MacGregor Eddy announcement of the VAFB front gate May 21 Vandenberg peace Action with Kathy Kelly of Voices in the Wilderness, and the May 22 WILPF/GNAWNPS SB disarmament conference with Bill Sulzman of the Colorado Citizens for Peace in Space and spokesperson for 3 imprisoned nuns and MM3 ICBM resisters, Jackie, Carol and Ardeth. Between now and then, ICBM's, probably the second missile defense interceptor will be installed and tested, and a spy satellite will be launched at Vandenberg AFB. -sheila baker
Kathy Kelly will speak at the front gate of Vandenberg Space Command May 21
Vandenberg Air Force Base is a huge presence in Santa Barbara county.
Together with Fort Greely Alaska Vandenberg is the site for the deployment of the missile defense “Star Wars” interceptors. Vandenberg is also the location for the launch and coordination of polar satellites used for directing the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq.
On May 21^st there will be a peace protest at the front gate of the base at 1 pm. The special guest speaker is Kathy Kelly of Voices in the Wilderness.
Ms Kelly is a Nobel Peace prize nominee who co-founded Voices in the Wilderness and has made may trips taking humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. Ms. Kelly was in Baghdad during the “shock and awe” bombardment of the city by the US Air Force, thus giving special poignancy to her presence at Vandenberg.
Last October Dr. Helen Caldicott was a guest speaker at Vandenberg front gate to protest the deployment of the ruinously expensive missile defense interceptors which provide a shield for the launching of pre-emptive strikes and destabilize world peace. Despite it's declared
policy of permitting peaceful protests the base personnel confiscated Dr. Caldicott's microphone and platform and refused to allow protesters to park in the area that was alloted to them. This year protesters are invited to meet
at noon at Ryan Park in Lompoc (located at the corner
of West Ocean and South O streets) at noon to share rides to the front gate so we cannot be turned away.
The front gate is located at the intersection of Highway One and the Casamila-Lompoc Rd, six miles north of Lompoc on Hwy 1 in Santa Barbara
county.
The is supposed to be parking available at the Vandenberg school that is on the other side of the highway.
On May 22 there will be an informational meeting of the Global Network and WILPF at the Santa Barbara public library from 10 am to 3 pm.
Special plenary speaker on the 22^nd will be Bill Sulzman of Citizens for Peace in Space in Colorado Springs. The conference is open to the
public but space is limited so please register if you plan to attend.
For details about either the May 21 demonstration or the May 22 conference contact MacGregor Eddy at po Box 5789 Salinas CA 93915-5789,
or email
mindful@redshift.com <
mailto:mindful@redshift.com> or call 831
754 5554 or cell phone 831 206 5043.
There will be accommodation available on the night of Saturday May 21 for people from out of town. A flier about the events can be downloaded
from the websit
e
www.vpeaceldf.org <
http://www.vpeaceldf.org/>
“/A Space 4 Peace”/ is a 38-minute documentary about Vandenberg which features local activists and is available in either DVD or VHS if you send a $10 donation to the Vandenberg Peace Legal Defense fund po Box 5789 Salinas CA 93915-5789. This defense fund helps with the legal expenses to defend the civil rights of peace protesters who are
arrested at the base. The fund has helped successfully defend Bud Boothe of Los Olivos who has been protesting at Vandenberg for two decades.
www.justdissent.org
Just Dissent Bill, called "Non-Violent Civil Disobedience Protection Act" was passed by the California State Senate, but vetoed by then governor Gray Davis. The bill recognized dissent's role in creating a better society, and therefore sought to greatly shorten sentences of those who commit civil dissent of our government; in doing so, follow a hi
gher law.
*****************************************************************
17 Las Vegas RJ: Senate Democrats rally to defense of Harry Reid
Friday, February 11, 2005
Counterattack launched; letter sent to Bush
By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats have launched an aggressive
counterattack in response to Republican charges against their
leader, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada.
Every Democratic senator except Reid signed a letter sent to
President Bush on Wednesday. The letter expresses dismay that
Republican operatives are attacking Reid, the Senate minority
leader, before substantive legislative action has begun in the
new session of Congress.
"Of course, (Reid) won't agree with the (Bush) administration
on every issue, but calling him names is pointless and silly,"
the senators said in the letter, which was distributed by the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
"We feel that suggesting Democrats are simply obstructionists
because they have honest policy disagreements with your
administration is dishonest," they said.
The Republican National Committee on Monday mailed to about 1
million journalists, GOP donors and activists a 13-page document
that labels Reid an obstructionist and says members of Reid's
family have benefited from lobbying Congress. It dissected
Reid's voting records, declared him "out of touch with
mainstream America," and characterized him as a major obstacle
to President Bush's agenda.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee joined the fray
Tuesday with a list of complaints entitled, "Harry Reid's Forty
Days and Forty Nights of Partisanship." The list cites Reid's
creation of a "war room" to organize Democratic attacks, his
claim that Bush "has destroyed the economy of this country," and
his calling Bush a "liar."
"This is a new Democratic party," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.,
said at a news conference called to release the Democratic
letter.
"It says to the president, `You will not intimidate us,' "
added Schumer, who likened the criticism of Reid to political
knee-capping.
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius declined to comment on the
letter. He said Bush remains committed to working with both
parties on issues important to America.
The Democrat campaign committee also has sent out a
fund-raising e-mail urging donors to sign a petition condemning
Republican charges.
Calls to the RNC were not returned Thursday. Brian Nick, a
spokesman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said
the group "literally used Reid's own words to show how partisan
he has been."
The campaign by Democrats reflects concern that Republicans are
trying to soften up Reid as they did former Minority Leader Tom
Daschle of South Dakota. Daschle was defeated in November.
DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said Democrats don't want that to
happen to Reid.
"What we have seen in previous campaigns in the last couple of
years is that when false charges are made, if they are not
immediately batted down, they sometimes take on a life of their
own," Singer said.
Reid appreciates the support of fellow Democrats, his
spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. Reid was not available to comment.
"Senator Reid has said all he intends to say about the
attacks," Hafen said.
The Associated Press contributed to this story
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
18 adn.com alaska : Energy proposal enters the fray
Anchorage Daily News: Alaska's Newspaper
ANWR: Ex-union chief promises to lobby Congress with secrecy.
By RICHARD MAUER
Anchorage Daily News
Last Modified: February 11th, 2005 at 03:39 AM
WASHINGTON -- The energy bill, with its provision to open the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, took a tentative
step forward Thursday with its first subcommittee hearing in the
House.
Republicans said the current effort may be the best chance ever
to tap the huge reserves estimated, but undiscovered, on the
ANWR coastal plain, since their party controls the White House
and both houses of Congress. But they acknowledged that the
course is difficult and their timetable has already slipped.
Democrats said that the measure heard Thursday before the energy
subcommittee of the House Energy &Commerce Committee was as
flawed as the bill that died last year, also in a
Republican-controlled Congress.
Meanwhile, Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski, in Washington to testify
for the energy bill, said at a news conference that the state
was redoubling its lobbying effort on behalf of ANWR, in part
through a reorganized Arctic Power, the publicly and privately
funded nonprofit advocacy group. Agreeing that the 109th
Congress represented the best chance for ANWR legislation, he
announced that former Alaska Teamster boss Jerry Hood would lead
the team of publicists, researchers and contract lobbyists.
Hood, also at the news conference, said his contract was still
being negotiated and therefore he couldn't disclose his pay.
Asked what would be different about the campaign this year than
the failed efforts in years past, Hood said he didn't want to
get into specifics.
In fact, he said, one key element will be secrecy. He asserted
that in previous open-ANWR efforts in which he was involved
through the Teamsters, opponents among environmental groups
would read about his strategy in the newspapers and quickly
devise counter-efforts.
Still, it shouldn't be hard to guess what a lobbyist would do on
behalf of opening the refuge.
"This isn't rocket science," he said.
The hearing Thursday morning showed how many issues were crowded
into the bill along with ANWR. There was testimony concerning
nuclear power, pipelines, the controversies over sites for
liquefied natural gas plants and power lines, power reliability,
alternative and renewable fuels and more. Republican leaders had
hoped to get the bill out of committees this week and passed by
the full House by next, but that plan was dropped. The industry
publication Environment &Energy Daily on Wednesday quoted House
Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, as saying that tax and
budget questions will keep the energy bill off the floor until
at least the beginning of March.
In opening remarks, Energy Committee Chairman Joe Barton,
R-Texas, said he wanted to bring the bill to the floor "with
strong bipartisan support."
"This is the bill that would not die," he said. "This is the
Congress where we're going to pass strong comprehensive energy
policy."
His challenge became immediately clear as Democrat after
Democrat suggested otherwise.
John Dingell, the ranking Democrat from Michigan, said that by
starting with last year's failed measure, Republicans were
"peddling the same tired, special-interest-laden bill." A
proposal to push it through with just a couple days of hearings
was "an embarrassment," Dingell said.
"I feel that on our present course, we will have ourselves two
years of partisan gridlock," Dingell said.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who supports permanent wilderness
protection for the refuge coastal plain, ridiculed the
Republicans, comparing them to the behavior of subatomic
particles subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
"In Congress, we have the Republican uncertainty principle," he
said, describing it this way: The stronger the Republicans make
known their opinions on legislation, the more difficult it is to
predict when that legislation will proceed.
"Is the energy bill going to the floor?" Markey said. "Maybe
yes, maybe no."
Subcommittee chair Ralph Hall, who had tried but failed to
shrink the three-minute opening remarks allowed each member,
responded drolly, "The only certainty is why we're pushing
one-minute opening statements."
Hall, R-Texas, said that majorities in both houses supported the
energy bill last time, but it died because of a Senate
filibuster. He urged moving the bill quickly.
"The longer we wait, the more difficult it is," Hall said.
Daily News reporter Richard Mauer can be reached at
rmauer@adn.com.
© Copyright 2005, The Anchorage Daily News
*****************************************************************
19 The Daily Cardinal - Opinion: Nuclear bunker busters need no extra funding -
By Nick Rotchadl
Published: Friday, February 11, 2005
As the world is about to be destroyed by a Russian doomsday
machine near the end of Stanley Kubrick's 1964 classic satire
film "Dr. Strangelove," U.S. leaders pace about the war room to
determine how mine shafts are going to be built to sustain human
life. Yet, as General Turgidson frantically points out, a huge
problem could occur if the Russians attempted an immediate sneak
attack on U.S. mine shaft space. With their stashed-away missiles
destroying U.S. mine shafts, the Russians could create a "mine
shaft gap."
Missiles meant to destroy Hard and Deeply Buried Targets, such as
mine shafts, were threatening to General Turgidson in "Dr.
Strangelove." Now such missiles, called Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrators or "bunker-busters," are intriguing to Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld. RNEP missiles are intriguing enough to
Rumsfeld that he requested funds for them in the president's 2006
budget.
In a memo Rumsfeld wrote last month to former Energy Secretary
Spencer Abraham, he made it clear he wants to complete the study
on RNEP weapons. Rumsfeld said to Abrahams, "You can count on my
support for your efforts to revitalize the nuclear weapons
infrastructure and to complete the RNEP study."
President Bush has supported Rumsfeld by asking for $8.5 million
for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator project in his 2006
budget, which was released Monday. Approximately $4 million goes
to Spencer's former department and $4.5 million to Rumsfeld's
Department of Defense.
The need for weapons to destroy deeply buried targets is
increasingly apparent because hostile nations are building their
most important facilities approximately 1,000 feet underground.
However, RNEP missiles are not the best method of destroying
underground targets.
Nuclear weapons, including any RNEP, cannot be engineered to
penetrate far enough into the ground to prevent nuclear fallout.
According to Globalsecurity.org, to prevent fallout, a nuclear
weapon with approximately the same yield as the one dropped on
Hiroshima must be buried 850 feet in the ground. Currently, the
best weapons casing available can barely penetrate 100 feet.
Additionally, the yield of a RNEP will be much larger than the
bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which will increase fallout. If a
weapon with a yield only 1/100th the necessary size for an RNEP
was detonated only 20 to 50 feet underground, which is close to
current capability, it would put one million cubic feet of
radioactive debris into the air and create a crater approximately
the size of ground zero in New York, according to
Globalsecurity.org.
The United States' international credibility will suffer if the
RNEP project moves forward. Increased spending on nuclear weapons
severely undermines U.S. efforts in non-proliferation. It will be
difficult for other nations to stop building nuclear weapons when
they notice the United States is funding more nuclear weapons
research. If President Bush truly believed non-proliferation was
the most important issue facing this nation, as he stated in the
first presidential debate, he would not try to move forward with
the RNEP project.
The fact that an effective alternative to RNEP weapons exists
makes it clear that funding for these missiles is unnecessary.
James O. Ellis Jr., former head of U.S. Strategic Command, said
in 2003 that smart, precision-guided conventional munitions could
seal off deeply buried targets. No reason can justify spending
taxpayer money on RNEPs when there is a safe, effective and less
costly alternative already available.
In President Bush's effort to cut the deficit in half by 2009, he
has eliminated or drastically cut back 150 government programs.
Most of these cuts fall on the domestic side because the United
States is a nation at war, but President Bush still needs to look
at wasteful spending on the defense side of the budget. The $8.5
million used to fund RNEP research could be put to better use in
education, healthcare, border security or deficit reduction.
Thankfully, Congress has been skeptical of the RNEP program.
Congress approved the requested $15 million for fiscal year 2003,
then cut the requested amount in half to $7.5 million in 2004 and
eliminated funding in the 2005 budget. The responsible thing for
Congress to do this year is to again deny funding for RNEP
research. Yet, do not expect this year to be the end of the RNEP
project. Rumsfeld claims he also wants to request funds for
fiscal year 2007.
Nick Rotchadl is a junior majoring in political science and
journalism. Send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
Copyright © 2001-2002 The Daily Cardinal Media Corp.
*****************************************************************
20 UCS: Politics Trumps Science at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[Union of Concerned Scientists]
February 9, 2005
Survey Reveals Inappropriate Orders to Alter Scientific
Findings, Decisions
Restoring Scientific Integrity
Read the summary of national and regional survey results
Washington, D.C.Political intervention to alter scientific
results has become pervasive within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS), according to a survey of its scientists
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a
result, endangered and threatened wildlife are not being
protected as intended by the Endangered Species Act, scientists
say.
The two organizations distributed a 42-question survey to more
than 1,400 USFWS biologists, ecologists, botanists and other
science professionals working in Ecological Services field
offices across the country to obtain their perceptions of
scientific integrity within the USFWS, as well as political
interference, resources and morale.
+ Nearly half of all respondents whose work is related to
endangered species scientific findings (44 percent) reported
that they "have been directed, for non-scientific reasons, to
refrain from making jeopardy or other findings that are
protective of species." One in five agency scientists revealed
they have been instructed to compromise their scientific
integrity-reporting that they have been "directed to
inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a
USFWS scientific document;"
+ More than half of all respondents (56 percent) reported
cases where "commercial interests have inappropriately induced
the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or
decisions through political intervention;" and
+ More than a third (42 percent) said they could not openly
express "concerns about the biological needs of species and
habitats without fear of retaliation" in public while nearly a
third (30 percent) felt they could not do so even inside the
confines of the agency. Almost a third (32 percent) felt they
are not allowed to do their jobs as scientists.
In essays submitted on the topic of how to improve the integrity
of scientific work at USFWS, one biologist wrote, "We are not
allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to rubber
stamp everything. I have 20 years of federal service in this and
this is the worst it has ever been." By far, the most frequent
concern raised by the scientists in the written responses was
political interference.
"The survey results illustrate an alarming disregard for
scientific facts among political appointees entrusted to protect
threatened and endangered species," said UCS Washington
Representative Lexi Shultz. "Employing scientists only to
undermine their findings is at best a mismanagement of public
resources and at worst a serious betrayal of the public trust."
A number of the essays spoke to the climate of fear within the
agency. One biologist in Alaska wrote, "Recently, [Department of
Interior] officials have forced changes in Service documents,
and worse, they have forced upper-level managers to say things
that are incorrect&It's one thing for the Department to dismiss
our recommendations, it's quite another to be forced (under
veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter our
best professional judgment." A manager wrote, "There is a
culture of fear of retaliation in mid-level management. If the
manager were to speak out for resources, they fear loss of jobs
or funding for their programs." And a biologist from the Pacific
region added that the only "hope [is] we get sued by an
environmental or conservation organization."
"Political science, not biology, has become the dominant
discipline in today's Fish & Wildlife Service," concluded PEER
Program Director Rebecca Roose, who worked with current and
former USFWS employees on survey design. "Like the trainer who
hobbles a horse and then laments that it does not run fast, the
politicians who complain about the lack of 'sound science' in
the administration of the Endangered Species Act are often the
very ones who intervene behind closed doors to manipulate
scientific findings when they impede development projects."
Despite agency directives not to reply-even on their own
time-nearly 30 percent of all the scientists returned surveys.
Read the summary of national and regional survey results.
To set up interviews or for UCS info, contact:
SUZANNE SHAW
Director of Communications
(617) 547-5552
MORROW CATER
Founding Principal
Cater Communications
(415) 453-0430
© Union of Concerned Scientists
Page Last Revised: 02.09.2005
*****************************************************************
21 KLAS: Nevada's Atomic Bomb History
February 11, 2005
Matt Adams, Asst. Chief Photojournalist
It's hard for new residents to imagine, but the A-bomb blasts
were once a part of everyday life here. And this month, the
public will get to peer into the once top secret world of nuclear
testing.
(Feb. 11) -- Nevada is the most 'nuked' spot on the planet. Our
state has been the site of 928 atomic tests, many of them
aboveground atmospheric blasts that generated gigantic mushroom
clouds. It's hard for new residents to imagine, but the A-bomb
blasts were once a part of everyday life here, and this month,
the public will get to peer into the once top secret world of
nuclear testing.
It's no exaggeration to say that the Cold War was won right here
in Nevada. The men and women who toiled in obscurity at the
Nevada Test Site operated under strict secrecy restrictions,
often not even telling their spouses what they did. But the
world has changed, and the veil is being lifted from some of the
darkest secrets of the Cold War, and soon, we'll all get a
chance for hands-on access to the once-classified artifacts of a
troubled time.
If you've ever wondered what it would have been like to witness
an above-ground nuclear test, the closest you will ever get is
in a bunker-shaped theater simulator inside the new Atomic
Testing Museum, set to open to the public later this month.
An astounding collection of atomic age artifacts is housed
there, but this is no stodgy, dusty, storehouse. It's a
hands-on, interactive, multimedia atomic extravaganza packed
with some stuff that no one without a security clearance has
ever seen before.
Dr. Troy Wade sums it up, "Our concept -- a 50-year walk through
the Cold War."
Dr. Wade not only helped to create the museum, he could almost
qualify as an exhibit himself since he was the test director on
several big blasts, including the one that created the giant
sedan crater. The awesome power of the atom was a terrible thing
to behold.
Environmentally, the tests were disastrous. Radiation exposure
caused untold harm. The museum doesn't try to sugarcoat any of
that. As an adjunct, it is a public repository for all documents
from that era, including those about atomic vets and the
downwinders. Some documents, once top secret, are on display,
including Harry Truman's order that created the Nevada Test
Site.
Video kiosks allow visitors to control or reverse the famous
images of homes and buildings being blown away during tests.
Film snippets remind us of the civil defense advice in the 50s
and 60s --duck and cover. The advice seems naive these days.
The test site town of Mercury was Nevada's 3rd largest city, and
the state's largest employer. It was quite a time, when the
country's greatest scientists collided with the world's most
glamorous showgirls in wild Las Vegas, where A-bomb tests became
a tourist attraction.
"Some thought it was a big deal. Others thought it was a pain in
the ass because gambling was interrupted," Dr. Troy Wade said.
Some of the most interesting artifacts are pop culture items,
many of which were found on eBay or squirreled away. Things like
atomic Christmas ornaments, atomic candies, atomic cocktails,
bomb shaped salt and pepper shakers, A-bomb rings found in boxes
of kids cereal, postcards and record albums. Nukes were
everywhere. The museum traces every step thru the Cold War years
and ends with a quiet, poignant statement.
Troy Wade says, "Here's a piece of the Berlin Wall, an actual
piece. However, don't get too comfortable. This is a beam from
the World Trade Center. The war hasn't ended. It's a different
kind of war."
The Atomic Testing Museum is affiliated with the Smithsonian,
which has very high standards. This museum meets and exceeds
them. It's a moving, humbling experience. It opens to the public
on February 20th. Click here to visit the Atomic Testing Museum
.
More than 900 times over almost half a century, atomic weapons
were detonated here in Nevada. Most of the tests went off as
planned, but not all of them.
Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
22 Guardian Unlimited: Signals from the palace of smoke and mirrors
Simon Tisdall
Friday February 11, 2005
The Guardian
Inside the hermit kingdom, things are rarely what they seem.
Reports last autumn of defecting generals, anti-regime graffiti,
and disappearing portraits of the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il,
provoked excited speculation about insurrection in North Korea.
But like previous flurries concerning the world's most isolated
country, the rumours came to nothing.
Earlier this month, state radio said Mr Kim, far from being
overthrown, was planning to extend the family dynasty begun by
his father.
"He stressed that if he falls short of completing the revolution
it will be continued by his son and grandson," the radio quoted
Mr Kim as saying.
None of this may matter in any case. Many countries have a
president-for-life. But Kim Il-sung, North Korea's Great Leader
and communist founder, who died in 1994, is officially
president-for-ever. On this basis, his Elvis-suited son could
also prove immortal.
North Korea's statement yesterday that it possesses nuclear
weapons and will not resume disarmament talks emanates from this
same mysterious palace of smoke and mirrors.
Pyongyang has previously claimed to have atomic weapons
capability.
It said yesterday that it still wanted the six-party negotiations
to succeed and remained committed to a nuclear-free Korean
peninsula.
The significance of its démarche lay in the wording. What was
needed now, the statement said, was "justification for us to
attend the talks" with an expectation of "positive results".
In short, Mr Kim was upping the ante. He wants more carrots and
fewer sticks, less US rhetoric about democracy and "outposts of
tyranny", fewer Japanese threats of sanctions, and more tangible
security and economic incentives.
This need is very real. For even as he poked President George
Bush in the eye, just as the US was softening its tone in
confident expectation of resumed dialogue, Mr Kim faced a hidden
emergency of enormous proportions. His position is not one of
strength but chronic weakness.
According to UN agencies, North Korea "will post another
substantial food deficit in 2005 and require external aid to
support more than a quarter of its 24m people.
"Insufficient production, a deficient diet, lower incomes and
rising prices mean that 6.4m North Koreans - most of them
children, women and the elderly - will need food assistance," the
UN said.
While the regime has tentatively embarked on market-oriented
reforms, allowing private businesses and individually run farms,
the country remains crushingly poor.
It is a constant source of refugees seeking sanctuary in China
and South Korea. Unknown thousands are held in gulag-style labour
camps largely concealed from view.
In contrast to yesterday's bombast, Mr Kim's new year message
afforded an unintended insight into the regime's difficulties.
"The whole nation should exert all its efforts for agriculture in
2005, which marks the Workers' Party's 60th anniversary," he
urged. "Rice is our gun." Much hope also rests on a national
potato drive.
The gap between perceptions and realities in North Korea has an
external dimension, too. Nobody knows exactly what weapons it has
- or how best to proceed.
The UN's nuclear chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, has insisted that the
main threat arises from North Korea's conversion of spent
plutonium rods into fuel for possibly four to six nuclear bombs.
But in 2002 the Bush administration said it had detected a
second, secret programme for weapons-grade uranium enrichment.
North Korea rejected that claim, expelled UN inspectors and quit
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Korea expert Selig Harrison said last month that Mr Bush's
tactics had wrecked the Clinton administration's agreed framework
that had halted North Korea's plutonium reprocessing since 1994.
The US claim of cheating was highly contentious, Mr Harrison
said. Yet because of Washington's increasing hostility, North
Korea had resumed reprocessing activity.
"Relying on sketchy data, the Bush administration presented a
worst-case scenario as an incontrovertible truth and distorted
its intelligence much as it did on Iraq," said Mr Harrison.
In an Orwellian land of shadowy illusion, US policy also has its
share of ambiguity.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
23 BBC NEWS: Nuclear weapons: Who has what?
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Nuke Power Back On The Table With Other Energy Costs Rising
BY PAUL KATZEFF
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Conflict in the Mideast. Markets worrying about access to crude oil.
Consumers cursing gasoline prices. And environmentalists warning about
global warming.
No wonder public interest in nuclear power is reviving.
In April 2004, 74% of adults polled agreed the government and utilities
should build state-of-the-art nuclear plants to meet electricity demand,
according to Bisconti Research and NOP World.
Nuclear plants already provide 20% of U.S. electricity.
And support seems to rise whenever the public is reminded the U.S. may not
have enough energy.
Nuke Competitive Now
Now hard-nosed businesspeople see reasons to consider nuclear power.
Over the past 40 months, the cost of natural gas has soared 248%, says the
Energy Information Administration. That makes nuclear power far more
competitive with coal and natural gas far sooner than expected, says
Richard Lester, professor of nuclear engineering at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology and director of the MIT Industrial Performance Center.
A recent MIT study pointed out that in 2002 dollars, each kilowatt hour of
electricity generated by a new nuclear plant over its expected life span is
6.7 cents.
That paled next to the 4.2-cent cost of coal-fired plants or 3.8-5.6 cents
for natural gas-fired plants.
But since that study, the cost of natural gas has skyrocketed.
At early winter peak prices, power from new natural gas facilities would
average 7.6 cents per kilowatt hour over a plant's life span, including
inflation and transportation costs.
Even if natural gas retreats from today's $6.88 per million cubic feet to
$6/mcf, with inflation, new nuclear plants would still be competitive,
Lester says.
Still, if you base approval just on projected cost, wind turbines would win
easily, says Alan Nogee, head of the clean energy program at the Union of
Concerned Scientists. But that'd ignore factors like suitability of
locations and safety.
"The real question is will high natural gas prices last long enough to
recoup the enormous investment that nuclear plants require?" Nogee said.
"Now most projections show gas prices declining to about $4/mBtu." That's
similar to the MCF price calculation.
Atomic plants' huge upfront costs are a key drawback. A new plant would
cost $2,000 per kilowatt of generating capacity, says MIT. Existing plants
cost even more.
Coal plants now run $1,300/kWe. Gas is a bargain at $500/kWe.
One thing some people like about nuclear is it does not contribute to
global warming. [NOTE: This isn't true... uranium mining, milling and fuel
fabrication are very carbon intensive. Also, about 94% of reported
emissions of CFC-114 (a potent global warming gas) comes from the two
facilities where nuclear fuel is manufactured. -Mike]
"Unlike coal and gas plants, nuclear plants avoid greenhouse gas
emissions," Lester said.
If the U.S. ever imposed a carbon tax or emission curbs, nuclear power
would gain another edge.
Still, Greenpeace USA contends on its Web site that "new reactor designs
are unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary."
Others contend monitoring and safety systems are far more advanced today
than decades ago.
Regulations Not As Tough
Also, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 simplified the system for licensing
nuclear power plants.
That could drastically cut the time, cost and uncertainty of the licensing
process.
The most important new step combines a construction permit with an
operating license.
Under prior rules, an operating license wasn't given until construction was
done. So plant operators, builders and vendors had to run two gantlets of
hearings and challenges, widely separated in time.
Utilities had to tie up huge investments for long periods, without knowing
if they could use the finished plant, says Marvin Fertel, chief nuclear
officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Nogee says the new rules simply help the industry avoid pesky public criticism.
Fertel insists the new process is more open.
"It makes more information available on the front end," he said. "The
public can ask tougher questions earlier. Groups with limited resources can
focus resources on a less complex task."
Three firms filed applications for early site permits in 2003. Decisions
are expected in 2006.
Also, 14 utilities and suppliers have banded together into two consortia to
test the cost savings and expediency of the NRC's new licensing procedure.
The group efforts let firms split costs of the process. Any of the
participants, if they get project-specific OK, could use the resulting
combined license for a new plant.
Those groups and the three already seeking early site permits likely won't
get a combined license until late this decade, Fertel says.
The DOE's goal is to get a new plant under construction by 2010.
Still, why has it taken the industry so long to take advantage of the
1992 Energy Policy Act?
Fossil fuels were cheap from 1992 to 2003. And there was enough capacity to
meet demand, Fertel says.
"Utilities see lack of capacity 10 to 15 years down the road," said Ernest
Moniz, energy undersecretary 1997-2001. "They're addressing that need now."
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
26 [NukeNet] Oyster Creek News: Assembly Environment Hearing in
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:03:29 -0800