothers for Peace, Sierra
Club, Public Citizen, Environment California and Greenpeace. They
argue that it would be cheaper for PG&E customers and safer for
the environment if the plant closed in 2014 and was replaced by a
new nonnuclear plant, preferably using some form of renewable
energy.
"As these plants age, more and more things fall apart," Becker
said. "Rather than continue a plant designed in the 1960s and
built in the 1980s, why would you not want to start with a new
plant?"
PG&E officials say a cost-benefit analysis showed that it would
cost Californians $1.2 billion more to replace the power
generated by Diablo Canyon than it will to do the steam generator
replacement. Renewable power sources, such as solar and wind,
cannot generate power as reliably and continuously as Diablo
Canyon, Exner said.
Critics also faulted PG&E for not paying for the new generators
by suing Westinghouse, which manufactured the original
generators.
"When Southern California Edison needed to replace the steam
generators at San Onofre, they sued Westinghouse for defects in
the product," said Matt Freedman with The Utility Reform Network.
"PG&E can do the same thing instead of going after their
customers for another rate hike."
The original steam generators had a warranty of one year; Diablo
Canyon will have gotten 25 years of service from them, Exner
said. The new generators have 20-year warranties.
"We felt there was no compelling reason to sue given the original
warranty and the life we did get out of them," he said.
David Sneed covers environmental issues for The Tribune. Reach
him at dsneed@the tribunenews.com.
*****************************************************************
31 UK The Times: Economic Outlook: David Smith: The signposts point to more nuclear power
October 24, 2004
OIL at more than $50 a barrel concentrates the mind. What looked
like a spike in prices is now taking on an air of permanence.
Even when the price subsides, as it will, it will remain higher
than seemed likely even a few months ago.
The future of oil, given geopolitical uncertainties and the
tightness of supply and demand, looks more precarious than it did
before. Having promised some weeks ago to look at the future of
energy supplies, this is a good time to do it.
In July this year an internal Department of Trade and Industry
document had the following to say about Britain’s energy
situation: “Self-sufficiency in gas is coming to an end . . .
self-sufficiency in oil will end in the foreseeable future . . .
UK coal mines produce about half the nation’s needs . . . nuclear
generating capacity is approaching the end of its life,
coal-fired generation is ageing and will need to be replaced by
lower-carbon technologies or refurbished . . . the energy
workforce, across all sectors, is ageing.”
It paints a pretty bleak picture. The report, to set it in
context, was intended to warn that Britain would need new power
stations in the coming years and might not have the skills or
industrial capacity to create them. But there is a wider issue
here for Britain and the world, and $50-a-barrel oil, while
unlikely to be sustained, is a wake-up call.
How do we reduce our reliance on oil? To avoid a huge mailbag,
let me point out that supplies are not about to run out.
Professor Peter Odell’s intelligent new book, Why Carbon Fuels
will Dominate the 21st Century’s Global Energy Economy
(Multi-Science Publishing), states that there are a
conservatively estimated 5,000 billion barrels of oil left, and
he does not see oil production peaking until about 2050, by which
time it will have been overtaken in importance by natural gas.
Gas production, he predicts, will not peak until about 2090.
Other people have different views on these so-called Hubbert
peaks for oil and gas production. One striking forecast from
Odell is that the world will consume 1,660 gigatons (1,660
billion tons) oil equivalent of carbon energy in the 21st
century, more than three times as much as the 500 gigatons
consumed in the 20th century.
The point is that even if there is plenty of oil around there
will also be plenty of demand, and not just from the new economic
giants, China and India. Developing countries will be lifting
their energy consumption towards advanced-country levels (at
present the richest 20% of the world’s population consumes
two-thirds of global energy). Oil output can increase further,
but it cannot increase by enough to keep up with rising demand.
Not only that, but government commitments to reduce carbon-
dioxide emissions, whether or not America persists with its Kyoto
opt-out, will frame energy policy. Britain under this government
is committed to a so-called “low carbon” economy and a 60% cut in
carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050.
That implies a huge change. At present Britain is very much a
carbon economy with nearly nine-tenths of primary energy demand
being met by gas (39%), oil (35%) and coal (15%). Restraining
demand, by using energy more efficiently in cars, homes and
commercial buildings, will help, building on past experience.
Since the 1970s the economy has doubled in size in real terms,
but energy consumption has risen by only 15%.
Restraining demand will not, however, change the energy mix.
Here, there are huge holes in the government’s strategy. While
renewables — wind, water and biomass — are scheduled to provide
10% of electricity generation by 2010 (compared with 2% in 2002),
this will still represent a small portion of total energy use.
Alternatives tend to be expensive and have environmental question
marks of their own. They can help, but they will not solve the
problem.
Nuclear, it seems, is a much better bet, but the government as
yet cannot bring itself to admit this. Its updated energy
strategy, released earlier this year, said “we do not rule out
the possibility” of new nuclear power stations, but noted that
“the current economics of nuclear power make it an unattractive
option for new generating capacity and there are also important
issues for nuclear waste to be resolved”.
But higher oil prices, if sustained, change the relative
economics of nuclear power. The industry is also getting better
at cleaning up sites. Only this month the UK Atomic Energy
Authority announced a reduction of £1.5 billion (from £6.3
billion to £4.8 billion) in the decommissioning costs of existing
plants at Winfrith, Harwell, Windscale, Dounreay and Culham, and
cut the end-date for decommissioning by up to 35 years. Things
are changing in a way that will make the nuclear option hard to
reject.
That is also true on a global scale. Even a carbon man like Odell
predicts a rise to 30% in the portion of energy from non-carbon
sources, including nuclear.
A recent interdisciplinary study from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power, noted that
nuclear faced four hurdles: costs, safety, proliferation risks
and waste. But it also suggested that work should proceed on
overcoming these problems, notably by developing the technology
known as the once-through fuel cycle, because of the contribution
nuclear could make to reducing the global warming that would
otherwise occur. There were, it also concluded, plenty of uranium
resources available at reasonable cost.
Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk
*****************************************************************
32 JOURNAL NEWS: Labor dispute settled at Indian Point
By ROGER WITHERSPOON
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: October 23, 2004)
Two craft workers were fired and four rehired at the Indian Point
2 nuclear plant yesterday in a compromise resolution to a labor
dispute that triggered a sickout Tuesday by 40 electricians and
carpenters.
The electricians are part of a group of more than 500 contract
workers brought to the plant in Buchanan to help with the
month-long shutdown and exchange of nuclear fuel scheduled to
begin tonight. The dispute stemmed from criticism of plant safety
practices levelled by the workers during a training class Oct.
14.
Thomas Christmas, a Putnam Valley electrician who has worked at
the plant for six years, was one of those fired yesterday. He
said he was told he and the other worker were ousted for
insubordination and that "we were unruly and acted like a mob in
... class." He said Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns Indian
Point, dismissed the two class participants who were the most
vocal about safety issues.
Entergy vice president Fred Dacimo said there were no safety
issues at the plant. "Everything we do is in accord with
Occupation, Safety and Health Administration rules and
regulations and Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules and
regulations," he said.
"We determined who we were comfortable with working on the site,"
he said.
Christmas said that in an effort to reduce the time the plant is
shut down, workers were being asked for the first time to conduct
"hot dives," in which they are assigned tasks in the containment
building and work near the operating reactor where temperatures
may reach 130 degrees or more.
"They tell you if something happens you're not going to be let
out because they are not going to lose the rest of the people to
save us," Christmas said. "That's scary when you know you don't
have to be in there."
Dacimo said working around an operating reactor "is no different
from working in any other hot environment. There are limits as to
how long they can work in that area, and it's temperature
dependent. The issue isn't radiation exposure, it's heat stress."
Send e-mail to Roger Witherspoon [rwithers@thejournalnews.com]
Copyright 2004 The Journal News, a Gannett Co
[http://www.gannett.com/] . Inc. newspaper serving Westchester,
Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
33 l'express dimanche: Nuclear is back (a bit)
[http://www.lexpress.mu]
Dimanche 24 octobre 2004 - No. 15221
DYER’S POINT
"The worst possible nuclear disasters are not as bad as the worst
possible climate change disasters," declared the Centre for
Alternative Technology in Britain recently, urging "a modest
revival of nuclear energy...to sell the idea to the sceptics."
And while Europeans and North Americans are still reluctant to
build new nuclear power stations, recalling the disasters at
Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island around two decades ago, Asians
have no scepticism: China plans to build two large new nuclear
reactors per year for the next sixteen years.
In the rest of the world, the number of new nuclear reactors
under construction barely balances the number being retired at
the end of their lives, but it's boom time in Asia: 16 of the 27
nuclear power stations now being built worldwide are in China,
India, Japan and South Korea. That is largely because Asia has
had no similar reactor disaster that alienated public opinion
from nuclear power, but there are signs that European and
American governments are also starting to reconsider new nuclear
power plants.
Only a year ago, the whole nuclear power industry was facing a
death sentence in the West. No new nuclear reactor had been
ordered in the United States for 25 years, and only one was under
construction in all of Europe (in Finland). Indeed, a number of
European countries that currently get much of their electricity
from nuclear power generation, including Germany (28 percent),
Belgium (55 percent) and Sweden (58 percent), had decided to
phase out their existing plants. The last-minute reprieve was
almost entirely due to the growing anxiety about global warming.
In the past year, popular belief in the reality of climate change
has passed the tipping point, leaving doubters an increasingly
isolated minority. At the same time, Russia's decision to ratify
the Kyoto accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is making
the idea of paying for excess carbon emissions a reality, which
transforms the economics of low-carbon energy sources like
nuclear power. $54-per barrel oil doesn't hurt the
competitiveness of nuclear energy either.
In a world of cheap, plentiful fossil fuels and no worries about
carbon dioxide emissions, the low capital cost and short build
time of oil-, gas- and coal-fired generating plants put the
nuclear power industry at a huge disadvantage, and concerns about
nuclear safety provided the coup de grace. But when oil gets
expensive and future reserves get scarce, the shoe starts
shifting to the other foot - and then rising concern about carbon
emissions does the rest.
As the International Atomic Energy Agency noted recently, nuclear
power's 16 percent share in global electricity generation saves
around 600 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year. By
contrast, electricity generated by burning fossil fuels accounts
for one-third of the entire human contribution to greenhouse
gases worldwide. The whole nuclear power cycle from uranium
mining and reactor construction to waste disposal has a carbon
emission cost comparable to solar power and wind power - so
suddenly, nuclear is sexy.
The nuclear power lobby has leapt on this new argument for their
product. "With carbon emissions threatening the very stability of
the biosphere," says Ian Hore-Lacy of the World Nuclear
Association, "the security of our world requires a massive
transformation to clean energy." Well, he would say that,
wouldn't he? But is this really going to push the world back into
a major commitment to nuclear energy? In many ways, the case for
nuclear power today is a different argument from that of twenty
years ago. Modern reactor designs are less complex and therefore
safer than their predecessors, using fewer pumps and other moving
parts, and far less of the pipes and cables where problems most
often occur. They produce around one-tenth as much nuclear waste
as older designs, and there are better methods of disposing of
the waste. On the other hand, reactors take an eternity to build
- eight to ten years is a quite normal construction time - and
their capital cost is immense.
Solar energy, wind and other natural forces can be exploited to
meet rising demands for electrical power far more quickly:
Britain hopes to be generating 15 percent of its electricity from
wind-power in the next five years. Simple conservation measures
are even faster and cheaper. The Rocky Mountain Institute
calculates that saving a given amount of electricity by using
energy more efficiently costs only one-seventh as much as
generating the same amount of energy through nuclear power. So
expect to see a few more nuclear power stations, even in Europe
and North America, but not forests of the things.
[webmaster@groupe-lsl.net]
© Copyright La Sentinelle
*****************************************************************
34 Salt Lake Tribune: N-plants being relicensed at record rates
[http://www.sltrib.com]
Article Last Updated: 10/23/2004 02:54:01 AM
Yucca Mountain too small: High amounts of waste turn up the
pressure to approve storage facilities such as in Skull Valley
By Patty Henetz The Salt Lake Tribune
Since Congress chose Yucca Mountain in 2002 to be the nation's
permanent nuclear waste repository, nuclear power plants have
been relicensed at an unprecedented rate, an environmental
advocacy group reports.
That means more waste will be generated than Yucca can hold -
which turns up the fire under Private Fuel Storage's proposal
for temporary storage of spent fuel rods on the Skull Valley
Goshute reservation, said Richard Wiles, senior vice president
of the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group Action
Fund.
"These license extensions have the same effect on PFS as on
Yucca Mountain: They put more pressure on some of these reactors
to move waste off-site sooner rather than later," Wiles said
Friday.
The EWG Action Fund claims nuclear power plants will be
transformed into long-term waste dumps unless Congress
authorizes Yucca Mountain's expansion.
Since that's not likely to happen, and since many electric
utilities with nuclear plants are running out of waste storage
space, Wiles said putting the waste in the Utah desert would
become even more attractive.
Environmental Working Group argues utilities ought to lessen
their dependence on nuclear power, especially since the opening
of the Nevada waste site is likely to be delayed beyond its 2010
deadline.
Yucca Mountain's statutory limit is 70,000 metric tons of
nuclear waste. Wiles said that DOE estimates that plants now
operating will produce 118,000 tons is based on an assumption of
10-year license extensions.
"But the utilities are applying for and getting 20-year
extensions," he said.
"In the end, . . . we'll have twice as much waste as can
fit in Yucca," Wiles said. "So what's the next best place? Maybe
it's Utah. If you've got an above-ground site that's taking the
waste, boy, that sure is convenient."
PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said some of the utilities in the
eight-member consortium backing the Goshute proposal have
applied for 20-year license extensions, and others are
considering doing so.
"We do think it makes a strong case for an interim facility
such as ours. It may even make a case for additional interim
facilities or additional repositories," she said.
Scott Burnell, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, said the commission evaluated extending reactor
licenses under the assumption there will be a national waste
repository and that dry cask storage at utility sites would
operate safely for up to 30 years.
"Having a consolidated facility like PFS would obviously
extended storage," Burnell said.
The Energy Department, however, is in an enormous amount of
trouble over Yucca Mountain due to Nevada's absolute resistance
to the proposal and multiple lawsuits filed to stop it.
DOE also is in the throes of figuring out how to ship the
waste across the country. Gary Lanthrum, director of DOE's
transportation program, has said Congress' unwillingness to
fully fund the Yucca Mountain proposal may ultimately force an
overhaul of its entire work plan, which would mean missing the
2010 deadline.
Lanthrum recently revealed another significant problem: The
contract between DOE and the utilities doesn't allow the agency
to take canistered fuel. Lanthrum has interpreted that to mean
DOE is under no obligation to take waste directly from the PFS
site, which wouldn't have the capability to repack the
canisters to DOE specifications.
That interpretation could negate the premise that PFS is a
temporary storage site for waste on its way to Yucca Mountain.
PFS could get its license to begin work on its $3.1 billion,
100-acre facility as early as January.
Dianne Nielsen, executive director of Utah's Department of
Environmental Quality, said the state is considering whether to
make Lanthrum's declaration the basis of another "contention," a
form of objection, with the Atomic Safety Licensing Board, which
is considering whether to grant PFS its license.
There is also the possibility that waste sent to PFS might
someday have to be returned to the utilities that sent it in the
first place.
But Brian O'Connell, spokesman for the National Association
of State Regulators, said that wasn't a problem he would worry
about.
"The only thing I know is the government has the
responsibility to accept and dispose of the waste that is at the
reactor sites," O'Connell said. "Whether it is relocated at
Skull Valley or somewhere else, they've got to deal with it. The
responsibility doesn't go away."
© Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
35 EI: India a responsible nuclear power, ‘artificial restrictions’ unacceptable- PM
[http://www.expressindia.com]
Updated: Saturday, October 23, 2004 at 1506 hours IST
['Manmohan Singh'] Kalpakkam (Tamil Nadu), October 23: Opposing
"artificial restrictions" on genuine peaceful use of nuclear
technology, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday said this
amounted to rewarding those who were "irresponsible" and
constraining those responsible.
He suggested a constructive dialogue between advanced nuclear
powers and other countries to evolve more effective measures to
stem the tide of proliferation without unduly constraining the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Asserting that India would not be a source of proliferation of
sensitive technologies, Singh said the limitation of the present
non-proliferation regime should not be further accentuated by
artificial restrictions on genuine peaceful nuclear applications.
"Constraining those who are responsible, amounts, in effect, to
rewarding those who are irresponsible," he said while pouring the
first concrete for a fast breeder programme at the Indira Gandhi
Centre for Atomic Research here.
"We in India are willing to shoulder our share of international
obligations, provided our legitimate interests are met. India has
actively embraced globalisation. There is no reason why nuclear
energy production should be an exception", he said.
"Technology denial and closing avenues for international
co-operation in such an important field is tantamount to the
denial of developmental benefits to millions of people, whose
lives can be transformed by the utilisation of nuclear energy and
relevant technologies', he said.
"India is a responsible nuclear power. We are fully conscious of
the immense responsibilities that come with the possession of
advanced technologies, both civilian and strategic. While we are
determined to utilise our indigenous resources and capabilities
to fulfil our national interests, we are doing so in a manner
that is not contrary to the larger goal of nuclear
non-proliferation," Singh said.
"We will also ensure the safeguarding of those technologies that
we already possess. We will remain faithful to this approach, as
we have been for the last several decades. We have done so
despite the well-known and glaring examples of proliferation,
which have directly affected our security needs", he said.
Maintaining that nuclear energy was cost effective, he said it
was a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. "We are determined to
utilise its full potential for the national good. It can also be
a much needed cushion against fluctuations in oil prices," he
said.
[http://www.expressindia.com/about/privacy.html] | |
© 2004: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
36 Brattleboro Reformer: Licensing board wraps up VY hearing
[http://www.reformer.com/]
October 24, 2004 Brattleboro, VT
By CAROLYN LORIé Reformer Staff
BRATTLEBORO -- The waiting has begun.
After a day and a half of listening to arguments about why there
should or should not be a formal hearing in the Entergy Nuclear
Vermont Yankee "uprate" case, the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel will review the information and issue a decision,
although no one is sure exactly when.
According to Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the panel will take as long as necessary to decide
the matter.
On Friday, the nuclear power watchdog, the New England
Coalition, presented arguments on their final contentions.
Closing arguments were then made by the coalition and the Vermont
Department of Public Service. Both are challenging the safety of
the 20 percent power increase proposed by Vermont Yankee
officials.
Accusing Entergy lawyers and plant officials of telling
"half-truths," department lawyer Anthony Roisman pressed the
panel to grant a full formal hearing.
"You cannot do your job, which is to get to the truth, without [a
hearing]," said Roisman.
Coalition lawyer Jonathan Block made a similar claim, adding
that a hearing would be the only way for citizens to "get at
least somewhat equal footing with [Entergy]."
The Department of Public Service originally filed five
contentions (see sidebar), but then added a sixth in the last
week. Only the first five are being considered in this process,
as Entergy and the NRC have not yet had a chance to respond to
the most recent challenge.
Seven contentions were submitted by the coalition.
NRC staff, which is separate from the Atomic Safety and
Licensing board (see sidebar) and presented arguments at this
week's hearing, recommended that only portions of two of the
state's contentions should be admitted and only one of the
coalition's. The regulator opposed the granting of a hearing.
The are several decisions before the three-member panel.
First it must decide, based on NRC regulations, whether the
parties have standing -- that is, whether they have a legitimate
reason to be concerned about the uprate.
Then it must rule on whether any of the challenges have legal
merit. If the panel allows that even one of the contentions is
admissible, then it must choose the appropriate venue.
There are two options for resolving contentions. One is through
a written process, in which questions are asked and answered
through the submission of documents. The other is a formal
hearing, which is run very much like a trial in a court of law.
The coalition and the department are seeking a formal hearing.
Any decision made by the panel can be overturned by the
three-member commission that heads the NRC. Decisions made by the
panel can also be appealed to the commission.
According to Raymond Shadis, technical advisor to the coalition,
if the panel does not grant a hearing the group will appeal the
decision to the commission.
The process, however, has already put a tremendous financial
burden on the grassroots nonprofit, said the executive director
of the coalition, Peter Alexander.
"Right now we're in the black," he said. "If we do not get
substantial donations within a few weeks, we'll be back in the
red."
While the state has invested a great deal resources into the
process as well, the cost of hiring an attorney will be billed
back to Entergy.
Though the company has aggressively fought the challenges
presented by the state and the coalition, Entergy officials
maintain that they do not oppose the right to challenge the
uprate but that the contentions submitted were without merit.
Company officials remain optimistic that the uprate will be
approved.
"We spent 10 months in preparation on that petition and we are
confident that every single aspect of it is consistent with
applicable regulations," said Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont
Yankee.
The NRC originally planned to make a decision on the uprate by
Jan. 31, 2005, but now plans to extend its deadline by several
months.
Few people attended Friday's hearing, which was highly technical
both legally and scientifically.
On Thursday, many elected state officials were on hand,
including Sens. Rod Gander, D-Windham, Jeanette White, D-Windham
and Reps. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, Richard Marek, D-Newfane and
Sarah Edwards, I-Brattleboro.
Edwards said she attended on behalf of her constituents and in
preparation for the next legislative session.
"With so many important issues anticipated to come before the
Legislature in the coming session, and nuclear power will be one
of them, I need to be as informed as possible," said Edwards, who
was present for both days of hearings.
After Friday's closing arguments wrapped up, Shadis expressed
his frustration with the complexity of trying to intervene before
the NRC.
"You'd think there'd be a better way to get to the truth," he
said.
Carolyn Lorié can be reached at [clorie@reformer.com.]
Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc., a
*****************************************************************
37 Boston.com: Diversified energy options should include nuclear power
Boston Globe"
[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/] CHARLES STEIN | ECONOMIC
By Charles Stein, Globe Columnist | October 24, 2004
With the price of oil and natural gas at nosebleed levels, you
might imagine that energy policy would be a high priority in the
current presidential campaign.
No such luck.
The subject rarely comes up, and when it does the candidates
revert to simplistic partisan answers: Republicans like to drill;
Democrats prefer to conserve. The truth is it will a take a range
of options to build the energy future. As with investing, the
correct approach is to diversify our choices so we don't place
too big a bet on any one solution. One of those choices should be
nuclear power, especially if we are serious about preserving the
environment.
Nuclear power dropped off the radar screen about 15 years ago.
The plants became prohibitively expensive to build and the public
lost confidence in the industry's ability to produce energy
safely.
But nuclear power didn't go away. Instead it got better.
Utilities learned to shrink the amount of time the plants are out
of service, which means those same plants operate for more hours
and produce more electricity than they once did. Nuclear power
today supplies 20 percent of the nation's electricity, second
only to the 52 percent generated by coal. The industry doesn't
make headlines because the plants don't blow up or make people
glow in the dark.
Nuclear power has other advantages. It doesn't come from
politically unstable countries and it doesn't release greenhouse
gases that contribute to global warming. That last point is
critical. Consider: A year ago, a team of scientists and
economists from MIT released a report on nuclear power. The
project started with a simple premise: that eventually the world
is going to have to get serious about reducing carbon dioxide
emissions.
"Without nuclear in the mix, it will be impossible to achieve the
reductions most people feel will be necessary," said Richard
Lester, director of MIT's Industrial Performance Center, who
participated in the study.
The MIT report is not a love letter to nuclear power. The authors
concede upfront that nuclear plants are expensive to build.
The economics of nuclear look better if traditional energy prices
stay high. They look better still if the costs of pollution are
built into the equation.
If the United States adopts limits on greenhouse emissions, coal
plants, for instance, would pay a penalty based on the amount of
carbon dioxide they emit.
Then there is the issue of nuclear storage. The United States has
spent the past 15 years trying to establish a repository in Yucca
Mountain, Nev., to hold the radioactive waste created by nuclear
plants. The people of Nevada are bitterly opposed to the idea.
Last summer the opponents got a boost when a court ruled that the
federal government failed to prove the storage facility would
keep people safe for more than 10,000 years.
On one level the court decision was extreme (Do we know if Nevada
will be around in 10,000 years?), but the judges had a point:
Nuclear power comes with its own set of risks.
So here's my question: How does that make nuclear power different
from any other energy choice?
Oil comes from the volatile Middle East; natural gas is getting
harder to find; liquefied natural gas could be a target for
terrorists; coal pollutes the air; wind power is great unless you
have to look at the ugly turbines; hydropower requires damming up
rivers. Each energy option involves tradeoffs and each involves
some degree of uncertainty. The future is always hard to see and
the energy future is no different.
In investing, people cope with uncertainty by making sure they
don't put too many eggs in one basket. The same approach makes
sense for energy. The MIT report doesn't beat the drum for the
revival of nuclear power. Instead it says this: "The nuclear
option should be retained, precisely because it is an important
carbon-free source of power that can potentially make a
significant contribution to future electricity supply."
That sentiment wouldn't fit neatly on a bumper sticker or even in
a 30-second television spot. But that doesn't mean it isn't a
good idea.
Charles Stein is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at
stein@globe.com. [ /] © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
*****************************************************************
38 Quad-City Times: Q-C nuclear plant tightens security
[http://quadcitytimes.abracat.com/c2/services/search/index.xml]
Last Updated: 9:41 pm, Saturday, October 23rd, 2004
By Jennifer DeWitt .
Coils of razor mesh and fencing with the same razor-like quality
form an exterior barrier around the perimeter..Just inside the
fence, two rows of parallel concrete barriers, fortified by
gravel and sand as well as multi-ton solid concrete blocks,
create a second barrier..Farther in, seven observation towers —
rising 20 to 50 feet above the ground — provide a bird’s-eye view
24 hours a day for security officers armed with weapons “suitable
to the task.”.
Security guards stop a construction crew before it re-enters the
Exelon Nuclear Quad-Cities Generating Station in Cordova, Ill.
Workers, like all visitors and employees, are required to pass
through all of the facility’s checkpoints. View Photo | More
Photos
Sounds like the scene at a maximum-security prison, where the
main objective is to keep in prisoners. But actually the reverse
is true. These are just some of the security enhancements
designed to keep out potential terrorists..
But the locale is not a prison. It’s Exelon Nuclear’s Quad-Cities
Generating Station in Cordova, Ill..
The new security changes are part of more than $10 million in
improvements being made at the Quad-City nuclear plant to meet
new national regulations handed down by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or NRC. For Exelon, which operates a fleet of 10
nuclear sites, the required security upgrades are expected to
exceed more than $100 million in costs, including work done in
the months immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks..
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry
has spent an additional $1 billion on security since September
2001. In addition to physical changes, about 3,000 security
officers have been added to the security forces of the commercial
nuclear plants. In the past three years, the NRC has twice
ordered enhanced security by the industry..
Though required to make the changes, Tim Tulon, the site vice
president of the Quad-City station, admits “we think the changes
are necessary in the climate today.”.Tulon said the changes are
all about “keeping the bad guys out” and being prepared against a
potential ground assault by a terrorist. Fortunately, there have
been no threats or incidents against the Quad-City plant..
A 25-year employee of the Quad-City nuclear plant, site security
manager Keith Leech long expected the day when security would
become a critical issue for the nuclear industry. “I always
thought it would be an incident at a nuclear plant that would
start it all. Instead 9-11 did it,” he said. .Deadline
nearing.The NRC’s new requirements, known as the revised Design
Basic Threat, were handed down in April 2003 to all U.S. nuclear
plants. With the deadline for implementation just days away on
Oct. 29, Exelon’s Quad-Cities Station has been transformed into a
construction site with workers and heavy equipment filling the
ground for several months. Crews have been putting in 12- and
15-hour days and are working seven days a week to meet the
deadline, Leech said..
According to plant officials, the Cordova nuclear plant will meet
the deadline. In addition, the plant expects to learn soon —
possibly this week — whether its license has been approved for a
20-year extension..
Due to the nature of the work, much of the changes are considered
to be safeguarded information, or proprietary between the
government (NRC) and the nuclear plant, said Bill Stoermer, the
site communication manager. But neighbors and anyone driving by
the site can tell from the ever-changing landscape that major
changes are under way..
“Operating the plant safely has always been the No. 1 goal here,
but security is right up there too now,” Stoermer said..
Tulon said plant officials have held meetings with people who
live near the plant and meet with about 18 city councils in a
10-mile radius to inform them of some of the changes. .“We tell
them a rural plant has its advantages because if something is out
of place … people usually pick up on it,” he said, adding that on
several occasions neighbors and others have alerted the plant
staff to situations that seemed abnormal..
“One thing that has helped is opening up these forums,” he said
of the neighborhood meetings that now are held annually. In
between meetings, the nuclear plant sends out newsletters to its
neighbors informing them of changes and keeping open the lines of
communication..
In his job as communications manager, Stoermer said his
“overarching goal is to ensure the people living in the
Quad-Cities feel confident and safe having a nuclear power plant
in this area.” And today that also means ensuring that security
is not compromised..
“We will continue to operate this plant to the highest levels of
safety coupled with some of the most rigorous security measures
taken in the United States today,” he said. .Gun range added.In
addition to the other physical improvements, the fallout of the
new security enhancement plan is an on-site shooting range where
the plant’s security officers can sharpen their skills. Up until
now, the security force has used the Port Byron, Ill., police
department’s gun range..
But under new NRC regulations, the officers now must be
proficient at shooting at night and from elevated structures —
such as the new observation towers..
“The security officers are heavily armed; we think that’s
appropriate for today,” Tulon said, adding that the amount of
time they will spend on the range also will increase
dramatically..
Leech said the security staff — now contracted from Wackenhut
International — are shooting about 90,000 practice rounds a year.
That now will increase to about 140,000 rounds annually. With
that much activity, his staff would have dominated the local
police department’s range..
Although there was initial concern about the impact of noise from
the range, its location in what had been a forested area and the
construction of a 600-foot wide and 30-foot tall berm has eased
those concerns..
The new range, which is expected to be in operation by late 2005,
also includes a makeshift facility that will enable officers to
practice shooting from an elevated position and as far as 300
yards away from their target. Recycling an open-air observation
tower from near the visitors center, crews affixed a metal
box-like structure to the tower’s floor. Insulating it with
layers and layers of foam to act as a giant silencer, officers
will stand inside the box and shoot out the open end toward the
target area. .Construction challenges.With all the nation’s
commercial nuclear plants hustling to meet the NRC’s latest
order, Tulon said obtaining materials was a real challenge
especially for materials such as ballistic plate — the same
material used to strengthen military vehicles used in Iraq and
elsewhere. “We’ve been competing with the government on some
materials, but also all the other nuclear plants.”.Exelon alone
will have installed more than 10 miles of additional concrete
barriers and miles of new razor mesh fencing across its fleet as
part of the tightened security measures..
Although the NRC gave marching orders for improving security,
Tulon said it did not tell nuclear plants how to go about meeting
the intent of the order..
Exelon spent almost a year devising its plan with the assistance
of its own security experts — who include former FBI and NRC
officials, as well as outside consultants and vendors. One of the
most unusual places it turned was to an Israeli consulting firm
that was involved in the design of its razor mesh fencing..
The actual construction of the improvements began in April, a
year after the order was issued. “We’ve been on the fast-track
ever since,” Tulon said..
“I’m sure there’s people in the country that think we’re not
doing enough yet,” Leech said. “We’re probably not done yet.”
.Jennifer DeWitt can be contacted at (563) 383-2318 or
jdewitt@qctimes.com
© 2004, Quad-City Times [http://www.qctimes.com] , Davenport, IA
A Lee
*****************************************************************
39 Quad-City Times: Guarding the gate at Cordova
[http://www.qctimes.com
Last Updated: 9:40 pm, Saturday, October 23rd, 2004
By Jennifer DeWitt .
With the Quad-Cities Generating Station nearing completion on
another $10 million in security enhancements, here’s a look at
some of the visible changes:.• Installation of more than 5,000
feet of razor mesh fencing and more than 4,600 feet of razor coil
fencing along the perimeter of Exelon’s 765-acre riverfront
property. The fencing also contains a detection device that will
alert officers if someone or something is attempting to enter..•
Construction of eight ballistic resistant guard structures..
Razor-sharp fencing and coiling are the first obstacle for any
unwanted visitors. View Photo
• Installation of seven observation towers — scattered across the
plant — that range in height from 20-50 feet. The towers will be
manned around-the-clock by armed security officers. In addition
to the towers, some of the work included clearing large areas of
woods to improve visibility across the sprawling plant..
• Installation of more than 1,500 additional concrete barriers,
known as jersey barriers. After Sept. 11, 2001, about 500 were
brought in to form a vehicle barrier. Besides the jersey
barriers, which now are lined up in two rows and filled with more
than 300,000 cubic feet of sand and gravel, the site also has 145
9-ton concrete barriers and 115 12-ton concrete barriers
protecting it. The nuclear plant now is completely encircled by
barriers, in fact, some extend into the Mississippi River.
Boating is restricted within 100 feet of the plant..
• With a tighter perimeter around the nuclear plant, a new
security checkpoint was built where all vehicles — those
belonging to visitors, vendors and employees alike — are required
to stop. In addition to producing identification, they must open
their trunks for inspection and random checks are conducted of
the undercarriages using mirrors..
• A new permanent vehicle checkpoint provides the first security
stop for anyone entering the plant..
If a car passes through the checkpoint and a guard decides it
should be stopped from entering, new positive-stop, in-ground
vehicle barriers will stop the vehicle. One of the barriers
raises steel rods out of the ground to stop the vehicle. Operated
by a hydraulics system, it can be activated by a guard in the
guard house..
• In addition to the vehicle checkpoint, employees are required
to pass through two more guard houses where they are met by armed
guards and locked turnstyles. To enter, they must always produce
security badges and prove their identity with a biometric reader.
Holding their hand to a touch screen, the reader verifies if they
are who they say they are..
Due to the creation of a new perimeter around the nuclear plant,
the staff parking has been decreased by about 40 percent and
replaced with more remote parking for the 700 Exelon employees
who work at the plant..
— Jennifer DeWitt
© 2004, [http://www.qctimes.com] , Davenport, IA A
[http://www.leeenterprises.com] subsidiary
*****************************************************************
40 Guardian Unlimited: MEPs weigh up the 'nuclear option'
Special report: Britain and the EU
Row over would-be justice commissioner threatens to paralyse EU
Sophie Arie in Rome
Sunday October 24, 2004
The Observer [http://www.observer.co.uk]
European politicians were in frantic meetings this weekend amid
the unprecedented crisis sparked by an Italian politician whose
appointment MEPs say will 'undermine the quality' of EU justice.
The controversy over Italy's would-be justice commissioner's
fitness for office is dividing MEPs. Now it is being also seen as
having crippled the authority of the incoming EC president, Jose
Manuel Barroso.
The debacle is also resonating in Italy, where the Catholic
church has become embroiled in the debate over whether Rocco
Buttiglione should be in charge of rights, civil liberties and
immigration issues for Europe.
Liberal and socialist groups, who believe Buttiglione, a friend
of the Pope, has views that make him unfit for office, were
scrambling to rally enough MEPs to vote down the entire 25-member
commission on Wednesday.
The 'nuclear option' is the last resort for MEPs, who have
pressed Barroso to drop the nominee or at least shuffle him out
of such a sensitive role.
A defiant Barroso - who has stood by Buttiglione and proposed, to
appease concern, that he be shadowed by four commissioners for
civil liberties issues - says he is confident his commission will
survive. He described the critics as 'extremists'. According to
reports, Barroso thinks he will win 363 votes, enough, given the
numbers expected to abstain, to confirm his team.
Among those campaigning against Barroso's commission is MEP
Antonio di Pietro, the former Milan magistrate who led
anti-corruption investigations. He said yesterday: 'I am calling
on all European liberals to vote against this whole commission.
'Unless there is some change, I hope the Barroso commission will
be voted out,' di Pietro said. 'I say that not just because of Mr
Buttiglione's views on homosexuals. I say it because I believe
that no member of Berlusconi's government should be given control
of jus tice for the EU. The Berlusconi government is an anomaly
as far as the law.
Martin Schulz, a German MEP and leader of 200-strong socialist
group, said Barroso was risking a calamitous defeat. If Barroso's
gamble does not pay off, he could find himself starting his
five-year term with a constitutional crisis. And this in the same
week in which Europe's leaders will be in Rome to sign the new EU
constitution.
Should Barroso's gamble fail, the outgoing commission, led by
Italian Romano Prodi, will have to preside over a grandiose
ceremony in the caput mundi on Friday while Barroso retreats to
form a new team.
At the same time, Vatican officials will be still upset that the
Pope's plea for Europe's Christian roots to be enshrined in its
constitution landed on deaf, northern European ears.
From the Holy See, some of the strongest cries of foul play rose
last week amid a furious Europe-wide debate over the effects of
mixing religion with politics. While Buttiglione's view that
homosexuality is a 'sin but not a crime' and marriage exists to
allow women to have children with the protection of a man caused
offence across progressive-thinking Europe, in Italy the uproar
was seen by many as a sign that Europe's obsession with being
'politically correct' has gone too far.
'There are only three categories of people who are not protected
by political correctness and therefore you can say anything bad
you want about them,' Vittorio Messori, Italy's leading Catholic
writer told Il Messaggero, 'Catholics, smokers and hunters'.
The Avvenire newspaper of the Roman Catholic Bishops Conference
complained that the decision of the European Rights Commission to
rule Buttiglione unfit for public office 'because of what he
thinks' is 'a sad sign for civilisation - not for religion.'
'They have discriminated against a person on the basis of his
faith and his ideas,' the paper said.
Useful links
Europa - European Union online [http://www.europa.eu.int/]
Euroguide [http://www.euroguide.org/euroguide/subject-listing/]
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
41 ONN: Barriers keep Ohio State reactor off limits to football crowds
Ohio News Now:
October 24, 2004
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Sixty concrete barriers installed around Ohio
State University's nuclear reactor laboratory are there for a
reason other than to block illegal parking on football Saturdays.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a terrorism alert in
place for university research reactors.
The Buckeyes played at home Saturday against Indiana.
NRC spokesman Jan Strasma would not comment on security
recommendations, but said directives were issued to all reactor
operators, including Ohio State's.
Earle Holland, Ohio State's director for research communications,
said the outer perimeter was reinforced in early September as a
preventative measure because the research reactor was "one
potential target of opportunity."
Holland and Robert C. Glenn, spokesman for the Ohio Emergency
Management Agency, said inspectors from the NRC visited Ohio
State's reactor to assess its security.
"There have been no targeted threats," Strasma said. "We have
required upgraded security at nuclear plants, including research
reactors."
Holland said the barriers were installed "because there would be
six home football games on campus. We have a stadium of 100,000
people a stone's throw away."
The 33-year-old research reactor uses low-enriched uranium fuel,
which is not considered nearly as hazardous as spent fuel from
commercial reactors that generate electricity. Its nuclear-fuel
core is submerged in water to dissipate heat and provide
radiation shielding.
Copyright
2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
[http://www.worldnow.com] All content © Copyright 2004,
WorldNow and Dispatch Productions, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
42 New Zealand News Gwynne Dyer: Warming world makes N-power look good again
[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/]
22.10.2004
COMMENT
The worst possible nuclear disasters are not as bad as the worst
possible climate change disasters, the Centre for Alternative
Technology in Britain declared recently.
It urged "a modest revival of nuclear energy ... to sell the idea
to the sceptics".
And while Europeans and North Americans are still reluctant to
build new nuclear power stations, recalling the disasters at
Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island around 20 years ago, Asians have
no scepticism.
China plans to build two large nuclear reactors a year for the
next sixteen years.
In the rest of the world, the number of new nuclear reactors
being built barely balances the number being retired at the end
of their lives.
But it's boom time in Asia - 16 of the 27 nuclear power stations
now being built worldwide are in China, India, Japan and South
Korea.
And there are signs that European and American governments are
starting to reconsider new nuclear power plants.
Only a year ago, the whole nuclear power industry was facing a
death sentence in the West.
No new nuclear reactor had been ordered in the United States for
25 years, and only one - in Finland - was under construction in
Europe.
Some European countries that get much of their electricity from
nuclear power generation, including Germany (28 per cent),
Belgium (55 per cent) and Sweden (58 per cent), had decided to
phase out their plants.
The last-minute reprieve is almost entirely due to the growing
anxiety about global warming.
In the past year, popular belief in the reality of climate change
has passed the tipping point, leaving doubters an isolated
minority.
And Russia's decision to ratify the Kyoto accord on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is making the idea of paying for excess
carbon emissions a reality, which transforms the economics of
low-carbon energy sources like nuclear power.
Oil at US$54 a barrel doesn't hurt nuclear energy either.
The wave of enthusiasm for nuclear power in the 1950s and 60s, an
uncritical love affair with high-tech, created most of the 444
nuclear plants now operating on the planet.
But in a world of cheap, plentiful fossil fuels and no worries
about carbon dioxide, the oil, gas and coal-fired generating
plants put nuclear power at a huge disadvantage.
Concerns about nuclear safety provided the coup de grace.
But when oil gets expensive, reserves get scarce and concern
about carbon emissions starts to rise, nuclear power suddenly
looks a lot better.
As the International Atomic Energy Agency has noted, nuclear
power's 16 per cent share of world electricity generation saves
around 600 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year.
Burning fossil fuels for electricity accounts for one-third of
the entire human contribution to greenhouse gases worldwide.
The nuclear power lobby has leapt on this new argument.
"With carbon emissions threatening the stability of the
biosphere, the security of our world requires a massive
transformation to clean energy," says Ian Hore-Lacy of the World
Nuclear Association,
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? But is this really going to
push the world back to nuclear energy?
In many ways, the case for nuclear power today is different to
that of 20 years ago. Modern reactor designs are less complex and
therefore safer than their predecessors.
They produce around one-tenth as much nuclear waste as older
designs, and there are better methods of disposing of the waste.
But reactors take an eternity to build - eight to 10 years is a
normal construction time - and their cost is immense.
So the jubilation in the nuclear power industry is probably
premature.
More reactors will be built than seemed likely a year or two ago;
it would be surprising if their numbers didn't double or triple
in 25 years.
But the slowness of their construction makes them poor candidates
for a quick fix in an accelerating climate change crisis.
Solar energy, wind and other natural forces can meet rising power
demands far more quickly.
Britain hopes to be generating 15 per cent of its electricity
from wind power in the next five years.
Simple conservation measures are even faster and cheaper.
So expect a few more nuclear power stations, even in Europe and
North America, but not forests of the things.
Nuclear comeback
16 of the 27 nuclear power stations now being built are in China,
India, Japan and South Korea.
Nuclear power's 16 per cent share of global electricity
generation saves around 600 million tonnes of carbon emissions a
year.
© Copyright 2004, New Zealand Herald
*****************************************************************
43 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria's Nuke Reloaded
[Sofia News Agency]
novinite.com
Bulgaria in Brief: 23 October 2004, Saturday.
A special operation, under thigh police control and security
measures, was executed for the transportation of nuclear fuel
for Bulgaria's only nuclear power plant in Kozloduy. The
operation took place under the command of Interior Chief
Secretary Boyko Borissov.
The fuel was transported from the
Gorna Oryahovitsa airport.
novinite.com Forum Google Tourism Business
All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright
Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is
unique with being a real time news provider in English that
informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The
editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia
Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency -
*****************************************************************
44 Sun News: Agency: Water drop at nuclear station unusual
| 10/24/2004 |
The Associated Press
SENECA - A drop of 10,000 gallons of water protecting old fuel
rods at a reactor at the Oconee Nuclear Station prompted an
emergency declaration, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
said.
There was no danger to plant workers or nearby residents because
of the problem Tuesday night at Unit 3, said a spokeswoman for
Duke Power, which operates the site. The problem was resolved in
about an hour, she said.
Duke Power said no radiation was released inside or outside the
plant. It classified the emergency as the lowest category of
alerts. All water remained inside the cooling system, spokeswoman
Dayle Stewart said.
Unit 3 is not currently operating.
The drop in water level came during refueling activities, Stewart
said.
Operators were involved in two simultaneous procedures that
"caused the inadvertent transfer of water from our spent fuel
pool to a storage tank," Stewart said.
"The operators very quickly realized the water level was
changing, and they were able to identify the problem and rapidly
stop the transfer of water," she said.
Ken Clark, a spokesman for the nuclear commission in Atlanta,
said the situation was unusual.
"We've never had a serious problem with a spent-fuel pool," Clark
said. "We've seen fluctuations in water levels before, but there
are backups to backups at nuclear fuel plants."
The incident comes after recent criticisms of the Oconee Nuclear
Station's backup systems by the commission. Those problems have
been corrected, the agency said.
Jim Warren, executive director of the N.C. Waste Awareness and
Reduction Network, said the results would have been catastrophic
if the water level had exposed the fuel rods.
"They would be releasing a lot of radioactivity into the building
and surrounding area," Warren said.
*****************************************************************
45 Boeing 757 wouldn't have released radiation found at Pentagon,
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:07:29 -0500 (CDT)
Most interesting here is that the radiation around the Pentagon couldn't have
come from a Boeing 757 hitting it but does fit well with DU used in cruise
missiles.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html
Depleted Uranium Released During Canadian Plane Crash
Little-Known Use of DU in Commercial Jets Exposed
By Christopher Bollyn
The recent crash of a Boeing 747 in Halifax, Canada, raises a number
of questions about the use of depleted uranium (DU) in airplanes, public
health concerns and the 9-11 attacks. When a Boeing 747 crashed and burned on
takeoff at Halifax International Airport in Nova Scotia, Canada, on Oct. 14,
an official accident investigator said the aircraft probably contained
radioactive depleted uranium.
Bill Fowler, an investigator with the Transportation Safety Board of
Canada, said the plane was likely equipped with DU as counterweights in its
wings and rudder.
"A 747 may contain as much as 1,500 kilograms [3,300 lbs.] of the
material," the Canadian Press reported. It took 60 firefighters and 20 trucks
about three hours to control the fire.
Fowler said: "there is no threat or concern" about DU exposure to
those working on the wreckage.
"That's baloney," Marion Fulk, a retired staff scientist from Lawrence
Livermore National Lab, told American Free Press. Fulk, 83, is currently
researching how low-level ionizing radiation causes cancer, birth defects and
a host of other health problems. Burning depleted uranium creates a "whole
mess of oxides," Fulk said, "which is what makes it so wicked biologically."
In 1988, American physicist Robert L. Parker wrote that in the
worst-case scenario, the crash of a Boeing 747 could affect the health of
250,000 people through exposure to uranium oxide particles. "Extended tests by
the Navy and NASA showed that the temperature of the fireball in a plane crash
can reach 1,200 degrees Celsius. Such temperatures are high enough to cause
very rapid oxidation of depleted uranium," he wrote.
"Large pieces of uranium will oxidize rapidly and will sustain slow
combustion when heated in air to temperatures of about 500 degrees Celsius,"
Paul Lowenstein, technical director and vice-president of Nuclear Metals Inc.,
the company that has supplied DU to Boeing, wrote in a 1993 article.
Now, some researchers are turning to the large number of sick
firefighters and workers from the World Trade Center site and reports of
elevated radiation levels around the Pentagon after 9-11. They contend that
the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft involved in the attacks may have also
contained depleted uranium counterweights.
PENTAGON RADIATION LEVELS
Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after
9-11. American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in
Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and
persisted for at least one week afterward.
In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor
with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated
radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a "Radalert
50" Geiger counter.
One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon,
soil readings taken in a residential neighborhood showed even higher readings
of 75 to 83 cpm.
"That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the Washing ton-based Nuclear
Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is
normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor
readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside
Washington.
The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and
"detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha."
This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher
than those detected by the doctor's Geiger counter.
"The question is, why?" Folkers said.
If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it
most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that
allegedly hit the building.
"Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no
longer use it on the 747," Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for
Boeing's 767, told AFP. "Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is
heavier, more readily available and more cost effective."
The cost effectiveness argument is debatable. A waste product of U.S.
nuclear weapons and energy facilities, DU is reportedly provided by the
Department of Energy to national and foreign armament companies free of
charge.
DU is used in a wide variety of missiles in the U.S. arsenal as an
armor penetrator. It is also used in the bunker-buster bombs and cruise
missiles. Because no photographic evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the
Pentagon is available to the public, 9-11 skeptics and independent researchers
claim something else, such as a missile, struck the Pentagon.
A white flash, not unlike those seen in videos of the planes as they
struck the twin towers, occurs when a DU penetrator hits a target.
Photographs from the Pentagon reveal that large round holes were
punched through six walls in the three outer rings. The outside wall is 24
inches thick with a six-inch limestone exterior, eight inches of brick and 10
inches of steel reinforced concrete; the other walls are 18 inches thick.
The object that hit the Pentagon on 9-11 penetrated several feet of
reinforced concrete, leaving holes with diameters between 11 and 16 feet.
Bill Bellinger, then head of the EPA's Radiation Program for Region
III, which includes Virginia, told AFP that he had received information of
elevated radiation levels and contacted EPA officials at the Pentagon.
"I was concerned about that," Bellinger said. "I didn't disregard it
at all."
Bellinger told AFP that he thought the radiation was from DU in the
aircraft.
Bellinger, who was based in Philadelphia, did not personally visit the
Pentagon site and said that EPA personnel at the site had not reported high
levels of radioactivity. However, the EPA official who Bellinger said had
worked at the Pentagon, Craig Conklin, now at FEMA, told AFP that he had not
been involved at the site, "directly or indirectly."
Workers and FEMA officials at the Pentagon were seen wearing special
protective outfits and respirators. FEMA photos show the workers going through
decontamination procedures.
Bellinger told AFP that the Department of Defense was responsible for
on-site safety procedures at the Pentagon.
In New York, however, considerably less attention was paid to the
health risks the burning rubble posed to workers at the WTC site. A recent
screening done by Mount Sinai Hospital found that nearly three-quarters of the
1,138 first responders had experienced respiratory problems while working at
Ground Zero, and half had respiratory ailments that persisted for an average
of eight months afterward.
"We were dumfounded by how many people were sick, and how sick they
were, and how sick they still are," said Robin Herbert, co-director of the
program.
Thomas Cahill, professor of physics and atmospheric sciences, analyzed
the plumes from a station one mile north of the burning WTC rubble. "The small
particles worried me the most," Cahill told AFP, referring to the
sub-micron-size particles, which can pass through the filters of respirators.
Cahill said the high levels of silicon, vanadium, nickel and sulfuric
acid concerned him. The fine concrete dust, he said, acted "like Drano" in the
lungs of the workers, where it irritated and burned the wet membranes.
Until Dec. 15, the pile was so hot, a piece of paper would ignite on
contact with the rubble, Cahill said. "You had the workers working on top of a
huge incinerator in the rush to get Wall Street going again," Cahill said. "It
was really dumb.
"Only 30 percent of the firefighters working at the site in October
were wearing any protection at all," he said.
A class action lawsuit on behalf of more than 800 people who suffer
health effects was filed against WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein and the
companies that supervised the cleanup: AMEC, Bovis Lend Lease, Turner, and
Tully Construction.
The suit was filed on Sept. 10, the last day set by a federal
three-year statute of limitations for lawsuits related to 9-11.
"Under state labor law, employers have a duty to provide a safe place
to work," lead attorney David Worby said. "They violated that duty. Everyone
knew what was on the ground."
As many as 100,000 workers at Ground Zero and hundreds of thousands
more people in the area were exposed to airborne toxins, Worby said.
"If you expose a person to this amount of lead, cadmium, benzene,
asbestos and glass shards, they are going to be sick," he said. "More people
could die from this than died on the day of 9-11."
AMEC Construction Management, a subsidiary of the British engineering
firm AMEC, renovated Wedge One of the Pentagon before 9-11 and cleaned it up
afterward.
AMEC had also renovated Silverstein's WTC 7, which collapsed
mysteriously on 9-11, and then headed the cleanup of the WTC site afterward.
The AMEC construction firm is currently in the process of closing all its
offices in the United States.
) American Free Press 2004
*****************************************************************
46 DU Has Killed 109 Italian Soldiers!
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:49:23 -0500 (CDT)
Forwarded with Compliments of Free Voice of America (FVOA): Accurate
News and Interesting Commentary for Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning
to Breathe Free. NOTE: Thanks to Dennis Kyne for this.
Rense.com --
109 Italian Soldiers Dead
So Far from DU in Iraq
10-20-4
ROME, Italy (AGI) - According to the Italian Military Health
Observatory a total of 109 Italian soldiers have died thus far due to
exposure to depleted uranium.
The observatory stressed the fact that 41 pct of active personnel
casualties relate to disease. According to Domenico Leggiero at the
Military Health Observatory, "The total of 109 casualties exceeds the
total number of persons dying as a consequence of road accidents.
Anyone denying the significance of such data is purely acting out of
ill faith, and the truth is that our soldiers are dying out there
due to a lack of adequate protection against depleted uranium".
Leggiero pointed out the fact that the Senate has to date failed to
establish a probe committee on this matter: "It is proof of a
worrying lack of oversight on matters which are frankly dramatic".
Members of the Observatory have petitioned an urgent hearing "in
order to study effective prevention and safeguard measures aimed at
reducing the death-toll amongst our serving soldiers".
=====================================================================
http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200410191947-1213-R
T1-CRO-0-NF11&page=0&id=agionline-eng.oggitalia
*****************************************************************
47 Japan Times: Activist arrested for unauthorized pill sales
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Police on Friday arrested peace activist Chiyo Takahashi and
three other people on suspicion of selling unapproved medicine.
Chiyo Takahashi
The four, who also include Mutsukazu Komi, the 78-year-old
president of a pharmaceutical retailing firm, are suspected of
violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law by selling the medicine.
They also allegedly violated the law by not being properly
licensed to sell pharmaceutical products, police said.
Takahashi is a 64-year-old Muslim who goes by the name Jamila
Takahashi. She led a group of Japanese peace activists who acted
as human shields in Baghdad when the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
began in March 2003.
According to investigators, Takahashi sold 640 tablets of a
concoction called Neomakisu, claiming it was effective in
treating various diseases, including cancer, leukemia and AIDS,
to a 37-year-old office worker in Mitaka in suburban Tokyo and
two others for a total of 64,000 yen between May and December
2003.
Neomakisu is made of organic iodine and comes in tablets. The
explanation on the package describes it as a nutritional
supplement.
Komi's firm, Makisu Honpo, has been manufacturing the tablets
for about 35 years, according to investigators. He initially
marketed it as a pick-me-up pill, but from around 1996 began
selling it as a cure-all medicine.
Komi allegedly sold a total of 29,400 tablets for 2.88 million
yen to four people, including Takahashi.
But the police analyzed Neomakisu and found it has no positive
effects and could even be life-threatening if taken improperly,
the sources said.
According to the police, Takahashi bought Neomakisu from a
Japanese company using donations collected in the name of helping
Iraqi people.
She claimed the tablets could cure illness caused by depleted
uranium shells and delivered them to medical facilities in Iraq,
according to sources close to the investigation.
In the 1991 Gulf War and the initial invasion of Iraq, the U.S.
military used depleted uranium-tipped shells in the country
against tanks and other hard military targets.
Iraqi doctors allege the weapons cause leukemia and cancer, but
U.S. authorities deny there is any direct link between depleted
uranium and the notable increase of cancer in Iraq since the 1991
war.
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, activists from around the
world, including Japan, formed human shields at water
purification and substation facilities on the outskirts of
Baghdad to protest the war.
The Japan Times: Oct. 23, 2004 (C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
48 AFP: US Navy commissions first in new class of attack submarines
[http://www.spacewar.com/]
WASHINGTON (AFP) Oct 23, 2004
The US Navy on Saturday commissions the first of a new class of
nuclear-powered attack submarines, designed more for intelligence
missions close to shore than its Cold War predecessors, navy
officials said.
The USS Virginia, which is to be inducted into the navy in a
ceremony in Norfolk, Virginia, can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles
from a distance or it can be configured to slip a 50-member
special operations force behind the lines, they said.
The two-billion-dollar submarine is the first of 30 that the navy
plans to buy, eventually replacing the current fleet of Los
Angeles class attack submarines made famous in movies like the
"Hunt for Red October". Three others are under construction by
Newport News Shipbuilding and Electric Boat Corp. of Groton,
Connecticut.
"In the Cold War you'd ask, 'How fast and how deep can the sub
go,' for fighting the blue ocean, deep water threats that we had
in the Cold War," said Phil McGuinn, a spokesman for the navy's
submarine force.
"Well, Virginia is still built to meet those threats, and so you
could ask how deep and how fast, and we would still say greater
than 25 knots and greater than 800 feet (244 meters). But the
important question now for Virginia is, 'How close to a station
can you maintain?'"
Unlike the Los Angeles class submarines, the Virginia has
automated navigational controls that enable it to spend more time
on clandestine missions in coastal areas without tiring the crew.
"If you're going to go sit off someone's coast and do an
intelligence and surveillance mission, or be ready to insert some
special forces, you want to be able to manage where your boat is
and how it hovers in the water," McGuinn said. "You want to be
able to really navigate, and fly your boat where you need to go
and count on it getting there."
The Los Angeles class submarines can perform those special
intelligence missions, but they require more manpower and a more
intense effort by the navigation crew to manually keep the
submarine on station, he said.
The new submarine has other features designed for special forces
missions.
A full nine-member special forces team can get into or out of the
submarine through its lockout chamber at a time, instead of only
two as is currently the case.
The submarine can host an Advanced SEAL Delivery System
mini-submarine, and in the future will be able to carry unmanned
underwater vehicles, McGuinn said.
The old style periscope is gone on the Virginia, replaced by
photonics and fiber optic sensors that relay images from the mast
to large screen monitors in the submarine's command center.
"The captain can sit there with a joystick and a large panel
display and get a heads up view of everything that would have
been seen through the periscope," he said.
The new submarine's communications systems have greater bandwidth
than the Los Angeles class subs, allowing it to communicate and
send back more data at higher speeds.
"Its quietness with its ability to hover and maintain station
allows it to be in position to be a basically 'big ears,' the
ultimate eavesdropper," picking up a variety of signals,
analyzing them and relaying them to other commands, he said.
The Virginia also carries Tomahawk cruise missiles, which it can
fire either from vertical launchers on deck or through torpedo
tubes. It can also fire MK-48 torpedos, or be configured to carry
mines.
The submarine, which will be based in Groton, Connecticut, will
spend about a year being worked up by its new crew, he said.
It should be ready for real world missions in 2006 or 2007, he
said.
All rights reserved. © 2004 Agence France-Presse
[http://www.afp.com/] .
*****************************************************************
49 Las Vegas RJ: CABINET DEPARTMENTS: Political travel alleged
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Critics say Bush appointees visiting contested states to aid
president
By SAMANTHA YOUNG STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Bush supporters hold up signs as Tommy Thompson, the secretary
of health and human services, talks Wednesday about medical
liability reform. Critics say administration officials are
traveling to battleground states to shore up support for the
president. Photo by Clint Karlsen.
Gale Norton
Interior secretary's official events have been concentrated in
hotly contested states
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, center, walks with Clark
County Commissioner Chip Maxfield, left, and Sen. John Ensign,
R-Nev., at the Las Vegas Springs Preserve in August. Norton was
there to announce federal funds for Nevada conservation and
recreation.
Photo by K.M. Cannon.
WASHINGTON -- Interior Secretary Gale Norton traveled to
Minnesota on Oct. 13, accepting a donation of five power
generators to aid Florida hurricane victims. Two days earlier, in
rural Wisconsin, she held a roundtable discussion with business
leaders.
This past Tuesday she flew down to Florida the day before an
official event to campaign alongside Republican U.S. Senate
candidate Mel Martinez.
Like most members of President Bush's Cabinet, Norton has hit
the road this fall. She's advertising the president's vision of
conservation and partnership in states being contested on Nov. 2.
Norton is not alone among Interior Department appointees. Other
top federal land managers have focused travel to the nation's
political battlegrounds to distribute grant money, hand out
awards and spotlight the president's achievements.
They have been frequent visitors to the swing states of Nevada,
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Wisconsin, according to a
review of travel schedules, department news releases, speeches,
and media reports.
Meanwhile, Western states that overwhelmingly voted for Bush in
2000 -- such as Idaho, Utah and Wyoming -- have been given less
attention by Interior officials, records show.
High-ranking Bush appointees in other Cabinet departments also
are traveling this fall.
Nevada has hosted several of them in recent weeks.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi and Norton announced
a veterans hospital in Las Vegas on Sept. 27.
Tommy Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, held
a news conference Wednesday in front of Bush supporters to pitch
medical liability reform, although the media largely used his
visit to focus on the current flu vaccine shortage.
And White House drug czar John Walters was in Reno on Wednesday
to announce federal grants to fight methamphetamine production.
The White House has denied that Cabinet members have been
instructed to travel to battlegrounds.
"Cabinet members set their own schedules and determine their own
visits in accordance with their official duties," said White
House spokesman Jim Morrell.
But top Interior officials have logged more than 95
taxpayer-funded trips so far this year to a dozen battleground
states, according to records compiled for Norton, Deputy
Secretary Steven Griles, assistant secretaries Lynn Scarlett and
Rebecca Watson. That's more than half their total 162 trips.
"Travel by political appointees is normal. However what's
exceptional and unprecedented is everybody is traveling," said an
Interior official.
Interior officials have been to Nevada 10 times, to Arizona 16
times, and to Colorado 14 times.
By comparison, Utah has hosted three visits. Officials have
traveled to Idaho four times and Wyoming once.
In addition, Kathleen Clarke, director of the Bureau of Land
Management, has traveled to 15 states this year, spending most of
her travel time in Western battle- grounds.
The travel has caused some grumbling among career employees at
Interior, who say business has come to a standstill except for
carefully timed announcements in states that could tip the
presidential election on Nov. 2.
The amount of travel by Interior Department appointees has been
unprecedented this year, according to several longtime officials.
"There's been nothing remotely like this in previous
administrations to have this many people on the road virtually
campaigning for the president," said one official with more than
two decades of government service. "The travel has mirrored the
polls exactly, all at taxpayer expense," the official said.
In 2004, either Norton or another Interior official has traveled
to at least one battleground state each month. Someone visited
Arizona every month, records show.
Clarke spent a week in March crisscrossing New Mexico and a week
in April touring public lands in Arizona. She visited Nevada five
times this year, according to records. "The Bush administration
wants to get their message out in how well they are doing," said
Eric Herzik, political science professor at the University of
Nevada, Reno. "In Nevada, you send whoever is in charge of
federal lands given that so much is owned by the federal
government."
Interior spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said the trips were
appropriate, adding Norton expected her staff to travel to get in
touch with communities affected by Interior decision makers.
"If you're sitting in Washington and saying all the rules and
regulations should be decided in Washington then it's easy to
stay in the office," Kreisher said. "If you believe in
cooperative conservation, as the secretary does, then you're out
in the country meeting with local officials and including them in
the process."
One Cabinet member who has not been to Nevada during the
campaign is Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, unpopular among
most people in the state after recommending Bush designate Yucca
Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for a nuclear waste
repository.
But Abraham has traveled to New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
and Ohio -- all battlegrounds -- this month to personally
announce Energy Department grants, according to the Inside Energy
newsletter.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has accepted
invitations to speak in the weeks leading up to the election,
drawing criticism from Democrats. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national
security adviser under President Carter, said Rice was injecting
politics into what traditionally is a nonpartisan post.
Political pundits say it is routine for Cabinet secretaries to
expand their travel in an election year, and that the practice
dates to the 1960s.
"Every incumbent administration does it to help their president
or party nominee and every out-of-power nominee complains about
it," said Larry Sabato, political science professor at the
University of Virginia.
An Interior source said department officials have tailored trips
when polls show Bush might need help in particular states. For
instance, when it was determined Minnesota was competitive this
summer, Clarke highlighted fitness at a Minneapolis event in
June. Norton followed up with visits in June, July and October.
Kreisher declined to comment on the allegation, deferring
questions to the Bush campaign. Bush spokeswoman Tracy Schmidt
directed questions involving official government travel to the
White House.
"They are campaigning under the guise of official business,"
Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, said of Norton and other Interior
executives.
Ruch noted that on Aug. 9, the same day Democratic presidential
candidate Sen. John Kerry held an event at the Grand Canyon to
criticize the president's funding for national parks, the U.S.
Office of Special Counsel issued an advisory warning federal
employees against assisting in political events on government
grounds.
But, Ruch said, two weeks later, Norton held an event at
Bandelier National Park in New Mexico. It was billed as an
official "Founders Day" celebration. In the course of the event,
Norton defended the Bush administration's record on parks and
blamed funding shortfalls on the Clinton administration.
"I doubt anything the secretary did involved asking for a vote
or violating the Hatch Act," Kreisher said, referring to the law
governing federal campaigning.
"We are expected to convey the president's policies," she added.
Norton also has scheduled travel to appear with congressional
candidates in Maine, California, Washington and Alaska. Sen. Lisa
Murkowski, R-Alaska, featured Norton at an Oct. 16 luncheon, and
Martinez, the Florida U.S. Senate candidate, this week invited
Norton to tour a state park with him.
Kreisher said local campaigns reimburse Norton for a share of
her travel in cases where political events occur on the same day
the secretary conducts official business. Interior employees are
forbidden to accompany the secretary to the event, she added.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
50 New Vision online: Uranium existence confirmed
Uganda's leading daily
[http://www.newvision.co.ug/index.php]
By Kiganda Ssonko
URANIUM, a mineral used for generation of electricity and making
of bombs exists in Uganda, the secretary general of Uganda
Mining Association, Rashid Reich, has said.
In an interview recently at Speke Hotel in Kampala, Reich said
uranium is found in four regions of the country and could fetch
a lot if mined.
“According to The Mineral Resource of Uganda, Bulletin Number
four produced by the colonial government after thorough
exploration, Uganda was declared a mineral-rich area. In this
bulletin, a radioactive mineral called uranium was believed to
be found in various parts of the country,” Reich, who is also
the director of Uganda Chamber of Mines said.
He said uranium-rich areas include Kigezi, Toro, Singo, West
Mengo in Gamba Hills, East Mengo in Lunya around Lugazi, Mbarara
along the banks of River Rwizi and Kikagati area, Lokapel in
Karamoja, Rubabo Hot Springs in Kabale and Wambabya River in
Bunyoro.
Uranium is a dense metal used as a source of energy.
The mineral, which is mined by underground or open cast method,
can also be used to make yachts and counter weights for aircraft
control surfaces (rudders and elevators).
It can also be used for radiation shielding.
Over 16% of the world’s electricity is generated from nuclear
reactors run by uranium.
Reich said Uganda has over 100 minerals and 46 areas have been
confirmed to have gold.
He said the gold is found in Bukeddi, Ankole, Kabale, Busoga,
Mubende and Mpigi.
Published on: Monday, 25th October, 2004
© Copyright The New Vision 2000-2004. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
51 RGJ: Kerry declares “Not on my watch;” says Bush lied about Yucca Mt.
||| Home [http://www.rgj.com/]
Brendan Riley [online@rgj.com] ASSOCIATED PRESS
10/22/2004 06:58 pm
RENO, Nev. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry
said Friday President Bush lied to Nevadans about his Republican
administration’s determination to build a nuclear waste dump at
Yucca Mountain.
If elected, Kerry said he won’t allow it to happen — “and I tell
the truth.”
“When it comes to Yucca Mountain, George Bush doesn’t let the
truth get in the way,” Kerry told a capacity crowd of more than
11,000 at the Lawlor Events Center at the Univerity of Nevada,
Reno.
The Massachusetts senator said his own position on the waste site
planned 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas can be summed up in four
words: “Not on my watch.”
“Four years ago, this administration promised the people of
Nevada that it wasn’t going to allow Yucca Mountain to go forward
if the science didn’t show it was definitively safe. That was a
promise,” Kerry said.
“Today, billions of dollars later, and decades of research later,
the truth is — and I tell the truth — the science doesn’t say its
safe,” he said.
“In fact, if you read the reports — which I have done — the
scientists have tried to sound the alarm bell again and again and
warned people that it is dangerous,” Kerry said.
“It doesn’t make sense to build a nuclear waste site on top of 33
different earthquake faults, 1,000 feet from our drinking water,”
he said.
“This administration just turned its back, covered their ears and
went about their own way. Nevada knows what George Bush is going
to do. You already knew he was going to shove it down your
throat,” Kerry said.
“Well, not on my watch. It’s not going to happen,”
Bush campaigned in Las Vegas and Reno last week but did not
mention Yucca Mountain.
Kerry said the nuclear waste dump issue is important to all
Americans, not just Nevada, because high-level radioactive waste
will travel on trains through most of the country.
“You have 55,000-plus shipments that are going to go through 44
different states, past schools, past playgrounds, through
dangerous routes in an era of terror,” he said.
It was Kerry’s sixth trip to Nevada, but his first to Reno, where
Republicans outnumber Democrats. His five previous stops were in
the heavily Democratic Las Vegas area.
Kerry took the stage with his daughter, Vanessa, sister, Peggy
Kerry, and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. He kissed a baby, took off his
jacket and rolled up his sleeves before beginning a 50-minute
speech under a large red, white and blue sign that read, “Nevada,
Kerry Country.”
“God, it is good to be here,” said Kerry, who marveled at the
view of the snow-covered Sierra Nevada as his plane landed at
Reno-Tahoe International Airport.
“I saw Mt. Rose. I saw Slide Mountain. I saw the snow and said,
‘I’m in God’s country, this is great,’ ” he said.
“I always check the best bet when I come into Nevada. The best
bet — single-deck blackjack. The worst bet, Bush’s health care
plan — flu shots,” he said to cheers.
Outside the events center, about 100 people with free tickets who
couldn’t fit inside listened to the speech on loud speakers.
About 40 protesters who support President Bush rallied on a hill
overlooking the arena, waving signs and chanting “Four More
Years.” People in line to see Kerry shouted back, “Two More
Weeks.”
Three police officers on horse back are kept an eye on the
protesters, but no trouble was reported. The critics carried
signs that said “More Lies” and “Flush the Johns” — a reference
to Kerry and his running mate John Edwards.
Jared Townsed, a UNR student from Las Vegas who was among the
protesters, said he wished there had been a a bigger turnout
among the Bush faithful.
But “we’re able to get our point across,” he said.
Another protester, UNR student Michelle Blair, said she had no
interest in hearing Kerry’s speech.
“I already know what he is going to say — ‘I have a plan,’ ” she
said.
One of about every 20 people in the arena was carrying a sign —
“Firefighters for Kerry-Edwards,” “Laborers for Kerry-Edwards,”
“Women for Kerry,” “Fighting for us.” The crowd did the wave
while waiting for Kerry’s speech.
Frank Ciccarelli, who traveled from the San Francisco Bay area to
see Kerry, said he stood in line for nearly an hour to get in.
“The only thing I want is for John Kerry to be elected and Bush
thrown out,” said Janette Sherman, who came to see Kerry from her
home in Truckee, Calif.
Jill Allinson, 16, who recently moved to Reno from Baltimore, was
wearing a T-shirt that read, “Don’t whine, vote.” She said she
wanted to see Kerry and was looking forward to voting in the next
presidential election.
“I think he is great. I want to hear what he has to say,” she
said.
Associated Press writers Scott Sonner and Tom Gardner contributed
to this report.
Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.
*****************************************************************
52 RGJ: Candidates deadlocked in Nevada
||| [http://www.rgj.com/] |
Candidates deadlocked in Nevada Bush, Kerry still fighting for 5
electoral votes
[adamon@rgj.com] RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
10/23/2004 11:56 pm
As Election Day nears and the number of undecided voters
dwindles, President Bush and U.S. Sen. John Kerry remain in a
tight-locked race for Nevada’s five electoral votes, according to
a new statewide poll.
Mirroring results from polls conducted throughout the fiercely
contested race in Nevada, 49 percent of the 600 likely voters
surveyed would vote for Bush and 47 percent would vote for Kerry,
according to the Reno Gazette-Journal/News 4 poll.
Only 2 percent of those surveyed remained undecided —
representing a shrinking ability for either candidate to break
open the race before Nov. 2. While Bush has consistently
maintained a slight lead over his Democratic challenger, poll
results have nearly always put the two in a statistical dead
heat.
“It’s a hell of a race. It really is,” said pollster Del Ali.
“Right now I’d be shocked if any candidate won by more than 3 or
4 points in Nevada.
The poll was conducted between Oct. 19 and Oct. 21 by
Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is plus or
minus 4 percentage points.
In a race this tight, this close to Election Day, political
analysts said the winner will be determined by whichever campaign
prevails in the “ground war” — an all-out effort to get voters to
the polls.
In Nevada, Republicans have traditionally won that game, having a
party that was better organized than the Democrats.
But this year, Nevada’s swing status has brought dozens of
political nonprofit groups to the state to both register voters
and move them to the polls. The Democrats have organized like
never before, and both parties have launched intensive
get-out-the-vote drives.
Hundreds of volunteers on both sides are walking Nevada
neighborhoods, knocking on the doors of their voters, even
driving them to early voting locations.
“It is flushing the neighborhoods to get people out,” said
Michelle Marto, Reno spokeswoman for America Coming Together, a
political nonprofit created to defeat Bush. “We are going to keep
asking and keep asking and keep asking. We tell people if they’re
tired of the door knocks and the phone calls that the quickest
way to get off our list is to vote.”
Chris Carr, executive director of the Nevada Republican Party,
said the GOP won’t be outdone this year.
“I think we’re doing just as good or better,” he said. “We’ve got
walkers walking even in the cold rain up there in Reno. We are on
the phone and doing our door-to-door. We’ve got vans taking
people to the polls. We are out there.”
The close race also means independent candidate Ralph Nader could
pose some problems for Kerry, Ali said. The poll showed Nader
with 1 percent of the vote and the other third-party candidates
with another 1 percent.
“If Nader gets 2 percent, Kerry can’t win Nevada,” Ali said.
“He’s got to keep him at that threshold or Bush wins the state.”
In Washoe County, a state Republican stronghold, 53 percent of
respondents said they’d vote for Bush and 43 percent said Kerry.
In Clark County, which is mostly Democratic, Bush had 42 percent
and Kerry had 53 percent.
Statewide, 10 percent of Democrats said they would vote for Bush
and 9 percent of Republicans said they’d vote for Kerry.
Kerry did better with women, 50 percent of whom chose him, and
Bush did better with men at 53 percent.
A separate question on which candidate would be more likely to
“successfully resolve” the situation in Iraq showed Kerry
narrowing the gap between himself and Bush, who has traditionally
seen stronger support of his war-time policies.
Forty-five percent of respondents said Bush would be more
successful, while 44 percent chose Kerry.
Ali said the results indicate Kerry’s strategy of separating the
Iraq war from the war on terrorism is working.
“That is why he got back in the game,” Ali said. “If the election
were held right now, Kerry would win. Whether he would win
Nevada, well, he could still come up short. Kerry needs the Iraq
voter and the Yucca Mountain voter. If they come out, he wins.”
John Scire, a University of Nevada, Reno political science
professor, said Kerry has “made tremendous progress on the Iraq
war issue.”
“People have come to believe he is not going to cut and run and
therefore stay the course,” Scire said. “At the same time, they
are looking at Bush thinking perhaps he doesn’t really have a
plan. I think the undecideds are moving over on this issue.”
A separate question on who would be better to handle domestic
issues, the candidates were nearly even, with Bush getting 45
percent and Kerry 44 percent. Political analysts said Kerry
should have had a stronger showing on domestic issues.
Both campaigns called the poll good news.
“This race is a statistical tie,” said Sean Smith, the
Kerry-Edwards campaign. “If we get the turnout we think we are
going to, this is going to be a blue state.”
That 44 percent of voters trust Kerry to resolve the Iraq war
points to his momentum in the state, Smith said.
“That is amazing against an incumbent president who has been
commander in chief for four years that they have that little
confidence in him and with the way things are going,” Smith said.
Bush-Cheney spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the poll doesn’t show
Bush losing ground in the state.
“We understand these are difficult times in Iraq,” she said. “But
John Kerry’s inability to take a single clear position on the
situation should trouble voters.”
Eric Herzik, a political analyst and professor at the University
of Nevada, Reno, said the Kerry campaign should be troubled that
most state polls have consistently shown their candidate behind.
“When you’re 12 days out, you are running out of time to convince
the very few undecideds or anybody who is a weak Bush supporter
to switch their commitment and come to you,” he said.
But in the final days of the election — as record numbers take
advantage of early voting here — the Kerry campaign isn’t
neglecting Nevada.
Kerry made his first trip to Reno on Friday, speaking to a crowd
that filled Lawlor Events Center . He also plans to speak at an
outdoor rally in Las Vegas on Tuesday — one week before Election
Day.
“Kerry’s visit will help, he’ll get a little boost,” Herzik said
of the Reno stop. “But it is somewhat anti-climactic that Bush
came here twice. Kerry really got trumped up here when Bush came
here a second time.”
Schmitt said did not know if Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney
were planning to stop in Nevada again before Nov. 2. But their
schedule through Thursday does not include the Silver State.
© Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a [http://www.gannett.com]
*****************************************************************
53 Japan Times: Atomic commission votes to continue policy of reprocessing
spent nuke fuel
Saturday, October 23, 2004
The Atomic Energy Commission's draft for a new nuclear policy
plan advocates maintaining the current policy of reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel.
According to the draft, unveiled Friday, reprocessing is
"superior" to burial due to potential advantages in terms of
energy security and environmental protection.
Burying the spent fuel, however, is far more economical.
The commission released a new estimate that reprocessing all
spent nuclear fuel would cost 42.9 trillion yen, while burying it
would cost between 30 trillion yen and 38.6 trillion yen. The
estimate was based on predicted power generation between 2002 and
2059.
It was the first time for the panel to calculate and release a
total cost estimate. The commission had previously only disclosed
cost in terms of per kilowatt of power generation.
The draft, prepared by the panel's secretariat, was presented
during the day's meeting of the commission, which is working to
revise the nation's long-term nuclear policy.
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry had estimated it
would cost about 19 trillion yen over a 40-year period to
reprocess spent nuclear fuel at a plant in Aomori Prefecture. The
panel's estimate is higher because it includes expenses for
processing nuclear fuel and waste.
In drafting the plan, the secretariat compared the merits and
demerits of both burying and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.
The officials said reprocessing spent fuel is "superior in a
comprehensive manner" from perspectives such as energy security
and potential application to the environment.
The draft claims that the policy of reprocessing spent nuclear
fuel has helped establish a relationship of trust with people
living around reprocessing plants and an international reputation
for Japan's technologies. Such achievements have "great worth to
be maintained," it says.
It also claims that Japan might not be able to maintain nuclear
power reactors as its national key power source if the government
changes the current policy.
The Japan Times: Oct. 23, 2004 (C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
54 NewsDay: Plan ignites debate over home-field advantage for Great Lakes water users
[http://www.newsday.com/
By JOHN FLESHER Associated Press Writer
October 23, 2004, 11:25 AM EDT
BAY CITY, Mich. -- Like other electric power
plants, the Karn-Weadock complex uses lots of water. So its
location at the mouth of the Saginaw River, where it empties into
Lake Huron, is no accident.
Karn-Weadock pulls 574 million gallons from the river daily,
running it through a maze of steel pipes to cool the system
before discharging nearly all the water into nearby Saginaw Bay.
About 1 percent is lost, mostly to evaporation.
No law prevents Consumers Energy, owner of Karn-Weadock and four
other power plants in Michigan, from taking all the water it
needs. But if the company tries to open a new plant or enlarge an
existing one in the future, that might change.
A proposed water use policy for the Great Lakes system would
require new and expanded ventures _ farms, factories, bottling
operations _ to get government permits for large water
withdrawals.
If the average daily consumption would exceed 100,000 gallons
over 120 days, the permit would be sought from the state or, in
Canada, the provincial government. Projects averaging 5 million
gallons a day for that long would need approval of at least six
of the eight states adjoining the lakes.
Permitting decisions would be based on common standards,
including a requirement that the withdrawal cause no significant
environmental harm.
This is among the most hotly debated sections of the Great Lakes
Charter Annex Agreement, or Annex 2001, because it goes beyond
limiting diversions of water outside the drainage basin.
It also would regulate water consumption within the basin _ an
idea environmentalists say is long overdue.
"We need to set an example of conservation," said Emily Green,
director of the Great Lakes program for the Sierra Club's
Midwestern office in Madison, Wis. "We should do better at living
within our own means."
But business and industry groups are pushing the Council of Great
Lakes Governors, which in July released a tentative
implementation plan for Annex 2001, to change or scrap the
in-basin consumption policy before taking a final vote next
spring.
They say it would hamstring economic growth by creating more
bureaucracy and leaving businesses uncertain about water
availability as they plan new projects.
"If we want to grow and prosper, we can't lock up our water,"
said George Kuper, president of the Council of Great Lakes
Industries, whose members include the likes of General Motors
Corp. and Eastman Kodak Co. "We should remember that it's a
recyclable resource and focus on how to use it wisely and
efficiently."
The debate is rooted in a warning issued to the governors'
council in 1999 by a team of water law experts.
They reported that existing laws and policies don't adequately
shield the lakes from long-distance water grabs, because they
either lack teeth or could be struck down in court as violating
free-trade treaties and the U.S. Constitution.
The only way to beat accusations of giving in-basin users an
unfair competitive advantage, the report said, is to establish
tough, scientific standards for water withdrawals that would
apply to everyone and make resource conservation the primary
goal.
"Our finding was that whatever you do with diversions ... you
must not discriminate," said James Lochhead, a Denver attorney
and the report's lead author.
Others disputed his analysis. Randolph Stayin, a trade lawyer,
wrote to Kuper in 2001 that prohibiting water exports from the
Great Lakes without limiting in-basin withdrawals "would not
violate any provision" of the Constitution or trade pacts.
Environmentalists say regardless of whose legal views are
correct, the eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces
adjoining the lakes should regulate water use because it's the
right thing to do.
"We have to to stop using water in a way that damages our
resources, for the good of our ecology and our economy too," said
Cheryl Mendoza, water conservation program manager with the Lake
Michigan Federation.
The International Joint Commission, a Canadian-U.S. research
agency, estimated in 2000 that 1 trillion gallons are removed
from the system daily. About 90 percent of that comes from the
lakes themselves and the rest from tributaries and groundwater.
Most is returned to the lakes, but about 2.5 billion gallons a
day are drunk, bottled, added to products or otherwise consumed,
the IJC said. The biggest consumer is irrigation, followed by
public water systems and industry.
The IJC acknowledged its figures are imprecise because of spotty
data collection around the region.
But conservation groups say it's likely that consumption is
outpacing the 1 percent of the lakes' water content renewed each
year from precipitation, groundwater and surface runoff.
Concern about groundwater overuse is particularly high.
The Michigan Court of Appeals is considering a lawsuit over a
water bottling plant in Mecosta County, which a judge last year
ordered to close because of its effect on neighboring lakes,
streams and wetlands. The order is on hold pending the outcome of
the case.
In a report this year, the U.S. Geological Survey said pumping
for residential and industrial use in the Milwaukee area has
lowered groundwater levels 500 feet _ an amount that would take
up to a century to replace naturally.
Now, the suburban city of Waukesha wants to extend a pipeline to
Lake Michigan.
"This is another example of how unchecked water pumping is
harming the Great Lakes," said Noah Hall, attorney for the
National Wildlife Federation in Ann Arbor.
Another looming problem: Great Lakes water levels haven't fully
recovered from a drop-off several years ago caused by drought and
a warming trend. Climate change may push levels down an
additional 1.5 to 3 feet over the next 30 years, the U.S. Global
Change Research Program says.
"We live in a relatively water-rich area of the world, but
clearly it's not an infinite resource even here," Green said.
Electric utilities are the single biggest user of Great Lakes
water, but return 99 percent of what they take. The biggest loss
comes through evaporation as steam is released from cooling
towers, and is particularly heavy at nuclear plants.
About 230 million gallons a year is lost at Karn-Weadock, which
burns coal and a combination of fuel oil and natural gas.
"We use a ton of water," plant manager Calvin Talley
acknowledged. But company officials said the cooling tower system
reduces environmental damage caused by hot-water emissions into
lakes and rivers.
Consumers Energy has decided it can live with water use
regulation _ to a point.
In an unusual alliance, it has teamed with the National Wildlife
Federation to propose amending Annex 2001 so that states and
provinces would handle permitting of in-basin withdrawals. Only
out-of-basin diversions would be submitted to a regional council.
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm earlier this year proposed the
Water Legacy Act to regulate large-scale water withdrawals in
Michigan. It would require permits to withdraw more than 2
million gallons of water a day or more than 100 million gallons a
year, but the Legislature hasn't taken action.
"Economic projects are local ... and local uses of water should
be managed on the state level," said Jon Allan, director of
environmental services for Consumers.
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
Policy. Copyright © Newsday, Inc. Produced by Newsday Electronic
*****************************************************************
55 amarillo.com: Opinion: Texas shouldn't waste radioactive waste potential
10/23/04
[Amarillo Globe News]
Guest Column: Texas shouldn't waste radioactive waste potential
By Ray Ashley Opinion
Today there is interest in storing low-level radioactive waste in
Texas.
Where will this lead and what benefits can result? How do the
potential risks compare with other familiar materials that
routinely are brought into or travel through the state?
According to an Oct. 8 Associated Press story, "Texas looks into
storing nuclear waste," the firm Waste Control Specialists has an
operating non-nuclear hazardous waste storage facility in Andrews
County. If it obtains a contract to store millions of pounds of
low-level radioactive waste generated during the 1940s, it plans
to use that facility.
This material is composed entirely of radioactive uranium
tailings left from processing uranium ore for the former nuclear
program. This material is classified on a scale with many other
familiar hazardous materials that we accept as part of daily
life. Many are destined for use in the state (certain chemicals,
gasoline, liquid natural gas, to name a few) or pass through to
out-of-state destinations.
According to the AP, environmental groups already are opposed,
raising some of the same arguments successfully used in their
campaign to disallow additional, limited drilling for new oil
fields in Alaska. In hindsight, if that drilling had been
allowed, perhaps the price being paid today for a barrel of oil
wouldn't be $54, and continuing to increase, and low-test
gasoline wouldn't be selling for $1.90 per gallon.
Many environmental arguments have been used against construction
of a new and improved pipeline to carry oil from Alaska to the
contiguous states. One argument was that land to be used for
pipeline construction would interfere with continued growth of
caribou herds. Thus, a higher priority was given to protecting
caribou than satisfying some of the nation's needs.
The AP story quoted Margot Clark, environmentalist outreach
coordinator for the Texas chapter of the Sierra Club,
long-recognized as a leader in the environmental movement, as
saying that tailings are "very dangerous." What she fails to
address is that risks due to accidents involving tailings are
much less than from many other hazardous materials routinely
transported within the U.S.
Notably, a big part of the state approval process is to assess
the safety of local storage plans.
The national need for an adequate storage capacity for low-level
radioactive waste is totally separate from the issue of having a
high-level radioactive waste repository in Nevada, such as that
proposed for Yucca Mountain. There, radioactivity levels would be
many multiples of 10 greater than at a low-level radioactive
waste storage site.
The lack of low-level radioactive waste storage sites (or of
sufficient storage capacity) could lead to a national
catastrophe. Were that to occur, two serious impacts would
result: Physicians would no longer be able to use radioactive
isotopes in patient treatment, forcing the use of archaic
methods, and industrial research using radioactivity also would
end, thus depriving the nation of the development of new or
improved products, many of which result in making life easier
and/or cheaper.
Raising a related matter, there is the possibility for Texas to
replace Yucca Mountain. A series of recent events, including
legal and budgetary, lead to a possibility of the project coming
to a premature end in early fiscal year 2005. That being the
case, it's in the nation's best interest to identify a
replacement site as soon as possible and initiate the activities
to make it happen.
It's well known that the future of nuclear power rests on having
a place to send its spent fuel. Financiers will not invest in new
nuclear power plants unless a long-term high-level radioactive
waste storage capability exists. The alternative is to continue
to store the spent fuel on site at each plant.
This is a less secure arrangement (against terrorist actions)
than sending this waste to a single location for safe storage.
Since Deaf Smith County (in Texas) was one of the three site
finalists vying for selection as the nation's high-level
radioactive waste storage facility, it would be one logical
choice for replacing the Yucca Mountain site.
However, considering the persistence of, and cost for defending
against the likes (scope and magnitude) of Nevada's opposition to
both the Yucca Mountain Project and its site, a necessary
prerequisite for offering the Deaf Smith County site is to first
obtain strong support from both state and federal
administrations.
Imagine Texas as the nation's kingpin for radioactive waste
storage. The resulting substantial revenues could be used to
augment many of the state's tax-subsidized programs, including
social, medical and educational.
Ray Ashley of Amarillo is a registered nuclear engineer.
[http://www.amarillo.com/]
*****************************************************************
56 PE.com: Air Force clears March land that once held nuclear weapons
| Inland Southern California | Riverside Metro
REPORT: There had been concern over radioactive waste; bunkers
could now store fireworks.
11:58 PM PDT on Saturday, October 23, 2004
By KIMBERLY TRONE / The Press-Enterprise
An abandoned 187-acre storage facility that once housed nuclear
weapons has been given a clean bill of health by the Air Force.
In May 2003, the Air Force announced it would re-survey the
Orangecrest-area site for low-level radioactive waste because
gloves and rags used to wipe down depleted uranium capsules might
have been buried there in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Philip Mook, regional environmental coordinator for the Air Force
said a complete report on the inspection should be released by
the first part of next year.
When the Air Force surveyed the area for radioactive waste in the
mid-1990s, Mook said officials believed nuclear weapons were
routinely taken for maintenance to sites such as Los Alamos.
When once-classified documents were reviewed some time later,
they described a practice of burying special containers of gloves
and rags at some Strategic Air Command bases. March became a
strategic air base in 1949 and bombers were stationed there until
1982. The base was downsized to an air reserve base in 1996.
"Since there was a process that we did not know about, we
determined we needed to go back and reconfirm what the impact
was," Mook said. "The Air Force has completed its survey and did
not find anything."
The 16 bunkers may eventually house fireworks for Rialto-based
Pyro Spectaculars, said Dan Fairbanks, planning manager for the
March Joint Powers Authority.
The March authority is made up of Riverside County and the cities
of Moreno Valley, Perris and Riverside. Its mission is to
redevelop surplus military land, such as the 1,178 acres
surrounded by homes in Riverside's Orangecrest neighborhood.
The Air Force transferred the Orangecrest-area property to the
March authority about five years ago. Before any fireworks are
stored in the weapons bunkers, Fairbanks said the March authority
is committed to holding a public meeting prior to any formal
public hearing.
The fireworks would be distributed into the bunkers in smaller
amounts to avoid any heavy concentration of potential explosives,
Fairbanks said.
Stephanie Vega, who is pregnant and has two young children,
recently moved into the family's new Dayton Street home. The
family's back yard looks out over the thick-concrete weapons
bunkers dug deep into the barren hillsides.
"We have always wondered what was in there," Vega said.
Vega said she was surprised to learn of the facilities' former
use but was relieved to know there was no radioactive waste
lingering in the area.
However, Vega said she did not know about the possibility that
fireworks may be located so close to her family's new home.
"It does worry me, because I have children," she said.
Reach Kimberly Trone at (951) 368-9456 or [ktrone@pe.com] More
*****************************************************************
57 PE.com: Wyle lab building to be razed
| Inland Southern California | Corona-Norco
Home [http://www.pe.com] Local
BEAUMONT: A shopping center is planned for the site where
radioactive materials were handled.
01:32 AM PDT on Saturday, October 23, 2004
By STEVE MOORE / The Press-Enterprise
For years, workers inside the three-story laboratory with deep
underground pits wore protective gowns and radioactive "readers"
while cleaning and testing nuclear power plant equipment.
They handled "hot" items in a special room. Those days are gone.
A shopping center will rise where the laboratory once stood in
Beaumont.
Rodrigo PeÑA / The Press-Enterprise
Area civic groups had often met at the Wyle Labs building in
Beaumont. A few years ago, the building was shut down due to
economic reasons. It was decommissioned in 2003 after a cleanup.
The 36,000-square-foot plant is closed, cleaned up and Wyle has
given up its radioactive materials license.
About five months ago, Garden Grove-based F.J. Hanshaw Properties
bought the 18-acre site at Highland Springs Avenue and Interstate
10. The company plans about 190,000 square feet of retail space,
including shops, restaurants and fast-food spots.
"We're talking to a lot of people, but no tenants are signed
yet," development manager Grady Hanshaw said by phone.
Before a new shopping center goes up on the Wyle Laboratories
site, a careful environmental review will be done, Dave Dillon,
the city's economic development director, said by telephone.
Shopping centers and big-box retailers are key to Beaumont's
economic future, officials say.
On a per capita basis, Beaumont's retail sales are about
one-third less than the average of other cities in Riverside
County, City Manager Alan Kapanicas said by phone. Local
residents often do big shopping in other cities, like Redlands
and Moreno Valley.
Beaumont loses about $640,000 annually in sales tax revenue -
enough to pay for a paramedic service, Kapanicas said.
Era Ends
When crews dismantle the Wyle building in Beaumont, it will end
an era of both controversy and convenience.
For nearly 20 years, some have worried about the plant's
long-term effect on the environment and the thousands of people
living and working nearby. It is close to Sun Lakes Country Club
in Banning and across the street from a California Highway Patrol
headquarters.
"Those fears were completely unfounded," Drexel Smith, Wyle
Laboratories senior vice president and general manager, said by
phone.
And many had no qualms about being in Wyle Laboratories. San
Gorgonio Pass area civic groups often met at the facility. A few
years ago, local Rotary and Soroptimist clubs held a catered
Valentine's Day dinner at Wyle Laboratories.
"They were always very accommodating," said Lyle Millage, a
longtime civic leader in Beaumont.
After visiting, many joked about "glowing in the dark."
Wyle Laboratories acquired the building in 1996 from Westinghouse
Western Service Center. Westinghouse got its state radioactive
materials license in 1985.
State regulators called Wyle Laboratories in Beaumont well run.
There were no reported incidents causing any harm to the
environment or workers, officials said.
Cleanup
A few years ago, Wyle closed its laboratory in Beaumont for
economic reasons. The few nuclear power plants operating in the
western United States provided too little business, company
officials said.
By 2003, the Beaumont facility had been officially decommissioned
after a cleanup.
The effort involved Wyle, the state of California and
independent, outside consultants, Smith said. Thousands of
samples were taken, all the equipment, waste materials and tools
were removed and the entire building scrubbed.
"It clearly demonstrated there is no remaining contamination at
the site," Smith said.
Wyle has also abandoned plans for a center on the outskirts of
Beaumont that would have tested everything from rocket engines to
telephone equipment. The company sold the 160-acre site to a
housing developer. It's located in a remote canyon near Highway
60 and Jack Rabbit Trail.
Wyle Labs has a long history elsewhere in the Inland area.
For nearly a half-century, the company conducted tests on
missiles, rockets and commercial products in Norco.
Several neighbors complained about health conditions ranging from
thyroid disorders to cancer. Wyle executives say there is no link
between a plume of underground pollution that has migrated off
the property and nearby neighbors' health problems.
Wyle has sold its Norco facility and homes will be built there.
Cleanup efforts are expected to end in 2006. The company is
relocating its Inland area operations to the former Norton Air
Force Base.
Wyle will test small jet and rocket engines at the site and do
environmental-simulation work involving everything from
dust-storm conditions to humidity. More headlines...
[http://www.pe.com/about/aboutus.html]
© 2004 Belo Interactive Inc.
[http://www.belointeractive.com]
*****************************************************************
58 Pahrump Valley Times: Open Meeting Law violated
October 22, 2004
ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS OFFICIALS ERRED WHEN CLOSED MEETINGS HELD
IN NYE, LINCOLN
By DOUG McMURDO PVT
PVT FILE PHOTO
This photograph of a meeting of the Central Nevada Community
Protection Working Group was taken through a door window at a
public building in Pahrump after the press and private citizens
were barred from entering.
County Commissioners from Nye, Lincoln and Esmeralda counties and
representatives from the City of Caliente now understand what
regional journalists have known for months: The Central Nevada
Community Protection Working Group violated the Nevada Open
Meeting Law on at least four occasions since members met for the
first time last November.
Deputy Attorney General Neil Rombardo, on behalf of Attorney
General Brian Sandoval, has determined the group, which was
formed at the request of the Department of Energy to discuss a
variety of Yucca Mountain issues, said his opinion is advisory
only since more than 120 days have passed since Kent Lauer, the
executive director of the Nevada Press Association, alleged the
violation.
Rombardo determined the working group was indeed a public body -
contrary to what members of the working group stated - through a
three-part test that must be met. The working group is a
collegial body, meaning the power or authority is equal among
members; that the working group is an administrative, advisory,
executive or legislative body of the state or a local government;
and that is expends or disburses or is supported in whole or in
part by tax revenue or makes recommendations to another entity
that does.
Commissioners Candice Trummell and Henry Neth are Nye County's
representatives.
While Trummell and others have argued the working group did not
spend money, Rombardo noted that Lincoln County spent more than
$6,000 on consultants and hundreds of dollars on travel expenses
for its two commissioners to attend meetings; Nye County uses
county staff and facilities to operate the working group. The
City of Caliente and Esmeralda County failed to respond to
Sandoval's requests for information.
Tellingly, the violation might have never occurred had each
county commissioner involved sought out legal advice from their
respective district attorneys. That didn't occur. Indeed, members
of the working group neglected to seek legal advice even after
the Pahrump Valley Times, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and the
Las Vegas Sun and private citizens raised the issue.
"The pattern of deception, privacy, exclusion and nondisclosure
by the members of (the working group) strongly suggests the level
of intent necessary for a criminal violation of the Open Meeting
Law," wrote Rombardo in his opinion.
Clearly the group's goal all along was to work in secret. The
deputy attorney general cited an April 23 Pahrump Valley Times
article in which Trummell was paraphrased: "Commissioner Trummell
said with so much scrutiny of the Yucca Mountain Project by Clark
County and the State of Nevada, there's certainly something to be
said for having strategic meetings in private until a strategy is
prepared."
In the same article Caliente Mayor Phillips is quoted, "For the
purpose of coordinating this thing (Yucca Mountain) we can get so
much done in an informal setting (closed meeting)."
According to Rombardo the comments "indicate a desire by the
group to avoid open government as required by the Open Meeting
Law."
And while the opinion is advisory in nature and no criminal
investigation will be held, members of the group are still on the
hook. Each entity must sign a settlement agreement and submit it
to the state by today, although Chief Civil Deputy District
Attorney Ron Kent said the county had 30 days to sign the
agreement.
Terms and conditions mandate the following: The Central Nevada
Community Protection Working Group, along with Nye, Lincoln,
Esmeralda counties and the City of Caliente, must admit the Open
Meeting Law was violated; prior to any new meetings, the working
group must agree to "hold as many meetings as necessary to cure
its failure to comply ... at these meetings the working group
shall reconsider all past items and not consider any new items
until all past items have been considered in public.
"The working group agrees to implement procedures to ensure full
compliance with the Open Meeting Law."
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
[webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com] Copyright © Pahrump Valley
Times, 1997 - 2004
*****************************************************************
59 amarillo.com: Some doubt claim by nuclear workers
10/24/04
[Amarillo Globe News]
Former employee at Pantex says Mason &Hanger did everything
possible to prevent overexposure to radiation
By JIM McBRIDE jim.mcbride@amarillo.com The Amarillo Globe-News
Pantex Questions: Jimmie Owens, a former Pantex safety
officer, doesn't criticize Pantex workers for seeking
compensation for work-related illnesses, but questions whether
working at Pantex caused workers to develop cancer.
Henry Bargas / henry.bargas@amarillo.com
[henry.bargas@amarillo.com]
Jimmie Owens is proud of the years he worked at Pantex, but he's
bugged by some workers' claims that their Pantex jobs gave them
radiation-related cancer.
Under a government program, some former workers are seeking up
to $150,000 in lump sum payments and medical expenses for
radiation-related cancer or exposure to beryllium, a toxic metal.
To date, one cancer claim has been paid and another 19 workers
have been paid for chronic beryllium exposure, a potentially
fatal lung disease.
"I think Mason &Hanger did everything humanly possible to
prevent anybody from being overexposed," he said of the former
Pantex contractor that ran the plant for more than four decades.
"A good company to work with."
Owens, who worked at Pantex from 1970 to 1988 inspecting nuclear
weapons and working as a safety officer for the federal
government, said he never observed any cases when workers were
exposed to radiation that exceeded limits set by the federal
government or lower limits established by Mason &Hanger. The
federal government, he said, set an annual limit of 5 REM, a
level of radiation exposure to biological tissue, and Mason
&Hanger's yearly limit was 2.5 REM. Any worker whose exposure
approached Mason &Hanger's annual limits was moved to a
non-radioactive work area, he said.
"I never saw any that got close to Mason &Hanger limits, much
less the national," he said. "The thing that I really take
exception to is the fact that some of them state that we didn't
have a dosimeter program. That is completely false."
About 1975, Mason &Hanger initiated a state-of-the art
radiological monitoring program for workers. Employees not
wearing dosimeters were not permitted to work near weapons, he
said, and were told to retrieve their radiation monitoring
devices before returning to their work stations.
Owens says he was never concerned about his weapons work and
doesn't fear getting a work-related cancer. But he's careful not
to criticize workers who are seeking government compensation.
"God bless them ... but lots of people get cancer and they never
set foot on Pantex," he said. "I've got some very good friends
that I've lost because of cancer, but I really don't think they
got cancer at Pantex."
Owens says he believes some Pantex workers who developed cancer
may have gotten it from smoking, sitting in smoke-laden break
rooms at the plant, sun exposure or not taking good care of
themselves.
The plant, he said, closely examined possible environmental
impacts to the Ogallala Aquifer during an environmental impact
statement performed by Los Alamos National Laboratory in the
1970s. Pantex, Owens said, also carefully monitored air and water
routinely for possible releases of radioactive materials and
chemicals.
Ron Alexander, a former Mason &Hanger health physicist, said he,
too, is concerned about workers' cancer claims. He also thinks
Mason &Hanger and the federal government were diligent in
monitoring worker exposures to radiation.
"I went to work there in January of 1970. I can't speak to what
happened before that," he said. "I was there between 1970 and
April of 1989. During that period of time, we not only complied
with all of the regulations, we actually, over time, reduced our
average exposures to where they were within a tenth of what was
allowed."
Alexander said the plant's dosimetry program was effective in
monitoring and reducing worker exposures to radiation.
"I feel for people who have illnesses or cancer or who have lost
loved ones due to it, but there are many, many people who that
happens to who have never heard of Pantex, much less worked
there," he said. "We did, during the time I was there, everything
that we could possibly do with the available technology at that
time to make sure that people weren't being overexposed to
radiation."
Owens says he still feels a strong kinship with Pantex workers
and has fond memories of his long Pantex career.
"Those years I spent out there were probably some of the best I
ever had," he said, pausing briefly as a tear rolled down his
cheek. "Lots of good people ... I feel comfortable with my work
out there and I know a lot of other people that feel the same
way. Then you've got a few that they can tell different stories."
[http://www.amarillo.com/]
*****************************************************************
60 [du-list] DU in the news - 24th Oct 04 (Part deux)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:22:19 -0700
Google Alert for: depleted uranium
Study finds little depleted-uranium particle risks
Pentagram - Fort McNair,DC,USA
by Jim Garamone. A new study finds the health risks from inhaling airborne
particles of depleted uranium are very low. The Capstone ...
Activist arrested for unauthorized pill sales
The Japan Times - Japan
... She claimed the tablets could cure illness caused by depleted uranium
shells and delivered them to medical facilities in Iraq, according to
sources close to ...
See all stories on this topic
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ 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/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************