*****************************************************************
06/20/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.141
*****************************************************************
   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 WMD claims were 'totally implausible'
2 [du-list] U.S. Used WMD in Iraq -  Napalm  used in  2nd
3 Xinhua: Memos renew questions over US motives for invading Iraq   
4 BBC: Iranian voters face crucial choice
5 Korea Herald: 'Pyongyang will abolish missiles if U.S. establishes d
6 Xinhua: US ready to respect DPRK in six-party talks - US negotiator 
7 Xinhua: DPRK willing to scrap missiles for ties with US   
8 Japan Times: FORGIVE NORTH KOREA'S SKEPTICISM
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., S. Korea Discuss Nuclear Dispute
10 Guardian Unlimited: Koreas to Resume Nuke Disarmament Talks
11 US: [abolition-caucus] Criminality of Minuteman III
12 US: President: Nuclear proliferation Emergency
13 US: San Francisco Chronicle: BIRTH OF THE NUCLEAR AGE
14 EDITOR & PUBLISHER: SPECIAL REPORT: A Great Nuclear-Age Mystery Solv
15 US: MaineToday.com: Energy independence worth effort to achieve 
16 US: CounterPunch: Alamogordo, 60 Years Later
17 [sm] Nagasaki bomb: First Western reports finally published
18 Taipei Times: Editorial: Energy policy requires action 
19 Bellona: Rumyantsev: No political motives behind Adamov arrest
20 BBC: Plans unveiled for cleaner energy
21 BBC: Nagasaki bomb account published
22 MDN: Son tells story of first foreign reporter to see aftermath 
23 Telegraph Journal: Director named for new energy institute
24 Times of India: 'Pak readied nuke during Kargil'
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
25 US: News Journal: Incineration, nuke power are options
26 HSE: Quarterly statement of incidents at nuclear installations 
27 US: NRC: Safety Evaluation Report for the Proposed National Enrichme
28 US: NRC: In the Matter of Certain Power Reactor Licensees and Resear
29 US: NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Amend
30 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company; Notice of Partial Denial of
31 Japan Times: Valve gets stuck during test run for new reactor
32 US: Guardian Unlimited: Fake Documents Got Workers Into Nuke Plant
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
33 US: [du-list] Du research Gap could hurt Vermont Troops
34 US: [du-list] Public briefing:  Health Risks From Exposure To Low
35 US: [cawi] Louisiana DU Testing Bill NOW LAW!
36 US: [du-list] DOE Openness: Human Radiation Experiments
37 US: CDC: NIOSH: Radioactive resperator standards
38 US: Hawk Eye: Quest for claims nears end 
39 Japan Times: A-bomb survivors will be able to apply for benefits in 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
40 US: Common Voice: Savannah River Site's wastes 
41 Bucks Free Press: Nuclear Waste Was Mooted For District 
42 US: AU ABC: NT Govt asked to explain uranium mining stance. 
43 GLRC: STORING NUKE WASTE ON ABOVE GROUND LOTS
44 Guardian Unlimited: Agreement Likely on Russian Nuclear Fuel
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
45 Tri-City Herald: Start of The Reach now in sight 
46 lamonitor.com: Panel OKs nuke studies 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 WMD claims were 'totally implausible'
 
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:52:42 -0500 (CDT)

 
WMD claims were 'totally implausible'

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday June 20, 2005

Guardian

A key Foreign Office diplomat responsible for liaising with UN
inspectors says today that claims the government made about Iraq's
weapons programme were "totally implausible".

He tells the Guardian: "I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a
half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the
government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too".

Carne Ross, who was a member of the British mission to the UN in New
York during the run-up to the invasion, resigned from the FO last year,
after giving evidence to the Butler inquiry.

He thought about publishing his testimony because he felt so angry. But
he was warned that if he did he might be prosecuted under the Official
Secrets Act.

"There was a very good alternative to war that was never properly
pursued, which was to close down Saddam's sources of illegal revenue",
he says.

Mr Ross also says sanctions imposed against Iraq were wrong. "They did
immeasurable damage to the Iraqi civilian population. We were conscious
of that but we did too little to address it", he says.

Earlier, after the September 11 attacks on the US, Mr Ross spent six
weeks in Afghanistan negotiating with warlords. "The allies didn't
understand Afghanistan," he says. "They didn't have sufficient forces on
the ground, were trapped in their fortified compounds, naive about the
the willingness of the warlords to cede power, and were far too
optimistic that opium production could be curtailed."

Mr Ross has set up a consultancy and advisory service, Independent
Diplomat, and wants to raise awareness about the plight of the Saharawi
people, displaced by Morocco from Western Sahara in defiance of the UN
security council.

He plans to visit the 150,000 refugees from Western Sahara encamped
across the border in northwest Algeria. "British policy is to do nothing
because British interests dictate that fairly minuscule trade with
Morocco is more important," he said. 

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5219526-111381,00.html
*****************************************************************
 2 [du-list] U.S. Used WMD in Iraq -  Napalm  used in  2nd
 
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:07:15 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12748&l=i&size=1&hd=0

(see also http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=647397

June 18, 2005
A startling report has emerged yesterday that the U.S. has used napalm fire 
bombs in Iraq and then lied about it to the British government.

Background

Consider the sorts of weapons that international law generally prohibits: 
unconventional weapons used to attack the civilian population of a country, 
either directly or indirectly by leaving behind hazardous remnants.

One example of such heinous weapons are those enriched with depleted 
uranium left over from either nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors. The U.S. 
has used D.U. enriched weapons for over a decade, in the first Gulf War, in 
Kosovo and the Balkans, in the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and again most 
recently in Iraq.

The problem with D.U. enriched weapons ( 
http://cntodd.blogspot.com/2005/03/depleted-uranium-us-war-c
rime.html ) is that the depleted uranium spreads out over a wide area upon 
impact and then sinks to the ground as a heavy dust. The result has been 
devastating environmental damage. After the invasion, some hot spots in 
downtown Baghdad registered 1,000 to 2,000 times higher than normal 
background radiation levels.

At some locations in Iraq where the U.S. used D.U. weapons during the first 
Gulf War, doctors have identified a dramatic rise in both cancer and birth 
defects. In addition, many suspect that what is now known as "Gulf War 
Syndrome" is in fact the result of soldiers being expose to D.U. dust while 
serving in Iraq.

The effects of D.U. on a community can be long term. But other abhorrent 
weapons can affect a civilian population swiftly and immediately. For 
example, incendiary weapons such as white phosphorous ammunitions create a 
dense white smokescreen and burn intensely. When such ammunitions impact in 
close range to human targets, the burning particles will imbed in the skin. 
And burning white phosphorus cannot be extinguished simply by hosing it 
with water, but rather requires a complete smothering.

Such incendiaries have been prohibited by the 1980 Protocol III of the 
Geneva Convention - a protocol which the U.S. has refused to ratify to this 
day, despite general international agreement.

Reports from Iraq indicate that the U.S. has used white phosphorus in the 
current conflict. According to the San Francisco Chronicle ( 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/
10/MNG6P9P3ER1.DTL ) , the siege which flattened Fallujah in November 2004 
involved the use of phosphorus weapons:

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of 
fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being 
attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent 
with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, "The corpses of 
the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."
And independent journalist Dahr Jamail ( 
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives//000173.php ) wrote that citizens 
in Fallujah he interviewed described bombs that exploded into large fires 
that burned flesh and could not be put out with water.

Between the D.U. enhanced weapons and the evidence of phosphorous 
ammunitions in Fallujah, it seems difficult to deny that the U.S. persists 
in using weapons that constitute criminal acts against humanity.

Napalm

Yesterday we learned that the U.S. may have used - or may still be using - 
another United Nations banned horror: Napalm. According to The Independent 
( http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=64
7397 ) , the U.S. used 30 MK77 firebombs - a new generation of incendiary 
weapons - during the initial Iraqi invasion between March 31 and April 2 2003.

Like white phosphorus ammunitions, napalm has a strategic role when used 
against civilian populations. Napalm not only produces a sticky burning gel 
that adheres to the skin as it burns through, leading to loss of blood 
pressure and eventually death in a short period of time, but it also 
releases clouds of carbon monoxide that can kill by asphyxiation. (Everyone 
will remember the Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of the naked girl in 
Vietnam, running down the road screaming as her skin burned with napalm.)

In 2001, with great fanfare, the U.S. Navy operations at Fallbrook Weapons 
Station in San Diego County sent the "last" of the U.S.'s Vietnam-era 
napalm to be incinerated at plants in Texas and Louisiana. At the time, the 
Navy claimed ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/04/04/
MN201419.DTL&hw=napalm&sn=001&sc=1000 ) that this was the last of the 
military's supply of napalm. It was the end of a wartime horror, or so we 
thought.

But right after the March 2003 invasion, a report surfaced in Australia's 
Sydney Morning Herald ( 
http://reg.smh.com.au/login.do?status=FAIL&errMsg=&errCode=1
0001&site=SMH&server=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au&data=%2Fart ... ) which 
stated that a U.S. officer had told the paper that napalm had in fact been 
dropped on Iraq. A Navy spokesman denied this claim, saying once again that 
the U.S. military no longer had any napalm in its supplies.

But in August, the San Diego Union-Tribune ( 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030805-firebombs
01.htm ) was able to confirm that napalm bombs had been dropped on Baghdad 
as U.S. troops prepared to capture the city. In that article, Union-Tribune 
wrote:

Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war 
zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over 
the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive 
fireballs.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles in a 
recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine 
Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there 
because you could see them in the (cockpit) video."

"...It's no great way to die," he added. How many Iraqis died, the military 
couldn't say. No accurate count has been made of Iraqi war casualties.
Yesterday's story in The Independent ( 
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=64
7397 ) not only confirms that a new generation of incendiary weapons have 
been used in Iraq, but that U.S. officials also lied about their use to 
British officials.

In January, the British Defense Minister Adam Ingram offered his assurances 
to members of Parliament that no new napalm weapons had been used by the 
U.S. during the Iraq invasion. Indeed, Mr. Ingram made such statements 
based upon assertions made to him by U.S. officials. But in a letter 
written to a Labor MP, Ingram wrote:

I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and 
must now correct the position.
This admission raises grave questions now about whether or not the U.S. in 
fact used such incendiary weapons for the siege against Fallujah - claims 
that the U.S. has denied all along. If the U.S. did in fact use this new 
generation of napalm bombs, they would have violated the 1980 weapons 
convention - a protocol ratified by the U.K., but not by the U.S.

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for The Iraq Analysis Group issued the following 
statement:

"The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to 
use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little 
weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."

He added: "Evidence that Mr Ingram had given false information to 
Parliament was publicly available months ago. He has waited until after the 
election to admit to it - a clear sign of the Government's embarrassment 
that they are doing nothing to restrain their own coalition partner in Iraq."


The Consequences

There remains little doubt that the U.S. has knowingly committed crimes 
against humanity in Iraq, crimes that they actively tried to keep from 
public knowledge.

D.U., white phosphorus, and the new generation of napalm all constitute 
weapons of mass destruction - weapons whose effects cannot be made precise, 
whose impact covers a wide area, and in the case of D.U., will remain for 
generations after the conflict is over.

It is now time for the international community to hold the White House and 
the Pentagon responsible. In particular, those in the Bush administration 
and the top ranks of the military who approved the use of such weapons and 
then knowingly lied about it need to be help accountable. Our leaders need 
to know that we the citizens of the United States do not support the use of 
chemical weapons in any fashion and categorically abhor the enrichment of 
ammunitions with depleted uranium.

And if the U.S. will not take responsibility for its actions, then the 
international community needs to hold them accountable.




:: Article nr. 12748 sent on 19-jun-2005 02:08 ECT


:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=12748

:: The incoming address of this article is :
    cntodd.blogspot.com/2005/06/us-used-wmd-in-iraq.html

   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 6/17/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 3 Xinhua: Memos renew questions over US motives for invading Iraq   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-19 13:15:31   

    LONDON, June 19 (Xinhuanet) -- A series of leaked secret
British government memos renewed questions and debates over US
motives for ousting former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein,
agencies reported Sunday. 

    One of the eight memos, all labeled "secret" or
"confidential,"showed British Foreign Office political director
Peter Ricketts openly questioning whether Washington had a clear
and convincing reason to go into war with Iraq. 

    The United States and Britain invaded Iraq in March 2003
under the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). No such weapons have ever been found in Iraq so far. 

    The memos confirmed that British Prime Minister Tony Blair
was concerned about Iraq's alleged WMD but indicated he was
determined to go to war even though the British government
thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international
law. 

    "The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of
Saddam Hussien's WMD program, but our tolerance of them post-11
September," said a March 22, 2002 memo which was written to
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. 

    "But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not
show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or
CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts, the programs are
extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped
up." 

    In a memo dated March 14, 2002, Blair's chief foreign policy
adviser David Manning told the prime minister about a dinner he
had just had with then US National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice, who is now US secretary of state. 

    Manning, who now serves as British ambassador to the United
States, said: "We spent a lot of time at dinner on Iraq. It is
clear that (US President George W.) Bush is grateful for your
(Blair) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I
said you would not budge in your support for regime change but
youhad to manage a press, a parliament and a public opinion that
was very different than anything in the (United) States. And you
would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued
regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the
right result. Failure was not an option." 

    The memo dated March 22, 2002 from Ricketts to Straw said:
"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al Qaida is
so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and parliamentary
support for military operations, we have to be convincing that
the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our
troops to die for." 

    A memo dated March 8, 2002 on Iraq from the Overseas and
Defense secretariat to Cabinet Office said: "Since 1991, our
objective has been to re-integrate a law-abiding Iraq which does
not possess WMD or threaten its neighbors, into the
international community. Implicitly, this cannot occur with
Saddam Hussein in power." 

    A memo dated March 25, 2002 from Straw to Blair said: "If 11
September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now
be considering military action against Iraq. In addition, there
has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL (Osama bin
Laden) and al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not
worsened as a result of 11 September." 

    The eight memos were first obtained by British reporter
Michael Smith who has written about them in the Daily Telegraph
and The Sunday Times. Enditem   

  Copyright �2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 4 BBC: Iranian voters face crucial choice
 
Last Updated: Monday, 20 June, 2005
 
[John Simpson] By John Simpson BBC world affairs editor   

Friday will be one of the most important days in Iran's recent 
history - the moment at which it will have to decide which 
direction to take. 

At first sight the available choice in the run-off for the 
presidential election looks distinctly unappetising - the 
off-the-wall fundamentalist mayor of Tehran, whose chances were 
rated so low that no one bothered to find a place for him to give 
a victorious press conference, versus an elderly conservative who 
achieved relatively little during his eight previous years as 
president. 

[Fashionably dressed Iranian woman]                             
Mr Rafsanjani has underlined his interest in women's issues                                                
		
Yet these two men, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the mayor, and 
ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, represent very different 
ways forward for Iran, at a difficult and important time for the 
region. 

Mr Ahmadinejad stands for a return to the values of Ayatollah 
Khomeini's revolution, the period after 1979 when Iran challenged 
the Americans and the West in general to do its worst. 

He believes that Iran has an inalienable right to produce nuclear 
weapons if it chooses. 

As mayor of Tehran, he closed down Western-style fast food 
restaurants wherever he could, and obliged the city's male 
employees to grow beards and wear long-sleeved shirts. 

By contrast, Mr Rafsanjani is a man who believes that politics is 
the art of the possible. 

It is largely because of him that life in Iran gradually began to 
move away from the fierce restrictions of the early revolution. 

It was he who managed to persuade Ayatollah Khomeini to end the 
ruinous war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. 

Neither the conservatives nor the reformers in Iran like Mr 
Rafsanjani. He has gone much too far for the conservatives, and 
not far enough for the reformers. 

Unlike any of them, he understands the art of the deal, and is 
more concerned with what he can get away with than with making 
big statements. 

It matters a great deal which of these two men wins, because - 
thanks to the US-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein - Iran is now by 
far the strongest power in the region. 

Iran is strong and remarkab powerful nowadays, and Mr Rafsanjani 
knows that after Iraq, President Bush no longer has the strength 
nor the will to launch another invasion in the region          
	 	   	
As a result of the invasion of 2003, which freed Iraq's Shia 
majority from Saddam's ferocious control, and the election this 
year which gave the Shia the dominant role in Iraqi politics, 
Iran and Iraq are now close. 

There were even suggestions - strongly denied - that Iraqi exiles 
acting as agents for Iran encouraged the Bush administration to 
invade Iraq. 

It is a serious mistake to underestimate Iran's strength and 
political sophistication. 

To listen to President Bush or Condoleezza Rice you might think 
that it was just another Afghanistan, backward and instinctively 
fundamentalist. Not so - Iran is one of the most advanced 
societies in the region. 

Religious rulers 

The only reason the fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got 
through to the second round of the presidential election is that 
many reformists stayed away from the poll in protest at the 
highly limited range of candidates who were allowed to stand. 

Two of the main reformist candidates now claim the result was a 
fix. But maybe the reformists simply cancelled each other out, 
and let their most extreme opponent through. 

The reality of Iranian politics is that the great majority of 
Iranians badly want change. That was made absolutely clear in the 
elections of 1997 and 2001. Both times Mohammed Khatami received 
more than 80% of the vote, precisely because he was a reformist. 

But during his eight years as president he achieved little apart 
from liberalising the press, which has become one of the most 
vibrant in the entire region. 

His efforts to open up to the West and lift the annoying 
intrusion of the state into the way people live their everyday 
lives failed. 

[Election poster of former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi 
Rafsanjani seen through a Tehran bus]                           
Iranians are hoping for greater reforms to be introduced                                                             

Real power in Iran does not rest with the clear democratic choice 
of the people. It is held by the unelected Supreme Leader, 
Ayatollah Khamenei, and a variety of other religious authorities, 
who can intervene as they see fit. 

This is the system which Mr Ahmadinejad, the mayor of Tehran, 
represents. He is a strong supporter of Ayatollah Khamenei. 

If he wins on Friday, most of the small gains which the 
reformists have made will be wiped out. It will not just be city 
employees who will have to grow beards. 

That is why, with plenty of reluctance, most people will turn out 
to vote for Mr Rafsanjani. 

In his election campaign he has been promoting himself as a 
friend of reform, and emphasised his interest in women's issues. 
He clearly understands the importance of changing Iran. 

He also understands that although most Iranians relish their 
independence from the West - during the 20th Century both Britain 
and America treated Iran as if it were a kind of colony - they do 
not want to be so cut off from the outside world. 

And Mr Rafsanjani knows how to cope with difficult and dangerous 
political situations. 

We can expect him to finesse the nuclear question with some 
skill. 

But he will not be a pushover for the Americans. Iran is strong 
and remarkably powerful nowadays, and Mr Rafsanjani knows that 
after Iraq, President Bush no longer has the strength nor the 
will to launch another invasion in the region. 

His main struggle, though, will be against the conservative 
establishment in his own country. If he cannot beat them, he will 
be just another failure. And he certainly understands that. 

If you would like to comment on John Simpson's article, please 
send us your views using the form below. 


The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have 
received so far: 

Apathy could yet yield anoth victory for hard-liners Siroos 
Kiani, Vancouver, Canada         

A very inspiring article, Mr Simpson. There is much confusion and 
anger around the election results among liberal Iranians. Many 
are disillusioned with their compatriots and the establishment, 
and apathy could yet yield another victory for hard-liners. I 
hope the divided reformist camp can get its act together and 
prevent the ascent of a militarist government. Maybe then, they 
can rise together and consolidate their support for a comeback at 
the next city council elections some 2 years from now. Siroos 
Kiani, Vancouver, Canada

Mr Simpson's analysis is, as usual, spot on. Very few 
"westerners" know about the depth and sophistication of Iranian 
society. As a Pakistani well-wisher of Iran and Iranians, I hope 
the Iranian people take a step closer to achieving their goals by 
making the right decision in an election that is far from 
perfect, but an election nevertheless. Nausherwan Lahori, Lahore, 
Pakistan

I have read few articles as good as Mr Simpson's. I live in the 
USA and while in many cities around the US, Iranians could vote 
over here we didn't have a station. This Friday I hope to drive 4 
hours to the nearest available polling station to vote against 
Ahmadinejad. While I respect him for being straight forward with 
his views, I vigorously disagree with his vision. Mr Rafsanjani 
may not be the ideal candidate in a not so ideal system, but for 
now democratic aspirations rest with him. Sultan Mehrabi, USA

Thanks for some context and depth to a political situation that 
is very important to understand. I hope that Mr Rafsanjani is 
elected and that our leaders put steady pressure on his 
government to improve human rights while providing respectful 
support to him as he nudges Iran to a more secular, moderate 
state. Gary Ockenden, Nelson, Canada

We're caught between a rock and a hard place: to choose from the 
bad and the worse. Rafsanjani's just getting away with everything 
since in the current situation he's become the "less bad". But 
how can we convince ourselves to write down the name of someone 
we disapprove of just because the other is worse? It's a 
difficult decision: whether to vote or to abstain. Homa Musavi, 
Tehran, Iran

Hardly surprisingly - a very good article by JS, picking up on 
crucial points. Due to its relative sophistication, strong sense 
of nationhood, the population's (particularly young sections of 
it) openness to external influences, access to the outside media 
etc, Iran could really become THE organic model state for a 
stable Middle East. What it would take is skillful, sensible yet 
effective support of the West for the reformist tendencies. GW 
Bush's decision to make it a part of axis of evil and 
unconditional support for Israel are exactly the opposite policy 
direction than the one that should be taken, and can only 
strengthen reactive elements in Iran. Mike, London

I have a feeling that Rafsanjani and Bush will strike a deal. The 
US will get the Central Asian (and Iranian) oil through Iran to 
the Persian Gulf, and Iran will get closer ties to USA (which the 
young people there would like) and concessions on WTO/nuclear 
power. Win-win for everyone? No. Because at home, liberty will 
continue to be suppressed, and the world won't care as long as it 
gets cheap oil. Ray, Coram, New York

The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be 
published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media 
worldwide. 
*****************************************************************
 5 Korea Herald: 'Pyongyang will abolish missiles if U.S. establishes diplomatic 
ties'   

 (smjoo@heraldm.com) By Joo Sang-min 

2005.06.21

The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper
        
North Korea is willing to abolish all its mid- and long-range
missiles if the United States establishes a formal diplomatic
relationship with the communist state, South Korean Unification
Minister Chung Dong-young said yesterday. 

Chung was told this at a surprise meeting he held Friday with
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang, where Kim also
said his country could rejoin the six-party denuclearization
talks as early as next month if the United States respects North
Korea as a partner. 

"Kim informed Chung of his will to be a friend with the United
States and that he will discard long-range and intercontinental
ballistic missiles, only maintaining some missiles which normal
states deploy," ministry spokesman Kim Hong-je said in a news
statement. 

Chung was in Pyongyang leading a government and civic delegation
to attend celebrations marking the fifth anniversary of the
historic inter-Korean summit between Kim Jong-il and then South
Korean President Kim Dae-jung.

 The North's highest-level contact with South Korea in three
years brightened the prospects of ending the 32-month old
nuclear standoff, as Kim said he does not dislike U.S. President
George Bush and regards him as someone who would be "interesting
to talk to."

 The remarks came after Chung conveyed to Pyongyang a message
from President Roh Moo-hyun and the results of the June 10
Washington summit between Roh and Bush.

 During that summit Bush mentioned a collective security
guarantee and a "more normal relationship" between North Korea
and Washington if the North gives up its nuclear program. The
North said Feb. 10 that it posesses nuclear weapons. 

Pyongyang is believed to have stockpiled 600 Scud missiles with
ranges of between 300 kilometers and 500 kilometers and 100
Rodong-1 missiles with a range of 1,300 kilometers.

 The communist state also has long-range Daepodong missiles.
Pyongyang shocked Japan by test-launching a Daepodong-1 missile
with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers in 1998, which landed in
the Pacific Ocean.

 The North is also said to have been developing the Daepodong-2,
a two-stage rocket that some analysts believe could reach the
U.S. states of Alaska or Hawaii.

 
*****************************************************************
 6 Xinhua: US ready to respect DPRK in six-party talks - US negotiator   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-20 16:19:15   

    SEOUL, June 20 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States is ready to
respect and treat the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK)as an equal partner once it rejoins the six-party nuclear
talks, the US top nuclear negotiator said here on Monday. 

    Christopher Hill, US assistant secretary of state, made this
remarks in an interview with South Korean state-run Yonhap News
Agency earlier in the day. 

    Hill's remarks came three days after a meeting between the
DPRK' s top leader Kim Jong Il and South Korean Unification
Minister Chung Dong-young on last Friday. 

    In the meeting, Kim was quoted as saying "The DPRK is
willing to return to six-party nuclear talks even in July, if
the US recognizes and respects" Pyongyang. 

    "When we begin these negotiations, we will conduct them in
an attitude of mutual respect to all the parties and also with
the sense of equality that a good negotiation should have," Hill
was quoted by Yonhap as saying. 

    The US diplomat called Chung-Kim's meeting as "very
important and very positive" for the nuclear talks. But, he also
called the DPRK to make a specific date for its return to the
dialogue table. 

    "The US is remaining very focused on the need for a date to
begin the negotiation because if we don't have a date, we don't
have a negotiation," Hill said. "We want to have a date and we
hope that this will happen in July." 

    Hill also said he received "excellent briefings" from the
South Korean government on the last Friday's meeting, but
declined to elaborate, according to Yonhap. 

    "We are prepared to work on the basis of equality and on the
basis of mutual respect to put together a package that will
address many of North Korea (DPRK)'s needs," he said. "So the
first step in all of this is to get a date." 

    Hill, former US ambassador to Seoul, arrived here on last
Thursday and headed for Washington on Monday. 

    The recent nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula occurred in
October 2002. In order to peacefully end the nuclear issue,
China,the DPRK, the United States, Russia, South Korea and Japan
have convened three rounds of six-party nuclear talks in
Beijing. 

    However, the fourth round of the multilateral talks failed
to be convened as the DPRK refused to attend the talks, citing
US hostile policy. Enditem   

  Copyright �2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 Xinhua: DPRK willing to scrap missiles for ties with US   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-20 18:09:13   

    SEOUL, June 20 (Xinhuanet) -- The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) is willing to dismantle its
nuclear-capable long-range missiles if the United States
establishes diplomatic ties with it, South Korean Unification
Minister Chung Dong-young said on Monday. 

    "North Korean (DPRK) leader Kim clearly told me that the
North is ready to scrap all of its long-range missiles, as soon
as bilateral diplomatic relations are established (with the
US)," Chung was quoted by South Korean Yonhap News Agency as
saying in a cabinet meeting presided over by South Korean Prime
Minister Lee Hae-chan. 

    Chung held a meeting with the DPRK top leader Kim Jong Il
last Friday in Pyongyang on various issues. 

    Chung quoted Kim on that day as saying that "The DPRK is
willing to return to six-party nuclear talks as early as in
July, if the US recognizes and respects" Pyongyang. 

    The recent nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula emerged in
October 2002. In order to peacefully solve the issue, China, the
DPRK, the United States, Russia, South Korea and Japan have
convened three rounds of six-party talks in Beijing. 

    However, the fourth round of the talks failed to be convened
as the DPRK refused to participate, citing hostile US policy.

  Copyright �2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 Japan Times: FORGIVE NORTH KOREA'S SKEPTICISM

 America's flexible notion of sovereignty

  Monday, June 20, 2005   


 By DAVID WALL Special to The Japan Times

LONDON -- On May 9, in an interview in Moscow on CNN U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "the United States, of
course, recognizes that North Korea is a sovereign state."

 Many people thought that this represented a softening of the
U.S. position on North Korea in an attempt to get that country
back to the six-party talks aimed at getting it to give up its
nuclear aspirations. That was, however, not how the leadership
of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) read
it.

 Even for those of us used to DPRK rhetorical flourishes, the
North Koreans' reaction to Rice's statement seemed a bit strong,
maybe a bit over the top: Rice's "loudmouthed recognition of the
sovereign state and the like were nothing but a ruse to conceal
the U.S. attempt at bringing down (North Korea's) regime," an
unidentified spokesman for North Korea's Foreign Ministry said.

 The spokesman said Rice was either "ignorant of DPRK-U.S.
history" or a "brazen-faced liar."

 I think we can take it that North Korea was not convinced that
Rice's apparently conciliatory gesture was to be taken
seriously. Should they have been? Maybe not.

 What is this thing called sovereignty? To answer that we have
to look back a bit. The system of sovereign states that we are
used to is a relatively newfangled arrangement under which
groups of people arrange their affairs, or have them arranged
for them. It was only introduced in 1648 in the Treaty of
Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War.

 The treaty introduced the concept of sovereignty according to
which specific governments were recognized as having absolute
power over geographical areas. Recognition of sovereign power
carried with it the rule of noninterference in the domestic
affairs of sovereign states. This system is that under which the
countries of the world continue to operate their affairs.

 How do you recognize a sovereign state? In her CNN interview,
Rice said: "The United States, of course, recognizes that North
Korea is sovereign. It's obvious. They are a member of the
United Nations."

 So that's it then; members of the United Nations make up the
set of entities that we call states, or countries, whose
governments are recognized as sovereign powers. Except of course
in the case of Taiwan: That country is not a member of the U.N.;
according to the U.N., it is part of China. However, the U.S.
does not recognize that the Chinese government has sovereign
power over Taiwan.

 U.S. President George W. Bush has in fact said that the U.S.
will do "whatever it takes" to prevent China from forcibly
asserting its sovereign power over Taiwan, although it agrees
that Taiwan belongs to China. Tricky huh? It's what the
Americans call "constructive ambiguity."

 Actually, Taiwan is not the only case in which the U.S. has not
recognized the sovereign rights of nation states that are
members of the U.N. and has broken the rule of noninterference.
But you have to remember that the U.S. came into existence by
violently stealing the sovereign rights of the Native Americans;
by fighting Great Britain to remove that countries' sovereign
power over the original 13 states; by buying, in the Louisiana
Purchase, sovereignty over much of its territory west of the
Mississippi from France; by annexing Texas; and by taking
sovereignty over Florida and California by force of arms against
Spain.

 Sovereignty then, for the Americans, is something you can
steal, trade, take over, or fight for, or just ignore.

 Even where it accepts the sovereignty of a state, the U.S.
frequently overrides the rule of noninterference in that
country's domestic affairs and forcibly limits governments'
exercise of their sovereignty. In the Western Hemisphere, this
is called the Monroe Doctrine; elsewhere it is just U.S.
politics.

 In the last century in South America, the U.S. invaded
countries (Cuba, Grenada and Panama), usurped governments
(Chile), colonized countries (Puerto Rico), and supported
violently repressive illegal regimes and terrorist and
insurrectionist movements (too many to list, but start with
Peru, Guatemala, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua -- you get the
idea).

 In the rest of the world, sovereign status did not do much good
for Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam and Somalia, which the U.S.
invaded; Cambodia and Laos, which the U.S. bombed (in the case
of Laos, a neutral country, more bombs were dropped per square
kilometer than on any other country at anytime ever); and the
Philippines, which it ran as a colony.

 In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the U.S. has been
supporting antigovernment forces in the hope that they will be
able to take over the sovereignty of those nations, as they did
most recently in the Ukraine and Georgia.

 North Korea was not admitted as a member of the U.N. until
1991, so it was all right for the U.S. to use biological and
chemical weapons in the Korean War in the 1950s. As the country
was not a member of the U.N. at that time, there were presumably
no sovereign rights that the U.S. was interfering with.

 Hmm. Maybe the North Korean government is right to wonder
whether Rice's statement -- that the U.S. accepts that the DPRK
as a sovereign state -- is meaningful. As long as the U.S. does
not accept, and it clearly does not, that recognizing
sovereignty precludes working actively for regime change, then
it is right to question the value of her statement.

 David Wall is an associate fellow of Chatham House. 

The Japan Times: June 20, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., S. Korea Discuss Nuclear Dispute
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday June 20, 2005 4:31 AM

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - South Korea's unification minister on
Sunday briefed the main U.S. envoy on the North Korean nuclear
dispute about his surprise meeting last week with North Korean
leader Kim Jong Il, officials said. 

In a meeting with Unification Minister Chung Dong-young in
Pyongyang on Friday, Kim said his communist regime could rejoin
nuclear disarmament talks as early as next month if the United
States respects North Korea as a partner. 

On Sunday, Chung told Assistant Secretary of State Christopher
Hill that all participants in the nuclear talks should work to
ensure that his meeting with Kim heralds the start of a
``favorable atmosphere'' for reviving the stalled nuclear talks,
a Unification Ministry spokesman said, according to South
Korea's Yonhap news agency. 

On Friday, the United States had dismissed North Korea's most
recent overture, saying Kim needed to set a date and make a more
concrete commitment to nuclear negotiations. In Seoul, Yonhap
reported that Hill said the meeting in Pyongyang was an
important part of efforts to resolve the nuclear dispute,
comments that seemed to potentially signal a softening in the
U.S. attitude. 

The United States, Russia, China, Japan and the two Koreas are
participating in the talks. The North has refused since June
last year to return to the negotiating table, citing a U.S.
``hostile policy'' toward it. 

U.S. officials have repeatedly said they have no intention to
invade North Korea, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has
said Washington recognizes North Korea as a sovereign nation. 

North Korea claimed in February that it had nuclear weapons, and
has made moves since then that would allow it to harvest more
weapons-grade plutonium.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: Koreas to Resume Nuke Disarmament Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday June 20, 2005 12:31 PM

By BURT HERMAN 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The two Koreas hold talks this week in
Seoul in an atmosphere of optimism after North Korean leader Kim
Jong II pledged to seek reconciliation and hinted at a return
soon to nuclear disarmament negotiations. 

A high-level North Korean delegation was due to arrive in the
South's capital on Tuesday for Cabinet-level talks starting the
next day, aimed at normalizing ties and elaborating on
agreements made during a surprise meeting last Friday between
Kim and the South's top envoy to the North. 

South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young was in the
North's capital last week heading a government delegation to
anniversary celebrations of the landmark 2000 summit between the
North's Kim and then-South Korean President Kim Dae-jung. 

Chung and Kim on Friday pledged to return as soon as July to the
nuclear talks that he has boycotted for a year - if the North
gets appropriate respect from Washington. 

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the main
U.S. envoy on the North Korea nuclear issue, urged the North on
Monday to set a firm date to return to the six-nation nuclear
talks. 

``We want to have a date and we hope that this will happen in
July,'' Hill said in Seoul, according to a transcript of his
comments provided by the U.S. Embassy. 

Hill said resumed talks would be held ``in an attitude of mutual
respect to all the parties and also with the sense of
equality.'' 

The two Koreas also agreed verbally to work together on a
variety of bilateral issues, which were expected to be discussed
at the talks in Seoul running Wednesday through Friday. 

They follow meetings last month in the North Korean town of
Kaesong that marked a resumption in contacts severed by
Pyongyang for 10 months in anger over mass defections of its
citizens to the South. 

Kim and Chung said family reunions between Koreans divided by
the border would be resumed in August at the Diamond Mountain
tourist resort, the only place South Koreans can freely visit in
the North. Also, Pyongyang will send a high-level delegation to
60th anniversary celebrations in Seoul marking the Aug. 15
liberation of the Korean Peninsula from Japanese colonial rule. 

Chung will head the South's delegation in the Seoul talks. Kwon
Ho Ung, a senior Cabinet counselor, will lead the North's
five-member delegation that arrives Tuesday afternoon in Seoul. 

On Monday, South Korean officials said the impoverished North
had requested 150,000 tons of fertilizer aid to help keep up its
food production. 

North Korea has depended on outside help to feed its 24 million
people since the 1990s, when more than 1 million are estimated
to have died from famine in the reclusive communist country due
to natural catastrophes and outdated technology that led to
years of poor harvests. 

In January, Pyongyang asked for 500,000 tons in fertilizer aid
but Seoul refused, citing the previously stalled inter-Korean
relations. After the contacts resumed in May, the South agreed
to ship 200,000 tons of fertilizer to the North, and deliveries
were completed Sunday.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 11 [abolition-caucus] Criminality of Minuteman III
 
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:56:33 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
<mailto:fboyle@law.uiuc.edu>fboyle@law.uiuc.edu
(personal comments only)

-----Original Message-----
From: abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:25 AM
To: abolition-caucus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [abolition-caucus] Criminality of Minuteman III


To: Boyle, Francis
Subject: Minuteman 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 02-CR-509 R B


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. CAROL GILBERT,
2. JACKIE MARIE HUDSON,
3. ARDETH PLATTE,

Defendants.

DECLARATION OF FRANCIS A. BOYLE

Pursuant to 28 USC 1746, Francis A. Boyle declares under penalty of perjury:

1. I am a professor of law at the University of Illinois, at Champaign, 
Illinois. I  hold both a Juris Doctor magna cum laude (1976) from Harvard 
Law School, as well as  an A.M. (1978) and Ph. D. (1983) in Political 
Science from Harvard University, specializing in international law and 
politics.

2. I am an expert in International Law and foreign policy. I have studied, 
read, and written extensively in these areas, and have been qualified as an 
expert witness in several courts across the country. I have also taught in 
the field of criminal law. My resume is attached to this declaration and 
incorporated by reference.

3. I offer this declaration in support of the Motions to Dismiss the 
charges of sabotage (18 USC 2155) and malicious destruction of property (18 
USC 1361) and in establishing the content and application of the laws of 
war to elements of the offenses charged and in support of justification 
defenses including necessity and crime prevention.

4. I am aware that expert opinion on points of law is ordinarily not 
permitted in court. Opinion of published international legal scholars is an 
important exception to that rule. The Statute of the International Court of 
Justice provides that questions of international law shall be determined by 
resort, inter alia, to "the teachings of the most highly qualified 
publicists of the various nations. . ." Id., Art. 38 (1) (d). An integral 
part of the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and thus equivalent 
to a federal statute as Supreme Law of the Land, this rule of evidence is 
applicable in federal court. The
Supreme Court expressed the same opinion in The Paquete Habana, 175 US 677, 
700
(1900). Cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.1 (ordinary Rules of Evidence do not apply 
to  determination of foreign law).

5. In the implementation of foreign policy, the current Administration 
has  threatened to use nuclear weapons and was on October 6, 2002, actively 
threatening to  use the Minuteman III, N-8 at issue in this case. Because 
this threat or use of 300 kilotons  of heat, blast and radiation are 
uncontrollable and because the threat or use of this weapon is for a 
"first-strike," the Minuteman III, N-8, on October 6, 2002 was not merely 
unlawful, but actually criminal. This conclusion is elaborated in 
paragraphs 6-15 below.



6. The body of federal law which governs these matters includes rules and 
principles of international law. International law is not "higher" or 
separate law; it is part and parcel of the structure of federal law. The 
Supreme Court so held in the landmark decision in The Pauete Habana, 175 US 
677, 700 (1900). Thus international law must be considered along with 
Congressional statutes, Constitutional law, administrative law, federal 
common law, Rules of Court, military law, incorporated state law and any 
other pertinent body of law, whenever it applies according to the pertinent 
rules of supremacy, parallel construction, and choice of law.



7. International law, as part of US law, includes the law of war. Under the 
fourth Hague Convention, various types of weapons are absolutely prohibited 
under all circumstances. For example, no nation may use a weapon which 
causes unnecessary suffering to human beings. Second, the use of poison or 
poison weapons is flatly prohibited by the Hague Regulations, by the Geneva 
Protocol of 1925, and by the US Army Field Manual 27-10 on the Law of Land 
Warfare (1956) and the US Department of  the Air Force Pamphlet on 
"International Law -- The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations" 
(AFP 110-31, 1976). The United States is bound as a party to each of 
these.  Third, a nation may not adopt methods or tactics of warfare that 
fail to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Because of the 
inevitable effects of the explosion of the Minuteman III, N-8, each of 
these rules prohibits its use. Other provisions of international law, 
moreover, prohibit destruction of the natural environment, another 
inevitable consequence of the explosion of any nuclear weapon including the 
Minuteman III, N-8.



8. The most recent and most authoritative summary of the current and 
binding laws of war as applied to any threat or use of nuclear weapons is 
found in the International Court of Justice Opinion, Legality of the Threat 
or Use of Nuclear  Weapons, 8 July 1996. As further explained in my recent 
book The Criminality of  Deterrence, that the Defendants left at the 
Minuteman III, N-8 site, the Minuteman III is  in a category of nuclear 
weapons that is, ipso facto, incapable of distinguishing between
civilian and combatant, is uncontrollable in space or time and causes 
unnecessary suffering. Thus any threat or use of the Minuteman III, N-8 was 
illegal and criminal.



9. The Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal made explicit that violations of 
the law  of war are criminal and that individuals are punishable for 
committing war crimes. In addition, the Nuremberg Charter defined crimes 
against peace and crimes against humanity. The former basically consist of 
waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of a treaty or other 
international obligation. It is also important to note that the Nuremberg 
Charter articulates inchoate crimes as well, such as the planning or 
preparation and conspiracy to commit a crime against peace, a crime against 
humanity or a war crime.



10. These provisions apply equally in times of formal peace as in times of 
war.



11. The various scenarios developed by the United States Government for the 
use of nuclear weapons cannot be accomplished without violating 
international law, including the law of war. The plans for targeting of US 
nuclear weapons are found in the Single Integrated Operational Plan 
("SIOP"), which lists the targets to be destroyed in a number of nuclear 
and non-nuclear countries. To employ these weapons, as is currently 
planned, would clearly violate the Nuremberg Principles, in that the 
concept of a crime against humanity specifically prohibits such wanton 
destruction.



12. I am aware from my reading and study, including the Nuclear Posture 
Review (January, 2002) and the National Security Strategy (September 2002) 
as well as fact sheets and reports published by the Air Force specifically 
related to the Minuteman III, that US nuclear policy includes on-going 
threats of a "first-strike" made "believable" by maintaining the Minuteman 
III at a high-alert rate (above 98 percent), prepared for launch  on short 
notice. I am further aware from my reading and study that a high degree of 
accuracy of the Minuteman III is crucial to a first strike.



13. Any first use of nuclear weapons would, for that reason alone, violate 
the United Nations Charter and the Hague Convention of 1907, prohibiting 
the opening of hostilities without a formal declaration of war. And any use 
of even one nuclear weapon such as the Minuteman III, N-8 in any 
circumstance whether in response or defense would violate the principles of 
necessity and proportionality because it cannot be used within the 
intransgressible rules and principles of humanitarian law.



14. Since the threat or use of the Minuteman III, N-8 is inherently 
criminal under international and US law, anything used to facilitate its 
operation is an instrument of a crime.



15. The judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal meted out 
severe punishment in 1946 against individuals who, acting in full 
compliance with  domestic law but in disregard of the limitations of 
international law, had committed war  crimes as defined in its Charter. 6 
FRD 69 (1948). That Charter has been enacted as a law  of the United 
States, 59 Stat. 5144 (1945). See also U.S. War Crimes Act, 18 USC 
2441.  By implication, the Nuremberg judgment privileges all citizens of 
nations engaged in war crimes to act in a measured but effective way to 
prevent the continuing commissions of those crimes. The same privilege is 
recognized by means of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court 
of Justice, "General Principles of Law Recognized by All Civilized 
Nations," which has been adopted as a Treaty by the United States. In my 
opinion, such action certainly could include non-violent exposure, 
inspection and symbolic disarmament of sites of ongoing war crimes.



16. In the present day, there has been a breakdown in the Constitutional 
principle of checks and balances which implements the separation of powers; 
most notably neither Congress nor the courts have been willing to ensure 
that the Executive Branch act within the laws that limit methods and means 
of the threat or use of military force. The fact that Minuteman III 
missiles exist and that their use is actively threatened on high alert 
reflects the stubborn refusal of the US to abide by its own fundamental 
laws of war and to proceed with negotiations for nuclear disarmament in all 
its aspects. In spite of years of in which these Defendants have 
participated in citizens petitions, letters, referendums, civil cases, 
requests for criminal prosecution and the recent decisions on these 
questions with the full participation of the United States before the 
International Court of Justice, the US  flouts its responsibility to abide 
by the laws of war, laws to which we are fundamentally  bound. Under these 
circumstances, where redress within traditional channels is refused  and 
ineffective, domestic criminal law coincides with the "Nuremberg 
privilege"  mentioned in the preceding paragraph to afford a justification 
for seeming violations of  domestic criminal laws in an effort to prevent 
the war crimes outlined above.



17. In my opinion the charges brought against these defendants in 
these  circumstances must be dismissed. The prosecution of this case can 
not go forward because the sabotage statute that has been promulgated 
pursuant to the war powers of  Congress, can only be and must be 
interpreted consistent with the laws of war. Any alleged "national-defense" 
and/or "national-defense materials" must be specified and defined within 
the laws of war. Clearly the Minuteman III, N-8 can never be used 
within  the laws of war and its ongoing threat or use or any 
instrumentalities or property furthering its threat or use are illegal and 
criminal. Likewise, this prosecution for malicious destruction of property 
must be dismissed because the court may not apply the general protection of 
property statute in a way that ignores or abrogate the fundamental laws of 
war. In these circumstances, where the alleged "property" is part of an 
illegal and  criminal threat of use of a weapon of mass destruction these 
defendants acted lawfully and reasonably to prevent the most egregious and 
fundamentally prohibited of all crimes, war crimes.

18. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 
correct. I am prepared to testify under oath and answer questions on these 
and related matters.

Signed this 7 day of

January, 2003, at Champaign, Illinois



                                                             Francis 
Anthony Boyle


To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account 
you wish to be subscribed to: abolition-caucus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 
abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.



----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
    * To visit your group on the web, go to:
    * 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abolition-caucus/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abolition-caucus/ 

    *
    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    * 
<mailto:abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 

    *
    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 12 President: Nuclear proliferation Emergency

                        FR Doc 05-12285 
[Federal Register: June 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 117)] 
[Presidential Documents] [Page 35507] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20jn05-110]                         

                        Presidential Documents 
[[Page 35507]]

                Notice of June 17, 2005
 
Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Risk 
of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation of 
Weapons-Usable Fissile Material in the Territory of the Russian 
Federation On June 21, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 
13159 (the ``Order'') blocking property and interests in property 
of the Government of the Russian Federation that are in the 
United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or 
that are or hereinafter come within the possession or control of 
United States persons that are directly related to the 
implementation of the Agreement Between the Government of the 
United States of America and the Government of the Russian 
Federation Concerning the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium 
Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, dated February 18, 1993, and 
related contracts and agreements (collectively, the ``HEU 
Agreements''). 

The HEU Agreements allow for the downblending of highly enriched 
uranium derived from nuclear weapons to low enriched uranium for 
peaceful commercial purposes. The Order invoked the authority, 
inter alia, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 
50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., and declared a national emergency to deal 
with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national 
security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the 
risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a 
large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory 
of the Russian Federation. 

The national emergency declared on June 21, 2000, must continue 
beyond June 21, 2005, to provide continued protection from 
attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or 
other judicial process for the property and interests in property 
of the Government of the Russian Federation that are directly 
related to the implementation of the HEU Agreements and subject 
to U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with section 
202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am 
continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to 
weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian 
Federation. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and 
transmitted to the Congress. (Presidential Sig.)B THE WHITE 
HOUSE, June 17, 2005. [FR Doc. 05-12285 Filed 6-17-05; 10:40 am] 
Billing code 3195-01-P
 
*****************************************************************
 13 San Francisco Chronicle: BIRTH OF THE NUCLEAR AGE

Dennis A. Cavagnaro 

Sunday, June 19, 2005

  [The Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas.] [A display at the
Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas depic...] 

There's not a slot machine in sight at the newest museum in Las
Vegas. The Atomic Testing Museum, which opened in February just
south of the Las Vegas Strip, depicts the evolution of the
Atomic Age, from the moment Einstein formulated his famous
theory of relativity to the uses and spin-offs of nuclear
research. It's all done in a way in which children and atomic
illiterates can understand. 

The atomic bomb has always been controversial. Since the
Pandora's box of nuclear technology was opened at Hiroshima,
nuclear technology has proliferated, and well-meaning Americans
remain divided on splitting the atom for weapons and for nuclear
power. 

"Reminding people what the Cold War was all about is probably
the most important mission the museum has," says Bill Johnson,
the museum's director. "A lot of people have forgotten that the
testers thought they were saving the world." 

Developed by the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation in
conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution, the
8,000-square-foot facility is part of the Frank H. Rogers
Science and Technology building on the campus of the Desert
Research Institute. In the museum's centerpiece, the Ground Zero
Theater, visitors experience the effects of an aboveground
atomic blast as if seen from the "safety" of a 1950s observation
bunker. An unseen controller begins the countdown: "Ten ... nine
... eight ..." and suddenly the world explodes -- seats tremble,
the bunker fills with enormous sound and wind. 

The museum's ticket window and entrance replicate the security
gate at the Mercury, Nev., entrance to the Nevada Test Site,
about 65 miles from Las Vegas. The aboveground nuclear tests at
the test site during the 1950s created a media circus in Las
Vegas. Many of the most famous journalists of the era, including
Bob Considine and Walter Cronkite, gathered on the observation
point nicknamed "News Nob," which is re-created in the museum.
The journalists organized themselves into "the Ancient and
Honorable Order of Atomic Bomb Watchers." Visitors can see what
these observers witnessed on vintage black- and-white television
sets. 

The incongruity of cutting-edge science alongside Vegas'
good-time gambling is illustrated in the museum. Life-size
models of various nuclear bombs and devices are displayed, along
with films of test programs. Nearby, a display of products
illustrates America's fascination with things atomic: There's
the "Atomic Energy Lab," a lab in a suitcase "for junior
scientists," Superboy comics, atomic cocktails, even a Peanuts
comic strip. Old Civil Defense filmstrips show schoolkids diving
under their desks for protection from an atomic blast. 

Also displayed is an illustrated time line, with a photocopy of
Einstein's letter to President Roosevelt pleading for the
American development of the atomic bomb ahead of the Nazi
nuclear program. Images of the anti- nuclear movement and
nuclear testing protests are respectfully included. 

Retired atomic testers serve as museum docents and should be
able to explain the displays and answer most questions. They are
not always on duty, but are available as tour guides for groups
if requested a few weeks in advance. To its credit, and in the
interest of evenhandedness, the museum's board of directors
includes representatives of both the pro- and anti-nuclear sides
of the debate. 

The museum also offers a research library and reading room with
video, books and more than 380,000 declassified documents,
including radiation records for the men and women who worked at
the facility. And there's a gift shop, of course, selling
souvenirs from atomic design neckties and mushroom cloud mouse
pads to Albert Einstein action figures. 

Dennis A. Cavagnaro is a freelance writer. 				
Page 74 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 14 EDITOR & PUBLISHER: SPECIAL REPORT: A Great Nuclear-Age Mystery Solved

America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry    

Tuesday, June 21, 2005     
    

War Photos We Must Never See Again 
It's Not Easy Being 'Green' 
'N.Y. Times' Gets Documents on Post-9/11 Saudi Flights from U.S. 
View more related articles             
 	
By Greg Mitchell 

Published: June 16, 2005 11:45 PM ET 

NEW YORK One of the great mysteries of the Nuclear Age was
solved today: What was in the censored, and then lost to the
ages, newspaper articles filed by the first reporter to reach
Nagasaki following the atomic attack on that city on Aug. 9,
1945?
 
The reporter was George Weller, the distinguished correspondent
for the now-defunct Chicago Daily News. His startling dispatches
from Nagasaki, which could have affected public opinion on the
future of the bomb, never emerged from General Douglas
MacArthur's censorship office in Tokyo. Carbon copies were found
just two years ago when his son, who talked to E&P from Italy
today, discovered them after the reporter's death. 

Four of them were published today for the first time by the
Tokyo daily Mainichi Shimbun, which purchased them from Anthony
Weller. He told E&P he hopes to put them and others together
into a book. 

The articles published in Japan today reveal a remarkable and
wrenching turn in Weller's view of the aftermath of the bombing,
which anticipates the profound unease in our nuclear experience
ever since. "It was remarkable to see that shifting
perspective," Anthony Weller says. 

An early article that George Weller filed, on Sept. 8, 1945 --
two days after he reached the city, before any other journalist
-- hailed the "effectiveness of the bomb as a military device,"
as his son describes it, and makes no mention of the bomb's
special, radiation-producing properties. 

But later that day, after visiting two hospitals and shaken by
what he saw, he described a mysterious "Disease X" that was
killing people who had seemed to survive the bombing in
relatively good shape. A month after the atomic inferno, they
were passing away pitifully, some with legs and arms "speckled
with tiny red spots in patches."
 
The following day he again described the atomic bomb's "peculiar
disease" and reported that the leading local X-ray specialist
was convinced that "these people are simply suffering" from the
bomb's unknown radiation effects.
 
Anthony Weller, a novelist who lives near Gloucester, Mass.,
told E&P that it was one of great disappointments of his
father's life that these stories, "a real coup," were killed by
MacArthur who, George Weller felt, "wanted all the credit for
winning the war, not some scientists back in New Mexico." 

Others have suggested that the real reason for the censorship
was the United States did not want the world to learn about the
morally troubling radiation effects for two reasons: It did not
want questions raised about the use of the weapon in 1945, or
its wide scale development in the coming years. In fact, an
official "coverup" of much of this information--involving print
accounts, photographs and film footage--continued for years,
even, in some cases, decades. 

"Clearly," says Anthony Weller of his father's reports, "they
would have supplied an eyewitness account at a moment when the
American people badly needed one." 

***
How did George Weller get the scoop-that-wasn't?
 
After years of covering the Pacific war, Weller arrived in Japan
with the first wave of reporters and military in early
September. He had already won a Pulitzer for his reporting in
1943. Appalled by MacArthur's censors, and "the conformists" in
his profession who went along with strict press restrictions, he
made his way, with permission, to the distant island of Kyushu
to visit a former kamikaze base. But he noted that it was
connected by railroad to Nagasaki. Pretending he was "a major or
colonel," as his son put it, he slipped into the city (perhaps
by boat) about three days before any of his colleagues, and just
after Wilfred Burchett had filed his first report from
Hiroshima. 

Once arrived, Weller toured the city, the aid stations, the
former POW camps, and wrote numerous stories within days.
According to his son, he managed to send the articles to Tokyo,
not by wire, but by hand, and felt "that the sheer volume and
importance of the stories would mean they would be respected" by
MacArthur and his censors. 

Although Weller did not express any outward disapproval of the
use of the bomb, these stories -- and others he filed in the
following two weeks from the vicinity -- would never see the
light of the day, and the reporter lost track of his carbons. He
would later summarize the experience wit the censorship office
in two words: "They won."
 
In the years that followed, Weller continued his journalism
career, winning a George Polk award and other honors and
covering many other conflicts. Neither the carbons nor the
originals ever surfaced, before he passed away in 2002 at the
age of 95. It was then that his son made a full search of the
wildly disorganized "archives" at his father's home in Italy,
and in 2003 found the carbons just 30 feet from his dad's desk.
 
And what a find: roughly 75 pages of stories, on fading brownish
paper, that covered not only his first atomic dispatches but
gripping accounts by prisoners of war, some of whom described
watching the bomb go off on that fateful morning. Remarkably,
Anthony also found a couple dozen photos his father had snapped
in Nagasaki.
 
Anthony Weller says he attempted to package the material as a
book or a major magazine piece in the States, but after a slow
response, sold a partial package to Mainichi Shimbun, one of the
largest-circulation newspapers in the world.
 
***
In the first article published today by the Japanese paper, the
first words from Weller were: "The atomic bomb may be classified
as a weapon capable of being used indiscriminately, but its use
in Nagasaki was selective and proper and as merciful as such a
gigantic force could be expected to be." Weller described
himself as "the first visitor to inspect the ruins."
 
He suggested about 24,000 may have died but he attributed the
high numbers to "inadequate" air raid shelters and the "total
failure" of the air warning system. He declared that the bomb
was "a tremendous, but not a peculiar weapon," and said he spent
hours in the ruins without apparent ill effects. He did note,
with some regret, that a hospital and an American mission
college were destroyed, but pointed out that to spare them would
have also meant sparing munitions plants.
 
In his second story that day, however, following his hospital
visits, he would describe "Disease X," and victims, who have
"neither a burn or a broken limb," wasting away with "blackish"
mouths and red spots, and small children who "have lost some
hair."
 
A third piece, sent to MacArthur the following day, reported the
disease "still snatching away lives here. Men, women and
children with no outward marks of injury are dying daily in
hospitals, some after having walked around three or four weeks
thinking they have escaped. 

"The doctors ... candidly confessed ... that the answer to the
malady is beyond them." At one hospital, 200 of 343 admitted had
died: "They are dead -- dead of atomic bomb -- and nobody knows
why."
 
He closed this account with: "Twenty-five Americans are due to
arrive Sept. 11 to study the Nagasaki bomb site. Japanese hope
they will bring a solution for Disease X."
 
Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com)               
is editor of E&P and co-author, with Robert Jay Lifton, of 
"Hiroshima in America," and other books. 

                        
� 2005 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved. Terms 
*****************************************************************
 15 MaineToday.com: Energy independence worth effort to achieve 

           Energy independence worth effort to achieve
 Greatly lessening our reliance on foreign oil would boost a
prudent national energy policy. --> 


  Monday, June 20, 2005 

EDITORIAL:

Reducing this country's dependence on oil imports is a wise and
necessary goal. 

That's why it's disappointing that the Senate last week, in
working to craft energy legislation, rejected a Democratic
proposal to establish a goal of a 40 percent reduction in oil
imports within 20 years. 

Critics call the goal unattainable. They may prove to be right.
However, it's a worthy goal. Even if we fall short of it, it
would be a good one to strive for in the face of the global
energy crunch when it comes to fossil fuels. 

Such a goal could ensure that a sensible national energy policy
- one that incorporates conservation measures and the
development of alternative energy sources, including nuclear
power - remains on the front burner in Washington. 

Let's face it: Two of the major problems inherent in our
reliance on foreign oil - that it's a finite resource and that
we're competing for it with rapidly growing nations, such as
China - are only going to get worse over time. 

Also, most of the oil is located in politically volatile regions
of the Middle East and Africa. The more the United States can do
to create stability in those areas, the better, but that appears
unlikely to happen soon. 

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, D-N.D., was right to observe: "The fact
is, unless we start thinking about a new energy future, and
setting some goals about how and when we ought to get there, we
never will." 

The Senate deserves praise, however, for the environmentally
friendly measures it did support, which should come into play as
senators work with the House and the president to create a
national energy policy. 

For example, the Senate voted to require power companies by 2020
to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity with more
renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. Right
now the figure stands at about 2 percent. 

The Finance Committee also approved a $14 billion tax incentive
package rewarding the use of alternative fuels and increases in
energy efficiency. 

Opponents say the new requirements would be costly and
disruptive to utilities in areas where alternative energy
sources are not readily available. 

Certainly, costs and other concerns must be fully considered,
and provisions that mitigate them incorporated. For example, the
Senate wants to allow trading renewable energy credits to help
utilities that can't meet the standards. Also, expenses could be
offset by less spending on traditional fuels. 

However, the primary aim of Congress should be meeting the goal
President Bush himself set: lessening U.S. reliance on foreign
fossil fuels. 

Copyright� Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.  
*****************************************************************
 16 CounterPunch: Alamogordo, 60 Years Later
 
June 20, 2005 

WMD American-Style
 
It's 60 Years Since Alamogordo
 
By MICKEY Z. 

It was in 1942, at the University of Chicago, that physicists
working under Arthur Compton, Enrico Fermi, and others produced
fission of the uranium isotope U-235. In other words: a nuclear
chain reaction. With an ultra-secret $2.2 billion investment
(the equivalent of $26 billion today), the Manhattan Project
began that same year. Nearly 200,000 workers toiled in 37
installations in 19 states and Canada. 

On July 16, 1945, an atomic bomb was successfully detonated at
Alamogordo, New Mexico after which Senator Brien McMahon of
Connecticut called it "the most important thing in history since
the birth of Jesus Christ." 


THE FIRST GROUND ZERO 

While the long-term effects of Alamogordo are still being
calculated, the initial consequence of this Second Coming, of
course, was felt in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. According to the August 15, 1945 edition of the New
York Daily News, 60 percent of Hiroshima, a city with a
population of roughly 343,000, was destroyed on August 6, 1945.
A Tokyo radio broadcast on August 8 described how "the impact of
the bomb was so terrific that practically all living things,
human and animal, were seared to death by the tremendous heat
and pressure engendered by the blast." 

Tokyo radio went on to call Hiroshima a city with corpses "too
numerous to be counted...literally seared to death." It was
impossible to "distinguish between men and women." The
Associated Press carried the first eyewitness account: a
Japanese solider who described the victims as "bloated and
scorched-such an awesome sight-their legs and bodies stripped of
clothes and burned with a huge blister." 

"Two days after the first bomb, Moscow declared war on Japan,"
explains journalist Stephen Shalom. "[Army Chief of Staff George
C.] Marshall ordered a crash propaganda campaign to inform the
Japanese public about the bomb in order to get them to press for
surrender. Propaganda leaflets were dropped on many cities, but
Nagasaki did not get its full quota of leaflets until August 10,
the day after it was obliterated." 

The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki has never been
explained. "Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the
Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb?" Howard Zinn asks. "Were the
dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victim of a scientific
experiment?" 

These shocking images and postulations have become a footnote to
the atomic bomb myths-a sideshow, at best. Still, the primary
question remains: Why was the bomb really used? 

The most common answer is that President Harry S. Truman ordered
the attack to avoid an American invasion of the Japanese
homeland. Such an invasion, we have been told for nearly six
decades, would have resulted in millions of American deaths. But
is this justification accurate? 


BLAME IT ON ADOLF 

Before confronting Truman's reasoning for unleashing the bomb,
there is another, lesser-known myth surrounding the Manhattan
Project that must be dealt with: the life-and-death race with
Adolf Hitler and the Nazi scientists he had working on an atomic
program of their own. "Working at Los Alamos, New Mexico, under
the direction of J. Robert Oppenheimer," writes historian
Kenneth C. Davis, "atomic scientists, many of them refugees from
Hitler's Europe, thought they were racing against Germans
developing a 'Nazi bomb.'" 

Surely, if it were possible for the epitome of evil to produce
such a weapon, it would be the responsibility of the good guys
to beat der F�hrer to the plutonium punch. While such a
desperate race makes for excellent melodrama, it bears more
resemblance to the never-ending supply of arms "gaps" produced
by Cold War propagandists than to reality. 

Simply, the German bomb effort fell far short of success. 

Thanks to the declassification of key documents, we now have
access to "unassailable proof that the race with the Nazis was a
fiction," says Stewart Udall, who cites the work of McGeorge
Bundy and Thomas Powers before adding: "According to the
official history of the British Secret Intelligence Service
(SIS), those agents maintained 'contacts with scientists in
neutral countries...'" These contacts, by mid-1943, provided
enough evidence to convince the SIS that the German bomb program
simply did not exist. 

Despite such findings, U.S. General Leslie Groves, military
commander of the Manhattan Project, got permission in the fall
of 1943 to begin a secret espionage mission known as Alsos (a
name chosen by Groves, Greek for "grove"). The mission saw
Groves' men following the Allies' armies throughout Europe with
the goal of capturing German scientists involved in the
manufacture of atomic weapons. 

While the data uncovered by Alsos only served to reinforce prior
reports that the Third Reich was not pursuing a nuclear program,
Groves (with the help of Secretary of War Henry Stimson) was
able to maintain enough of a cover-up to keep his costly pet
project alive. The criminal concealment of the truth about the
Nazis and their lack of atomic research kept the momentum going
in the New Mexico desert and, according to Udall, "swept it,
following Germany's defeat, onto a path that led to Hiroshima
and to the creation of misinformation that has obscured
essential truths concerning the Manhattan Project and the epoch
it initiated." THE INVASION THAT NEVER WAS 

The most commonly evoked rationale for the dropping of atomic
bombs on hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians was to save
lives, but was it true that an Allied invasion of the Japanese
homeland would have cost many American lives? In an August 9,
1945 statement to "the men and women of the Manhattan Project,"
President Truman declared the hope that "this new weapon will
result in saving thousands of American lives." 

"The president's initial formulation of 'thousands,' however,
was clearly not his final statement on the matter to say the
least," remarks historian Gar Alperovitz. In fact, in his book,
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an
American Myth, Alperovitz documents but a few of Truman's public
estimates throughout the years: 

* December 15, 1945: "It occurred to me that a quarter of a
million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of
Japanese cities." 

* Late 1946: "A year less of war will mean life for three
hundred thousand-maybe half a million-of America's finest
youth." 

* October 1948: "In the long run we could save a quarter of a
million young Americans from being killed, and would save an
equal number of Japanese young men from being killed." 

* April 6, 1949: "I thought 200,000 of our young men would be
saved." 

* November 1949: Truman quotes Army Chief of Staff George S.
Marshall as estimating the cost of an Allied invasion of Japan
to be "half a million casualties." 

* January 12, 1953: Still quoting Marshall, Truman raises the
estimate to "a minimum one quarter of a million" and maybe "as
much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal
number of the enemy." 

* Finally, on April 28, 1959, Truman concluded: "the dropping of
the bombs...saved millions of lives." 

Fortunately, we're not operating without the benefit of official
estimates. In June of 1945, President Truman ordered the U.S.
military to calculate the cost in American lives for a planned
assault on Japan. Consequently, the Joint War Plans Committee
prepared a report for the Chiefs of Staff, dated June 15, 1945,
thus providing the closest thing anyone has to accurate: 40,000
U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing. 

While an actual casualty count remains unknowable, it was widely
known at the time that Japan had been trying to surrender for
months prior to the atomic bombing. A May 5, 1945 cable,
intercepted and decoded by the U.S., "dispelled any possible
doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace." In fact,
the United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported, shortly
after the war, that Japan "in all probability" would have
surrendered before the much-discussed November 1, 1945 Allied
invasion of the homeland, thereby saving all kinds of lives. 

Truman himself eloquently noted in his diary that Stalin would
"be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini (sic) Japs when that
comes about." 

Clearly, Truman saw the bombs as way to end the war before the
Soviet Union could claim a major role in Japan's terms of
surrender. However, one year after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a
top-secret U.S. study concluded that the Japanese surrender was
based more upon Stalin's declaration of war than either of the
atomic bombs. 


TO BOMB OR NOT TO BOMB 

Many post-Hiroshima/Nagasaki sentiments questioned the use of
the bombs. 

"I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by
the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer
mandatory as a measure to save American lives," said General
Dwight D. Eisenhower. Not long after the Japanese surrender, New
York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, "The enemy, in
a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position... Such
then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be
positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative." 

Was it Cold War hysteria that motivated the nuking of civilians?
U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes seemed to think so when
he turned the anxiety up a notch by explaining how "our
possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more
manageable in the East... The demonstration of the bomb might
impress Russia with America's military might." General Leslie
Groves was less cryptic: "There was never, from about two weeks
from the time I took charge of [the Manhattan] Project, any
illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the
Project was conducted on that basis." 

During the same time period, President Truman noted that
Secretary of War Henry Stimson was "at least as much concerned
with the role of the atomic bomb in the shaping of history as in
its capacity to shorten the war." What sort of shaping Stimson
had in mind might be discerned from his Sept. 11, 1945 comment
to the president: "I consider the problem of our satisfactory
relations with Russia as not merely connected but as virtually
dominated by the problem of the atomic bomb." 

Stimson called the bomb a "diplomatic weapon," adding,"American
statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians
with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip." 

The message was heard...loud and clear. 

"The psychological effect on Stalin was twofold," suggests
historian Charles L. Mee, Jr. "The Americans had not only used a
doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was
not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that
doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians." 

Imagine the impression it made on the citizens of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. 

"Why did we drop [the bomb]?" pondered Studs Terkel at the time
of the fiftieth anniversary of the bombings. "So little Harry
could show Molotov and Stalin we've got the cards. That was the
phrase Truman used. We showed the goddamned Russians we've got
something and they'd better behave themselves in Europe. That's
why it was dropped. The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you
tell that to 99 percent of Americans and they'll spit in your
eye." 


I'LL TAKE MANHATTAN 

Many of the men who helped give Little Harry the cards toiled at
Los Alamos, New Mexico. The scientific director at Los Alamos
was J. Robert Oppenheimer, a man who, in 1943, pioneered the
idea of "poisoning the German food supply with radioactive
strontium." 

"We should not attempt a plan," Oppenheimer explained to his
boss, General Leslie Groves, "unless we can poison food
sufficient to kill half a million men." Within a few years,
however, Oppenheimer began to see things a little differently. 

After learning of the horrors his bomb had wrought on Japan, the
scientist began to harbor second thoughts, and he resigned in
October 1945. In March of the following year, Oppenheimer told
Truman: 

"Mr. President, I have blood on my hands." 

Truman replied: "It'll come out in the wash." 

Later, the president told an aide, "Don't bring that fellow
around again." 

For others at Los Alamos, life (and death) went on. In the case
of Louis Slotin, a thirty-four-year-old Canadian physicist, his
work would bring home the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Here's how historian Mark C. Carnes described Slotin's fate: 

While other scientists watched in tense silence, Slotin
delicately manipulated a screwdriver barely separating two
silvery-gray globes of fissionable plutonium. One time, he
slipped, the globes touched, and radiation flooded the
laboratory. Slotin lunged forward and pushed the plutonium
apart, saving the others. His own dosage of radiation, he knew,
was lethal; with chalk, he marked the positions of others in the
room and calculated on a nearby blackboard that they would live.
Then he became nauseated. His arms, legs, and face swelled
hideously. Within a week, he became incoherent and died. 

LIFE DOWNWIND 

The legacy of Alamogordo has infiltrated almost every aspect of
our daily lives. Americans now use forks and knives made from
recycled nuclear waste to eat irradiated food. There's nuclear
medicine, nuclear payloads on space missiles, and the use of
depleted uranium weapons in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and training bases
like Vieques. Many Americans were unwitting laboratory subjects
in tests to discover the effects of radiation on the human body
and innumerable more have become "downwinders." These folks
lived in the vicinity of nuclear testing grounds and experienced
the deadly fallout from the many atomic and hydrogen bombs
exploded nearby. 

On a personal level, while writing an article about the 60th
anniversary of the first successful detonation of an atomic
bpmb, I am reminded that the Indian Point nuclear reactor is
only about 40 miles from where I sit in New York City. As noted
physician and activist Helen Caldicott explains, "A meltdown [at
Indian Point] would [trap] millions of people in a radioactive
hell, unable to escape, dying within forty-eight hours of acute
radiation illness. Such an event is not unlikely according to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, because this reactor is
plagued with safety problems." 

Sixty years into the WMD age, we're all downwinders. 

Mickey Z. is the author of &quot;50
      American Revolutions
You're Not Supposed to Know: Reclaiming
      American
Patriotism(Disinformation). He can be found on the Web at:
http://www.mickeyz.net. 

*****************************************************************
 17 [sm] Nagasaki bomb: First Western reports finally published
 
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:50:30 -0500 (CDT)

 
George Weller was the first Western journalist in Nagasaki after we
dropped the plutonium bomb. (Were the citizens of Nagasaki guinea pigs
for this new type of atomic weapon?)  MacArthur censored Weller's
reports, but Weller's son just discovered the carbons of the stories.

The NYT coverage of this story, since it's about our war crimes (by
definition a null set) and their coverup, omitted this information:

  William Laurance, a science reporter with The New York Times and - it
  later emerged - someone also paid by the White House as a
  "consultant", was among a group of reporters taken to the atomic
  testing site in New Mexico to demonstrate there was no lingering
  radiation. Laurance's subsequent story said: "This historic ground in
  New Mexico, scene of the first atomic explosion on earth and a cradle
  of a new era in civilisation, gave the most effective answer today to
  Japanese propaganda that [radiation was] responsible for deaths even
  after the day of the explosion."

Paying pundits to promote a bogus education bill, as Bush did, is
amateur night compared to Truman paying for such coverage or for this
coverage, again from Laurance:

  ..."Awestruck, we watched it shoot upward like a meteor coming from
  the earth instead of from outer space, becoming ever more alive as it
  climbed skyward through the white clouds ... It was a living thing, a
  new species of being, born right before our incredulous eyes."

For which reporting Laurance won the Pulitzer prize.  In the theatre of
the absurd, only Kissinger winning the Nobel Peace Prize outplays that.

The article below, unlike the NYT coverage, quotes Gregg Mitchell,
co-author of _Hiroshima in America: A Half Century of Denial_, and
explains the theme of his book:

  ...[it] details the official suppression of the effect of the atomic
  weapons and the controversy surrounding America's decision to use them
  when many in the West believed Japan was already ready to surrender.

-Sanjoy

`A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.'
   - Bertrand de Jouvenal

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=648484

Nagasaki: Wasteland of war, by the first Western reporter to witness it

The American journalist George Weller was the first Allied observer to
see the devastation wreaked by the atomic bomb on the Japanese city of
Nagasaki. But his account was censored at the command of General
MacArthur, and only now, three years after his death, have his
astonishing reports finally been published. By Andrew Buncombe

Independent (London)
21 June 2005

The scenes that confronted the reporter George Weller would fill his
dispatches with horror and stay with him for life. The first Western
reporter into the bombed and off-limits city of Nagasaki in September
1945, Weller encountered sickness and suffering of a kind never seen
before. He described the cityscape though which he passed as a
"wasteland of war".

But his unflinching reports written a month after the atomic bomb had
dropped caught the eye of General Douglas MacArthur's US military
censors. Concerned at the effect Weller's reporting would have on
worldwide opinion as well as his subsequent political ambitions, the
general ensured that none of the reportage he filed from Nagasaki
would be published.

Until now. Three years after Weller's death at the age of 95, and 60
years after the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
killing more than 200,000 people and ushering the world into the
nuclear era, some of those first-hand dispatches have been published
in a Japanese newspaper.

They provide a raw and unique insight into the bomb's devastation and
the horrifying effect of radiation poisoning, known to the author of
the reports and the bewildered doctors he spoke to simply as "Disease
X".

In a report filed from Nagasaki on 8 September 1945, Weller wrote: "In
swaybacked or flattened skeletons of the Mitsubishi arms plants is
revealed what the atomic bomb can do to steel and stone, but what the
riven atom can do against human flesh and bone lies hidden in two
hospitals of downtown Nagasaki. Look at the pushed-in fagade of the
American consulate, three miles from the blast's centre, or the face
of the Catholic cathedral, one mile in the other direction, torn down
like gingerbread, and you can tell that the liberated atom spares
nothing in the way." Weller's remarkable dispatches might not have
been discovered but for his son Anthony, also a writer and journalist,
who was dealing with his father's belongings after his death in 2002.
At his father's home in San Felice Circeo, Italy, Mr Weller was
working his way through a box of papers when he came across 75 typed
pages of carbon-paper copies containing reports from the war in the
Pacific, which his father had believed lost. The reports ran to about
25,000 words.

Speaking yesterday by telephone from his father's home, Mr Weller, 47,
told The Independent: "My father had spoken of these reports many
times over the years and it was a source of great frustration to him
[to be censored]. It was one of the biggest stories of his life.

"It was very poignant to find his carbons no more than 20ft from where
he was sitting. One of the rooms in his house was overflowing with
papers from his more than 65 years as a foreign correspondent. There
were boxes and crates with these papers jammed into them. I spent some
time going through a crate full of mildewed papers from the Pacific
war and there they were. The crate was a few feet from the chair in
which he used to sit. He did not know they were there."

The story of Weller's suppressed dispatches from the southern coastal
city of Nagasaki - devastated by the 4.5-ton "Fatman" nuclear device
that was exploded at a height of 1,500ft at 11.02am on 9 August - are
made all the more remarkable for the effort it took him to get into
the city. With the city and much of southern Japan placed off-limits
by MacArthur, commander of the US forces, Weller, already a Pulitzer
Prize winner with the now defunct Chicago Daily News, made his way to
the distant island of Kyushu. There, with official permission, he
visited what had been a Japanese kamikaze base. But he also noticed
that the town on the mainland - just a few hundred yards from the
island - was connected to Nagasaki by railroad. Using a combination of
boat, train and a bravura performance in which he impersonated a
senior US officer and commandeered two military cars, he was able to
get into Nagasaki several days before any other Western reporters.
Weller, who had earlier been among the very last journalists to leave
Singapore and then Indonesia in the face of the Japanese advance, was
not at the time particularly opposed to the atomic bomb. "I think the
Japanese military had cleared any sense of remorse out of him," said
his son, who usually lives in Annisquam, Massachusetts. And his
initial reports from Nagasaki suggested that he believed the atomic
weapon, while clearly deadly, had worked with a rare degree of
precision.

He started one early dispatch by writing: "The atomic bomb may be
classified as a weapon capable of being used indiscriminately, but its
use in Nagasaki was selective and proper and as merciful as such a
gigantic force could be expected to be. The following conclusions were
made by the writer - as the first visitor to inspect the ruins - after
an exhaustive, though still incomplete study of this wasteland of
war." He suggested that the death toll stood at no more than 24,000
and that this number (later shown to be more than 75,000, with another
75,000 injured and countless more left to die later from radiation
sickness) was largely the result of poorly designed civilian air
shelters and a refusal by the local authorities to take air-raid
warnings seriously. He later added in his report: "Nobody here in
Nagasaki has yet been able to show that the bomb is different than any
other, except in a broader extent flash and a more powerful
knock-out." But as he travelled more around Nagasaki, visiting
hospitals filled with sick and dying people, witnessing the flattened
city and talking to the baffled Japanese doctors unable to help so
many of the sick, Weller became aware that something was terribly
wrong. Many of those brought into the hospitals were not responding to
treatment.

He witnessed children with red blotches on their skin, people who had
lost their hair, patients with blackened tongues, patients with
lock-jaw. Doctors at one hospital told him that a month after the
explosion, people were dying at a rate of 10 a day.

He noted that the doctors had performed precise assessments of the
patients brought to them. Their hair had fallen out, they had skin
haemorrhages, lip sores, diarrhoea, swelling of the throat. There had
been a fall in the number of their red blood cells and there was an
almost absence of white blood cells.

He wrote in another dispatch: "The atomic bomb's peculiar 'disease',
uncured because it is untreated and untreated because it is not
diagnosed, is still snatching away lives here. Men, women and children
with no outward marks of injury are dying daily in hospitals, some
after having walked around for three or four weeks thinking they have
escaped. The doctors here have every modern medicament, but candidly
confessed in talking to the writer - the first Allied observer to
Nagasaki since the surrender - that the answer to the malady is beyond
them. Their patients, though their skin is whole, are all passing away
under their eyes."

After his achievement of entering Nagasaki and acting as an
eye-witness to the destruction, Weller's mistake was to send his
reports back to Tokyo by hand, to be approved by the military censor.
Concerned about their potential effect on public opinion, MacArthur
ordered that that they be destroyed.

Weller's son said his father later believed he had lost the carbon
copies and would go to his grave summarising his experience with the
censors simply as "They won." Indeed, at the same time as it was
suppressing Weller's reports and denying similar reports filed from
Hiroshima by the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett and published by
the Daily Express in London, the Pentagon was actively going to great
lengths to persuade its own citizens that there was no danger of
radiation poisoning from the atomic bombs.

William Laurance, a science reporter with The New York Times and - it
later emerged - someone also paid by the White House as a
"consultant", was among a group of reporters taken to the atomic
testing site in New Mexico to demonstrate there was no lingering
radiation. Laurance's subsequent story said: "This historic ground in
New Mexico, scene of the first atomic explosion on earth and a cradle
of a new era in civilisation, gave the most effective answer today to
Japanese propaganda that [radiation was] responsible for deaths even
after the day of the explosion."

Laurance was so liked by the military that he was even taken in the
squadron of planes accompanying the B-29 bomber from Tinian Island
near Guam, which dropped the Nagasaki bomb. In contrast to Weller's
reports of suffering and sickness, Laurance described the bomb's
explosion thus: "Awestruck, we watched it shoot upward like a meteor
coming from the earth instead of from outer space, becoming ever more
alive as it climbed skyward through the white clouds ... It was a
living thing, a new species of being, born right before our
incredulous eyes." Ironically, such reporting won Laurance himself a
Pulitzer prize.

Gregg Mitchell, co-author of Hiroshima in America: A Half Century of
Denial and editor of the magazine Editor and Publisher, said the story
of Weller's suppressed and then lost dispatches was one of
journalism's more considerable mysteries.

"It's different to Deep Throat, but in nuclear history and journalism
history, [it is important]," said Mr Mitchell, whose book details the
official suppression of the effect of the atomic weapons and the
controversy surrounding America's decision to use them when many in
the West believed Japan was already ready to surrender. "It is one of
the great mysteries. People have always wondered what was in those
reports. For them to emerge intact solves it."

Weller's son, who has also discovered a cache of his father's
photographs, said his father had believed his reports from Nagasaki
would not be censored. He believed that during the three weeks he
spent in Nagasaki he was there "as a witness".

"He had been fighting the censors for four years," he said. "[The
censors] did not want the US people to get a bad impression of the
bombs, and that it was not MacArthur who had won the war but a bunch
of scientists in New Mexico."

Indeed, the conclusion to one of his father's most moving dispatches
relates to some of those very scientists, the effect of whose labours
he had just witnessed, and who were about to arrive in the city to
measure the radiation. "Twenty-five Americans are due to arrive
September 11 to study the Nagasaki bombsite. Japanese hope they will
*****************************************************************
 18 Taipei Times: Editorial: Energy policy requires action 

http://www.taipeitimes.com

Monday, Jun 20, 2005,Page 8 

A national energy strategy conference is scheduled to start today 
at the Taipei International Convention Center. The meeting aims 
to bring together government, academia and industry on ways to 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions after the Kyoto Protocol went 
into effect on Feb. 16. It is also expected that the government 
will use the discussions as a reference in the formulation of 
policy concerning cutting reliance on energy imports and 
promoting renewable energy.

 The meeting is not the first time that Taiwan has expressed
hopes of laying out an energy strategy for resources and
conservation. In 1998, efforts to convene a national energy
conference under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
administration to promote a policy of energy conservation and
efficiency ended after many talks, with the creation of a
five-year, NT$10 billion research and development project to
promote conservation and clean energy.

 Almost seven years after the previous meeting, there is a huge
change in the world regarding the energy issue. The Kyoto
Protocol was initially viewed with suspicion by more than 160
countries when it was envisioned in 1997 to regulate the
emissions of six kinds of greenhouse gases. But the treaty has
now gained wider attention, because countries have gradually
recognized global warming from fossil fuels as an environmental
issue of fundamental importance.

 On the other hand, crude oil prices have surged to above US$50
a barrel recently, compared to about US$20 a barrel in 1998,
when the meeting last took place. High crude oil prices have
lifted the price of related energy products and have rippled
across many sectors of the economy, sparking worry that fossil
fuels will become more expensive as supplies dwindle. In
addition, rising oil prices have provoked governments to search
for renewable sources of power such as wind, solar, hydrogen and
geothermal, and to become more alert about the security of
energy supplies.

 Given that the country's energy supply is about 97 percent
imported, the Democratic Progressive Party administration should
realize that a review of energy consumption is imperative to
economic development and national security. Therefore, how
Taiwan handles its energy dependence is an important test of how
far it has come, because the nation's energy policies have
mostly stayed the same since the 1998 meeting. In this respect,
efforts to promote efficient consumption and conservation of
energy, as well as the increased usage of natural gas and the
development of renewable energy sources, should not just be put
up for discussion during the meeting, but also be presented as
concrete measures, along with incentives.

 Another noteworthy aspect of the meeting is that this country
is determined to deal with the Kyoto Protocol's implications and
tackle the issue of local greenhouse gas emissions. Although
Taiwan is not a signatory to the protocol, the Ministry of
Economic Affairs has said that regulations on the control of six
kinds of greenhouse gases will be drawn up during the meeting to
specify the shared duties of the governments at all levels. But
before addressing this issue seriously, Taiwan needs to clearly
position its energy policies in the balance of economic
development and environmental protection, and clarify possible
impacts the protocol will have on the manufacturing sector.

 Moreover, the nation's environmental education about global
warming and sustainable development should also be addressed,
because most people's views on these issues were shaped by
old-fashioned development concepts. Also, the DPP government is
known for its support of creating a nuclear-free homeland, and
has said there won't be any more nuclear power plants in the
country.

 What the government needs to do is rein in rapid development in
coal-guzzling industries, such as cement, steel and coal-fired
power plants, before it talks about reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. 

This story has been viewed 342 times.     

Copyright � 1999-2005 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 19 Bellona: Rumyantsev: No political motives behind Adamov arrest
 
There are no political motives behind the US attempt to arrest
Russia�s ex nuclear minister Adamov, Russian nuclear chief
Aleksander Rumyantsev said in Washington following talks with US
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Russia�s NTV television channel
reported Friday.

2005-06-20 11:57

�I see no underlying political motives in the affair concerning
Yevgeny Adamov the station quoted Aleksander Rumyantsev, the
current head of Russia�s Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom)
as saying while commenting on the arrest in Bern Switzrerland on
May 2nd of the former Russian atomic energy minister. 

As soon as Adamov was arrested following a request by the U.S.
attorney�s office, it was speculated that it was an attempt by
the United States to get its hands on certain state nuclear
secrets. Adamov had access to secret documents during his term
in office between 1998 and 2001. 

The warrant, issued by a Pennsylvania Federal District Court,
charges Adamov, among other things, of allegedly laundering $9m
in US funding given Russia for nuclear remediation. Adamov has
several financial holdings in the state. But Rumyantsev saw no
strong-arming techniques by the United State in the arrest. 

�In the civilized world, legal power is executive and
authoritative. And the decision taken by the court in Pittsburgh
to request Adamov�s extradition, in this sense, is, how can I
put it, based on fact, i.e. there is a list of claims that have
been made against a certain individual. So it is somewhat
inappropriate to draw some kind of correlation between this and
what the state wants,� Rumyantsev said. 

Adamov remains in detention in Bern pending the formal filing of
extradition papers to the United States. Russia, in a possible
effort to countermand a leak of nuclear secrets, filed formal
extradition papers with the Swiss on May 17. 
  
  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 20 BBC: Plans unveiled for cleaner energy
 
Last Updated: Monday, 20 June, 2005
 
[Chimneys at a power station]                           

The assembly government said it is committed to clean energy                                                                 

Wales will adopt "cleaner, more efficient energy production" 
according to a Welsh Assembly Government scheme launched on 
Monday. 

The Energy Route Map includes policies for Wales on energy supply 
and sets out dates for energy policy objectives to be met. 

It will be launched for consultation on Monday by Economic 
Development Minister Andrew Davies. 

But environmental groups have called for more action on global 
warming. 

The assembly government said its route map balances the need to 
keep Wales' economy competitive while maintaining high 
environmental standards. 

One of the policies the document is expected to contain is the 
provision of new planning guidance for onshore windfarms. 

However, no mention is likely to be made over nuclear power. 

[Wind turbines]                                 
Guidance on onshore windfarms will be included in the plan                                                            

Environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund have 
criticised politicians, including First Minister Rhodri Morgan, 
for being complacent about global warming. 

Ahead of the launch, Mr Davies said: "We are already playing a 
significant role in pursuing clean energy and renewable energy 
generation in Wales. 

"However, we have the capacity and the duty to do more. 

"We need to facilitate many more clean energy projects (while) 
continuing to raise the profile of energy efficiency. 

"The pursuit of a clean and high-efficiency energy policy through 
renewable energies, cleaner fossil fuel technologies and 
increased focus on energy efficiency offer significant economic 
development and environmental opportunities for Wales." 

Mr Davies will launch the route map at Baglan Bay power station 
near Port Talbot, a �300m plant claimed to be among the most 
technologically-advanced and efficient when it opened in 2003.
		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 21 BBC: Nagasaki bomb account published
 
Last Updated: Monday, 20 June, 2005
 
[Ruins of Urakami Catholic church in Nagasaki, 1945] Weller 
describes a Catholic church "torn down like gingerbread"                                                            

Revealing stories by a US journalist who visited the Japanese 
city of Nagasaki a month after the atomic bomb have been 
published almost 60 years on. 

George Weller's account, serialised by Japan's Mainichi daily, 
describes the "wasteland" created and the suffering of victims of 
radiation sickness. 

He was the first foreign reporter in the ravaged city, declared 
off-limits to journalists by the US occupiers. 

The writings, rejected by US censors, were lost, but 
re-discovered last year. 

She lies moaning with blackish mouth stiff as though with lockjaw 
and unable to utter clear words 

George Weller, describing radiation sickness sufferer           

Weller's son Anthony found copies of them in his father's 
apartment in Rome, Italy, two years after the journalist's death. 

About 70,000 people were killed in the initial blast at Nagasaki, 
and thousands more died from the effects of radiation. Japan 
surrendered days later, ending World War II. 

Sensitive material 

Weller dodged US military checks to reach the city - at one point 
posing as an army colonel. 

[A mushroom cloud over Nagasaki, Japan, after the US dropped an 
atomic bomb in 1945]                                 

The effects were little understood at the time of Weller's visit                                                                

But on his return he submitted his reports - 75 typed pages and 
more than 20 photos - to the censors. 

Gen Douglas MacArthur, who headed the US occupation of Japan, was 
so angered by the reports that he personally rejected them. The 
originals were never returned. 

Anthony Weller told Mainichi he thought the account was quashed 
because it could have turned US public opinion against the 
build-up of a nuclear arsenal. 

George Weller's account describes the city as he saw it in 
September 1945. 

"The following conclusions were made by the writer - as the first 
visitor to inspect the ruins - after an exhaustive, though still 
incomplete study of this wasteland of war," he begins. 

Doctors 'nonplussed' 

At first he appears sceptical about the effects of radiation. 

"Hours of walking amid the ruins where the odour of decaying 
flesh is still strong produces in this writer nausea, but no sign 
of burns or debilitation," he says. 

	

	
                                                        Their 
patients, though the skin is whole, are all passing away under 
their eyes George Weller           

         "Nobody here in Nagasaki has yet been able to show that 
the bomb is different than any other." 

But in a later report, Weller describes a visit to a hospital 
containing patients suffering from radiation sickness, which he 
calls "disease X". They include a woman who had been virtually 
unaffected by the initial blast but fell ill three weeks later. 

"She lies moaning with a blackish mouth stiff as though with 
lockjaw and unable to utter clear words," he writes. "Her exposed 
legs and arms are speckled with tiny red spots in patches." 

Weller quotes doctors as saying they are nonplussed by the 
disease, which was killing patients at a rate of around 10 a day. 

"Their patients, though their skin is whole, are all passing away 
under their eyes," he writes.                                                       



*****************************************************************
 22 MDN: Son tells story of first foreign reporter to see aftermath 
of Nagasaki A-bombing
 
LOS ANGELES -- George Weller, the first foreign reporter to go 
into Nagasaki after the U.S. bombed the city toward the end of 
World War II, said the U.S. occupation forces and their 
censorship robbed the world of a chance to know radiation's 
effects, his son told the Mainichi. 
            
  Mainichi Shimbun   
  Anthony Weller shows his father's camera and one of the photos
the journalist took in Nagasaki.
   
Weller's controversial reports, which U.S. military censors
banned, essays he later wrote and an interview with his son have
helped to paint a picture of what the people of Nagasaki went
through in the days following the end of the war. 

Weller, who died aged 95 in 2002, covered Japan's surrender on
the U.S.S. Missouri on Sept. 2, 1945. He then decided to try and
get into the atomic bombed cities. 

However, the Occupation General Headquarters (GHQ) had banned
foreign reporters from entering western Japan. The one exception
was an airbase in Kagoshima Prefecture that had been used by
kamikaze pilots. 

Weller headed to the Kagoshima base, but from there hired a
motorboat to get out of the camp, then took trains to Nagasaki,
arriving on Sept. 6, 1945. 

Weller pretended to be a colonel, concealing the fact that he
was a journalist. Despite realizing he could be endangering
himself, he walked through the rubble of Nagasaki. He later
recalled how much he wanted to report on what they were going
through. 

Though Weller had entered Nagasaki without permission, he filed
his stories with the GHQ censors. They refused to allow it to be
published. 

In a 1990 radio interview, Weller said that the war had finished
by the time he entered Nagasaki and that Allied Commander Gen.
Douglas MacArthur had no right to ban his reports. 

"MacArthur does not have any authority to stop this. I wrote the
story and passed it to him. If he is going to stop such an
important story, he is the one who is going to take
responsibility for it," Anthony Weller, the journalist's son,
quoted his father as saying. 

Authorities never returned Weller's stories. In a diary entry
from 1984, Weller wrote: "Months and years after the two
decisive bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world was
still asking: Why have we heard nothing about the burntout
cases?" 

Anthony, 47, said his father covered the Pacific War for four
years. The younger Weller said his father regarded censorship as
another form of propaganda. 

He said his father often cited the old saying that "truth is
always the first casualty of a war." 

Anthony said his father often asked questions about World War
II. "What is this war? Where will we go? What can the U.S get
out of this war?" 

Weller dismissed Gen. MacArthur as being somebody who only
wanted to be seen as a hero, as the journalist believed the
general never gave answers to these questions. 

Anthony said his father always thought that the reason his
stories were never returned was because MacArthur was jealous
that the atomic bombs were being regarded as the reason the war
had ended instead of his own efforts. 

The son added that his father was highly critical of modern
journalists because he said they became "less independent and
less anxious to challenge to official version" of events. 

"He would have been (even) more critical of the media that was
cheerleading for the U.S. forces in the U.S.-led Iraq war, "
Anthony said. (By Sumire Kunieda, Mainichi) 
  
� 2005 The Mainichi Newspapers Co. 
*****************************************************************
 23 Telegraph Journal: Director named for new energy institute

canadaeast.com

As published on page A1/A5 on June 20, 2005                                             

 Saint John poised to become energy hub

(David Nickerson/Telegraph-Journal)

Tim Curry officially becomes director of Saint John's new energy 
institute today.                                                        

BY BRUCE BARTLETT Telegraph-Journal
 	 	 	 	 	 
Tim Curry has no problem justifying the need for an energy 
institute in Saint John, considering the $3 billion poised to be 
invested in and around the city over the next few years.

This morning Mr. Curry will be officially named director of a
new energy institute dedicated to building on the existing
energy-related facilities in the Greater Saint John area.

With $1.4 billion poised to be spent to refurbish the Point
Lepreau nuclear power plant, $750 million on an LNG plant, a new
power line from Lepreau to Maine, upgraded pipelines to handle
natural gas and a possible new power plant, the money is huge.

The energy institute was first promised in 2003 as part of the
city's growth strategy. It grew out of an international energy
conference hosted by Premier Bernard Lord in Saint John in 2002
that focused on the idea of the area as an energy hub.

The city is home to Canada's largest oil refinery as well as
being close to both the Coleson Cove and Point Lepreau power
generating stations. On top of that the Irving family, in
partnership with Spanish gas giant Repsol, is building an LNG
plant at Mispec.

The energy institute will be member based and member driven,
with an emphasis on business development but will include local
government and labour groups.

"We want to have people who are engaged and involved in the
energy sector and the spinoffs and the supporting industries
around that sector," said Mr. Curry.

Energy has a huge impact on our lives and offers some real
opportunities for the region, he said.

Although petroleum is big in Saint John the energy institute is
concerned with diversity, which means it supports refurbishing
Point Lepreau as well as supporting opportunities for tidal and
wind power.

As an example of opportunities in the energy business, Mr. Curry
points to a company manufacturing state-of-the-art plastic pipe
for the natural gas industry that is sold worldwide. The Lepreau
refurbishment also offers opportunities to develop techniques
for extending the lives of Candu 6 reactors.

"Particularly with Kyoto and expensive oil, nuclear is poised
for a resurgence," he said.

The energy institute will also offer opportunities for
businesses to work together on projects when it makes sense.
When there are issues that affect the whole industry, the energy
institute can also act as an advocate, he said.

The institute's budget, around $150,000 per year, is a starting
as a combination of private money and a federal grant.

"The intent, on a go forward basis, is that it will be funded by
the members," said Mr. Curry.

He comes to the job following an early retirement from Aliant
after 27 years, with his most recent experience being in
managing and developing business activities.

Copyright � 2005 Brunswick News Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 Times of India: 'Pak readied nuke during Kargil'

ANI[ MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005 11:44:37 AM 		]
   
  WASHINGTON: During the Kargil war, the Pakistan military had
prepared their nuclear-tipped missile to fight back a possible
Indian attack, and former US president Bill Clinton had informed
about the military's move to the then Pakistani premier Nawaz
Sharif, Bruce Riedel, a close aide of Clinton, has been quoted
as saying this in a forthcoming book "Pakistan Between Mosque
And Military" written by a Pakistani writer Husain Haqqani. 

On learning about the military's plans, Sharif was taken aback
and said that India was probably doing the same, writes Haqqani,
a former Pakistani diplomat, journalist and senior adviser to
Pakistan's government. Presently, he is a scholar at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. 

According to the Dawn, Riedel further says: "Clinton asked
Sharif if he knew how advanced the threat of nuclear war really
was? Did Sharif know his military was preparing their
nuclear-tipped missiles? Was that what Sharif wanted, Clinton
asked? Did Sharif order Pakistani nuclear missile force to
prepare for action? Did he realize how crazy that was? You have
put me in the middle today, set the US to fail and I won't let
it happen. Pakistan is messing with nuclear war." 

Riedel, a special assistant to Clinton and a senior director of
Near East and South Asian affairs at the National Security
Council in the Clinton era, says that he was present in the July
4, 1999, meeting between Clinton and Nawaz. 

 During the meeting, Clinton also raised the issue of Pakistan's 
reluctance to help the US catch Osama bin Laden and other al 
Qaeda leaders. "The president was getting angry. He told Sharif 
that he had asked repeatedly for Pakistani help to bring Osama 
bin Laden to justice from Afghanistan. Sharif had promised often 
to do so but had done nothing. Instead the ISI worked with bin 
Laden and the Taliban to foment terrorism," Riedel adds.

The former US official recalls that Clinton's draft statement on 
the Kargil crisis also mentioned Pakistan's role in supporting 
terrorists in Afghanistan and India.

Apparently hinting that Sharif had withdrawn troops under US' 
pressure, Riedel says that at the end of that meeting, Sharif 
agreed to announce a Pakistani withdrawal from Kargil and 
restoration of the sanctity of the Line of Control in return for 
Clinton taking a personal interest in resumption of the 
India-Pakistan dialogue. 
  
    
Copyright � 2005 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. ||
        								| 								| 								| 								| 								
   


*****************************************************************
 25 News Journal: Incineration, nuke power are options

www.delawareonline.com � The 

OPINION Harry F. Themal
   
 06/20/2005 

For decades, the perceived wisdom has been that energy should
not be generated by nuclear power plants because they are
dangerous. Trash should not be incinerated because the process
pollutes the environment.

That is now changing. The increasing dependence on oil, with its
inherent international risks and an expensive, dwindling supply,
has once again put nuclear energy at the top of the acceptable
alternative energy list. The difficulty of finding garbage
disposal sites is triggering new interest in incineration, with
the possible secondary advantage of generating energy from
burning waste.

You can bet that the don't-do-anything lobbyists will fight both
ideas without offering any feasible alternatives.
Environmentalists once supported nuclear power as an energy
producer that didn't pollute the air and didn't deplete fossil
fuels. But disasters such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island
also showed the danger of these plants, and the nuclear industry
hit a roadblock. Recycling as an alternative to trash disposal
is only a minimal solution.

It's high time that both nuclear power and incineration be
carefully analyzed and eventually put into effect.

Those of us who live in the shadow of the trouble-plagued Salem
and Hope Creek nuclear plants cringe when new ones are proposed.
Yet France, which gets three-quarters of its energy from nuclear
plants, and Japan are among countries that have found safe ways
to generate nuclear power.

Americans have been reluctant for many years to build any new
nuclear facilities, but the technology apparently has improved
to the point that it has become much more reliable and safe.
This country's nuclear plants are old, including those on
Artificial Island on the Delaware River. No new nuclear plants
have been ordered for 30 years. It's no wonder there are
problems. And we still haven't solved the problem of what to do
with nuclear wastes, most of which are now stored on site at the
plants.

Generating more nuclear power is part of rival energy bills
making their way through Congress. There are sharp differences
between the two houses about energy policy. Agreement does seem
to exist that a major effort is needed to rev up nuclear power
production. But even if that were done today, it would still
take at least until the end of this decade for any plants to
start production.

You probably don't look at the "Delaware Environmental
Information Fuel Resource Mix" that's included with your
Conectiv/Delmarva Power bill. From that little flier, you would
learn that one-third of your electricity already comes from
nuclear plants. More than half is generated by burning coal.
(Part of the congressional debate is over how much pollution
control must be put on coal generation.) Only 8 percent is from
gas and 2 percent from oil.

The very small 3.3 percent from renewable energy sources are
topped by 2 percent hydroelectric. Less than 1 percent is from
solid waste, and fractional percentages are from captured
methane gas, wind, wood or other biomass. None is from solar.
None of these alternatives will probably ever generate enough to
replace fossil fuels.

How much more could be generated by establishing a clean
incineration plant in Delaware to supplement or replace the
almost-filled Cherry Island landfill? The General Assembly and
Gov. Minner should try to find out by investigating incinerating
trash to sharply reduce the need for landfills.

Recycling is certainly a good idea. Banning yard waste from
trash collection is probably an unachievable goal. Setting up
garbage collection districts should be mandated.

But in the long run, carefully controlled incineration is
probably the best answer to Delaware's looming trash crisis. 

Harry F. Themal has been writing for The News Journal since
1959. 

� delawareonline.com/The News Journal 
Service (updated 06/07/2005)
*****************************************************************
 26 HSE: Quarterly statement of incidents at nuclear installations 

Health & Safety Executive / Commission
 
HSE press release E082:05 - 16 June 2005 

A statement on incidents at nuclear installations in Britain
which meet Ministerial reporting criteria is reported to the
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of
State for Scotland and is published every quarter by the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE). 

For the period 1 January 2005 to 31 March 2005 there was one
incident at a nuclear licensed installation, Sellafield, that
met the reporting criteria. A copy of the statement is attached. 
Notes to Editors 

  + The arrangements for reporting incidents were announced to
Parliament by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for
Energy on 30 April 1987 (Hansard col. 203-204). A minor
modification to arrangements for reporting on nuclear incidents
was announced in HSE press notice E108:93 of 30 June 1993. 
  + Normally each incident mentioned in HSE's quarterly incident
statements will already have been made public by the licensee or
site operator either through a press statement or by inclusion
in the newsletter for the site concerned. 

Statement of Nuclear Incidents at Nuclear Installations: First
Quarter 2005 - single copies of each free from the Nuclear
Safety Directorate Information Centre, HSE, Room 004, St Peters
House, Stanley Precinct, Bootle L20 3LZ. 

PUBLIC ENQUIRIES : Nuclear Safety Directorate Information
Centre: 0151 951 4103 

Press Enquiries: Journalists only: Mark Wheeler 020 7717 6905
*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: Safety Evaluation Report for the Proposed National Enrichment 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3174 [Federal Register: June 
20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 117)] [Notices] [Page 35461-35462] 
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20jn05-78]                         
 
Facility in Lea County, NM, NUREG-1827; Notice of Availability 
AGENCY: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of availability of Safety Evaluation Report.
 
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) has issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for 
the Louisiana Energy Services (LES) license application, dated 
December 12, 2003, docketed on January 30, 2004, and as revised 
by letters dated February 27, 2004, July 30, 2004, September 30, 
2004, April 22, 2005, April 29, 2005, and May 25, 2005, for the 
possession and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear 
materials at its proposed National Enrichment Facility (NEF) in 
Lea County, New Mexico.
 
The SER discusses the results of the safety review performed by 
NRC staff in
 
[[Page 35462]] the following areas: General information, 
organization and administration, Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) 
and ISA Summary, radiation protection, nuclear criticality 
safety, chemical process safety, fire safety, emergency 
management, environmental protection, decommissioning, management 
measures, materials control and accountability, and physical 
protection.
 
The NRC is planning to conduct a public meeting in New Mexico to 
provide an overview of the staff's safety review and to address 
any comments or questions relating to the issuance of the SER.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SER (NUREG-1827) is available for 
inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The 
Public Document Room is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
 
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from 
the Agency-wide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room, and on the Internet at the NRC 
Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. Persons who do 
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public 
Document Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to

 
pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy C. Johnson, 
Mail Stop: T-8F42, Special Projects Branch, Division of Fuel 
Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, Telephone: (301) 415- 7299, and e-mail: 
tcj@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of June, 
2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
James W. Clifford, Acting Branch Chief, Special Projects Branch, 
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3174 Filed 6-17-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: In the Matter of Certain Power Reactor Licensees and Research 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3175 
[Federal Register: June 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 117)] 
[Notices] [Page 35462-35464] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20jn05-80]                         
 
Reactor Licensees Who Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel; Order 
Modifying License (Effective Immediately) I.
 
The licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order have been 
issued a specific license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or Commission) authorizing the possession of 
spent nuclear fuel and a general license authorizing the 
transportation of spent nuclear fuel [in a transportation package 
approved by the Commission] in accordance with the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended,
 
[[Page 35463]] and 10 CFR Parts 50 and 71. This Order is being 
issued to all such licensees who transport spent nuclear fuel. 
Commission regulations for the shipment of spent nuclear fuel at 
10 CFR 73.37(a) require these licensees to maintain a physical 
protection system that meets the requirements contained in 10 CFR 
73.37(b), (c), (d), and (e). II.
 
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets 
in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial 
aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence 
information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number 
of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to 
strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a 
potential attack on a nuclear facility or regulated activity.
 
The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State 
and local government agencies and industry representatives to 
discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to 
assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. 
In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive 
review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.
 
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and 
security plan requirements, as well as a review of information 
provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has 
determined that certain additional security measures are required 
to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to 
address the current threat environment in a consistent manner. 
Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth 
in Attachment 2 of this Order, on all licensees identified in 
Attachment 1 of this Order.\1\ These additional security 
requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, 
will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the 
common defense and security continue to be adequately protected 
in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain 
in effect until the Commission determines otherwise.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- \1\ Attachments 1 and 2 contain SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION 
and will not be released to the public.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------- 
---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have 
already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 2 
to this Order in response to previously issued Safeguards and 
Threat Advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that 
some measures may not be possible or necessary for all shipments 
of spent nuclear fuel, or may need to be tailored to accommodate 
the licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the intended 
objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe transport 
of spent nuclear fuel.
 
Although the additional security measures implemented by 
licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories 
have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate 
protection of common defense and security, in light of the 
current threat environment, the Commission concludes that the 
security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with 
the established regulatory framework. In order to provide 
assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to 
achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current 
threat environment, all licenses identified in Attachment 1 to 
this Order shall be modified to include the requirements 
identified in Attachment 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant 
to 10 CFR 2.202, and in light of the common defense and security 
matters identified above which warrant the issuance of this 
Order, the Commission finds that the public health, safety, and 
interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
 
III.
 
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 
182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50 and 
71, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all 
licenses identified in attachment 1 to this order are modified as 
follows: A. All licensees shall, notwithstanding the provisions 
of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply 
with the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order 
except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set 
forth in the licensee's security plan. The licensees shall 
immediately start implementation of the requirements in 
Attachment 2 to the Order and shall complete implementation by 
July 10, 2005, unless otherwise specified in Attachment 2, or 
before the first shipment after July 10, 2005, whichever is 
earlier.
 
B. 1. All licensees shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of 
this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if they are unable to 
comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 2, 
(2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in 
their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of 
the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of 
the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility 
license.
 
The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for 
seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
 
2. Any licensee that considers that implementation of any of the 
requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order would 
adversely impact the safe transport of spent fuel must notify the 
Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse 
safety impact, the basis for its determination that the 
requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal 
for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 2 
requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the activity 
to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is 
appropriate, the licensee must supplement its response to 
Condition B1 of this Order to identify the condition as a 
requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant 
justifications as required in Condition B1.
 
C. 1. All licensees shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of 
this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving 
compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 2.
 
2. All licensees shall report to the Commission when they have 
achieved full compliance with the requirements described in 
Attachment 2.
 
D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's regulations 
to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in 
response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission 
determines otherwise.
 
Licensee responses to Conditions B1, B2, C1, and C2 above, shall 
be submitted to the NRC to the attention of the Director, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 CFR 50.4. In addition, 
licensee submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be 
properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The 
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, in writing, 
relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration 
by the licensee of good cause.
 
IV.
 
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other 
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to 
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 
twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is 
shown, consideration will be given to extending
 
[[Page 35464]] the time to request a hearing. A request for 
extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a 
hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and include a statement of good cause 
for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless 
the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing 
and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters 
of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely 
affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not 
have been issued.
 
Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies also shall 
be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, to 
the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and 
Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator 
for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, as appropriate for the specific 
facility; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is 
by a person other than the licensee. Because of potential 
disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government 
offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be 
transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of 
facsimile transmission to (301) 415-1101 or by e-mail to , and 
also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of 
facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a 
person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person 
shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his 
interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address 
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is 
requested by the licensee or a person whose interest is adversely 
affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time 
and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be 
considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be 
sustained.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the licensee may, in addition 
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or 
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate 
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, 
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on 
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, 
or error.
 
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of 
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the 
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty 
(20) days from the date of this Order without further order or 
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has 
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be 
final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not 
been received.
 
An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate 
effectiveness of this order.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of June 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3175 Filed 6-17-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 29 NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Amendments 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3176 
[Federal Register: June 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 117)] 
[Notices] [Page 35461] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20jn05-77]                         
 
to Facility Operating Licenses; Correction AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of Issuance; correction.
 
SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice appearing in the Federal 
Register on June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33222), that incorrectly stated 
the date of issuance of amendments deleting the technical 
specification requirements related to hydrogen recombiners as May 
19, 2005.
 
The correct date of issuance of the amendments is May 26, 2005.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George F. Dick, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-3019, e-mail: 
GFD@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 33222, in the second column, 
in the entry for Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 
50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle 
County, Illinois; Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois, the 
date of issuance is corrected to read from ``May 19, 2005'' to 
``May 26, 2005''.
 
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of June 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
George F. Dick, Sr., Project Manager, Section 2, Project 
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3176 Filed 6-17-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: Nuclear Management Company; Notice of Partial Denial of
 
                         FR Doc E5-3177 
[Federal Register: June 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 117)] 
[Notices] [Page 35462] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20jn05-79]                         
 
Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for 
Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 
Commission) has denied a request by Nuclear Management Company, 
LLC (the licensee) for an amendment to Facility Operating License 
No. DPR-49 issued to the licensee for operation of the Duane 
Arnold Energy Center, located in Linn County, Iowa.
 
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of this amendment was 
published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 
19571).
 
The purpose of the licensee's amendment request was to revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to reflect adoption of Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) traveler numbers 264, 273, 284, 
and 299.
 
The NRC staff has concluded that the portion of the licensee's 
request to adopt TSTF-264 and revise TS 3.3.1.1 cannot be 
granted. The licensee was notified of the Commission's denial of 
the proposed change by a letter dated June 14, 2005.
 
By 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register, the licensee may demand a hearing with respect 
to the denial described above. Any person whose interest may be 
affected by this proceeding may file a written petition for leave 
to intervene pursuant to the requirements of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations Section 2.309. A request for hearing or 
petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary 
of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of continuing 
disruptions in delivery to mail to U.S. Government offices, it is 
requested that petitions for leave to intervene and requests for 
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either 
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415- 1101 or by e-mail 
to hearingdocket@nrc.gov. A copy of any petitions should also be 
sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of 
continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to the U.S. Government 
offices, it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to

 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of any petitions should also be 
sent to Bradley D. Jackson, Esq., Foley and Lardner, P.O. Box 
1497, Madison, WI 53701-1497, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the 
application for amendment dated January 28, 2004, as supplemented 
by letter dated November 22, 2004, and (2) the Commission's 
letter to the licensee dated June 14, 2005.
 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's 
PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and will be accessible 
electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System's Public Electronic Reading Room link at the 
NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons 
who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th 
day of June 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Ho K. Nieh, Acting Director, Project Directorate III-1, Division 
of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3177 Filed 6-17-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 31 Japan Times: Valve gets stuck during test run for new reactor

  Monday, June 20, 2005   

AOMORI (Kyodo) A new nuclear reactor operated by Tohoku Electric
Power Co. in Higashidori, Aomori Prefecture, experienced
problems in its main steam system during a test run Sunday,
which may delay plans to bring it on line in October.

 The trouble did not cause a radiation leak because it occurred
before the boiling-water reactor was turned on, company
officials said.

 At 6:20 a.m., one of the eight valves in the steam line, which
provides steam from the reactor to the turbine, stopped while it
was half open, they said.

 This type of isolation valve also helps to keep radioactive
materials inside the reactor container in emergencies, according
to the officials.

 A company official did not deny the possibility of delaying the
reactor's commercial operation, saying operations won't start
"unless the cause of the trouble becomes clear."

 Tohoku Electric Power has decided to cancel full-capacity test
runs scheduled for next weekend so it can check the valves,
officials said.

 It is the first nuclear power plant in Aomori Prefecture and
the 17th in Japan.

 The Japan Times: June 20, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 32 Guardian Unlimited: Fake Documents Got Workers Into Nuke Plant
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday June 20, 2005 5:46 PM

By DUNCAN MANSFIELD 

Associated Press Writer 

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Sixteen foreign-born construction
workers with phony immigration documents were able to enter a
nuclear weapons plant in eastern Tennessee because of lax
security controls, a federal report said Monday. 

Controls at the Y-12 weapons plant have since been tightened and
there was no evidence the workers had access to any sensitive
documents, said the National Nuclear Security Administration,
which oversees nuclear weapons facilities for the Department of
Energy. 

However, the DOE inspector general's office said in the report
issued Monday that its field agents found ``official use only''
documents ``lying unprotected in a construction trailer which
was accessed by the foreign construction workers'' at the plant. 

``Thus, these individuals were afforded opportunities to access
... (this) information,'' the inspector general wrote. ``We
concluded that this situation represented a potentially serious
access control and security problem.'' 

The report, initiated by a tip in 2004, said the workers had
fake green cards that certified them to work in the United
States. Their cases were turned over to the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agency for deportation. 

The Y-12 plant, created for the top-secret Manhattan Project
that developed nuclear bombs in World War II, makes parts for
nuclear warheads and is the country's principal storehouse for
weapons-grade uranium. The plant in Oak Ridge, about 25 miles
west of Knoxville, has been criticized for losing keys to
sensitive areas and purported cheating on security drills,
weaknesses that officials say have been corrected. 

In response to the foreign workers intrusion at the plant,
visitors now must provide passports or birth certificates along
with other background information. 

National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Steve Wyatt
said that agency and managers for Y-12 contractor BWXT became
concerned earlier this year about the potential for uncleared
workers entering a construction site within the Y-12 complex,
mostly involving steel and concrete workers. 

He said the case was turned over the IG after investigators
confirmed that some undocumented workers had access to the area. 

The inspector general said it was particularly concerned about
allowing subcontractors to self-certify the citizenship of their
employees, and that the Office of Counterintelligence didn't
know foreign constructions workers were at the Y-12 site until
it was notified by the inspector general's office. 

--- 

On the Net: 

DOE Inspector General: http://www.ig.doe.gov 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 33 [du-list] Du research Gap could hurt Vermont Troops
 
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:46:34 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
Collateral Risk: DU Research Gap Could Impact Vermont Troops
Kathryn Casa, The Vermont Guardian


       June 17, 2005 - By the end of June, more than 600 Vermont National 
Guard members will be deployed in and around heavy combat areas in Iraq, 
where battlefield exposure to depleted uranium - a highly toxic and 
radioactive battlefield poison widely used by the United States in combat 
zones - has now become routine, military watchdogs say.

       During the recent legislative session, Vermont lawmakers and state 
leaders turned aside a modest proposal to assess the impact of Vermont 
National Guard members deployed in dangerous and highly stressful war zones.
       However, other legislatures have been aggressively pursuing measures 
aimed at safeguarding their troops.

       Louisiana last week became the first state to require returning 
troops to be tested for exposure to depleted uranium. And, like both the 
Louisiana House and Senate, the Connecticut House unanimously passed 
similar legislation earlier this month. That bill, which has broad 
bipartisan co-sponsorship, is now before the state's Senate. Lawmakers from 
at least seven other states interested in drafting similar legislation have 
contacted Rep. Patricia Dillon, D-New Haven, the Connecticut author of the 
bill.

       Ninety Vermonters are currently serving in combat zones, including 
25 assigned to a military police company based in the Sunni stronghold of 
Tikrit, the hometown of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein; and 65 are 
attached to a Mississippi National Guard unit in Najaf, according to Lt. 
Veronica Saffo, a National Guard spokeswoman in Colchester.

       Twenty Vermont soldiers are in Iraq working as support staff; 600 
are based in Kuwait, where they rotate in and out of combat; and 65 are 
guarding civilian security contractors in Saudi Arabia.

       On Thursday, another 400 Vermont troops are scheduled to leave for 
Iraq as part of a brigade combat team. Their base is not identified ahead 
of time for security reasons, Saffo said. But "they will be in the combat 
areas, definitely in the villages and working with the Iraqi police as part 
of a significantly sized brigade combat team," she confirmed.

       The Department of Defense said depleted uranium use in Iraq is 
significantly lower than the 320 tons fired during the first Gulf War. 
Outside watchdogs say up to 150 tons of DU have been fired during the 
current Iraq conflict.

       No DU weapons systems have been used in Afghanistan, according to 
the Pentagon, where six Vermonters are stationed and another 50 are headed 
later this month.

       "Previous to the Gulf War, no special training was mandated 
concerning DU," according to Barbara Goodno with the Defense Department's 
deployment health office. "Soon after the Gulf War, awareness training was 
instituted for service members who may be exposed to DU weapons, 
specialized teams . who may have higher than average exposure receive 
increased training."

       But according to a 2000 study by the nonpartisan Government 
Accountability Office, a survey two years earlier by the Army's Special 
Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses of more than 1,600 personnel, found that 
only 65 percent received required DU training. "We also found a great deal 
of disparity among units in that three units had not conducted the required 
DU training at all," the GAO reported.

       None of the branches of the military had made sufficient progress in 
implementing DU training, the study found, concluding that "service members 
were only marginally better prepared to contend with DU hazards than they 
had been during the Gulf War."

       Saffo said all Vermont troops participate in annual DU training and 
get more intensified training prior to their deployment. "There is a list 
of specific core training requirements mandatory for all units in the Army. 
Every year the commanders of every unit in the state have to make sure the 
soldiers get the specialized training provided by the Army."

       But Joyce Riley, a Gulf War National Guard veteran and executive 
director of the American Gulf War Veterans Association in Versaille, MO, 
calls the Pentagon's claim of better training "a lie."

       "They have used hundreds of tons of DU over there," said Riley, who 
hosts a daily radio talk show. "We are overwhelmed with phone calls from 
people who have just returned from Iraq who are not getting treatment."

       Just 180 Vermont National Guard members have returned from Iraq and 
Afghanistan thus far. Although they are given physical and mental health 
screening, they are not routinely tested for DU exposure, said Anselm 
Beach, a spokesman for the Veterans Administration Hospital in White River 
Junction.

       Returning troops are reporting primarily "readjustment issues," 
noted Beach. "Some muscular skeletal problems because you have soldiers 
wearing 60 pounds of gear, some issues with hearing from explosions . the 
regular things with combat, but nothing out of the ordinary."

       The hospital would test for DU exposure only if symptoms prompt a 
doctor to recommend it, Beach said.

       However, a group of congressional Democrats would like to see DU 
testing standardized. On May 17, Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, a Vietnam 
veteran, and 21 other Democrats introduced a bill in Congress that would 
require the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) to report to Congress on the health effects of 
DU exposure, not only on veterans but also on their children born after 
exposure to DU munitions.

       "There are countless stories of mysterious illnesses, higher rates 
of serious illnesses and even birth defects," McDermott said on the floor 
of the House. "We do not know what role, if any, DU plays in the medical 
tragedies in Iraq, but we must find out."

       In 1997, federal medical researchers at the Naval Health Research 
Center and the CDC determined that babies born to Gulf War veterans were 
more likely to suffer from certain birth defects including malformations of 
the eyes, jaw, and spine.

       DU danger

       Depleted uranium, a highly toxic and radioactive byproduct of the 
uranium enrichment process, is widely used in U.S. weapons systems because 
of its ability to penetrate steel and its low cost. It is also used to line 
tanks, and advocates say its strength and efficiency as a weapon is a 
benefit for U.S. troops.

       But the term "depleted" is a misnomer, since DU contains about 60 
percent of the radioactivity found in natural uranium, according to Tod 
Ensign, a veteran and attorney with the veterans advocacy group Citizen 
Soldier in New York.

       "When a DU shell strikes its target, up to 70 percent of the 
depleted uranium vaporizes into fine dust, which then settles out in the 
surrounding soil and water," he wrote. "Over half of the aerosolized 
particles are smaller than 5 microns and anything smaller than 10 microns 
can be inhaled. Once lodged in the lungs, these particles can emit a steady 
dose of alpha radiation."

       Goodno said all service members in the field carry protective masks 
for use against chemical or biological attack, which could also be used "in 
extreme cases" to prevent DU inhalation. "Protective equipment is only 
required as a precaution for those who have repeated, prolonged exposure" 
to DU, she noted.

       Some veterans of the first Gulf War say DU exposure has led to a 
battery of debilitating symptoms including headaches, fatigue, joint pain, 
sleep disturbance, and frequent urination, which they call Gulf War syndrome.

       Ensign reports that months before the first Gulf War, the Army's 
Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command published the following warning: 
"Following combat, the condition of the battlefield and the long term 
health risks to natives [sic] and combat veterans may become issues in the 
acceptability of the continued use of DU for military applications." The 
report added that DU has been "linked to cancer when exposures are internal."

       Iraqi doctors and researchers have reported dramatic increases in 
cancer and childhood leukemia since the early 1990s.

       Of the nearly 700,000 troops who fought in the first Gulf War, more 
than 187,000 had been granted some level of disability status for injury or 
illness related to their service, according to Veterans Administration 
statistics for February 2005. More than 10,000 of the returning Gulf War 
veterans have died.

       The Defense Department continues to insist that there is no 
scientific evidence that links exposure to depleted uranium to any of the 
symptoms, and that no single diagnosis explains the symptoms.

       Of the 104 soldiers known to have been hit by "friendly fire" DU 
munitions during the 1991 war, according to Goodno, 70 participated in a VA 
follow-up program. All of them had inhalation exposure, and about one third 
had embedded DU shrapnel. "Those veterans with retained DU shrapnel 
continue to excrete elevated levels of urinary uranium," she noted. "To 
date, none of these individuals have developed kidney abnormalities, 
leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any other uranium-related health problems."

       But McDermott asks, "If DU is so safe, why do American soldiers need 
to wear protective clothing in the first place?"

       He urged Congress, "Let the Pentagon prove that it is safe."

       � Copyright 2005 The Vermont Guardian





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 34 [du-list] Public briefing:  Health Risks From Exposure To Low
 
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:56:50 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Jostes, Rick
   To: Jostes, Rick
   Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:35 AM
   Subject: Public briefing: Health Risks From Exposure To Low Levels Of 
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII-phase 2)


   To all parties interested in the release of the BEIR VII report:

   The National Academies has scheduled a public briefing at 11a.m. EDT on 
June 29, 2005 at room 100, 500 5th street, NW, Washington, DC. to release 
the report "Health Risks From Exposure To Low Levels Of Ionizing Radiation 
(BEIR VII-phase 2)".  The public briefing will be webcast live and a 
prepublication copy (uncorrected proof) of the report will be posted on the 
Academy web site. The public may listen to a live audio webcast and submit 
questions via e-mail at http://nationalacademies.org. The electronic 
prepublication copy of the report also will be available there.  Details of 
the release can be obtained from the Office of News and Public Information 
at 202 334-2138.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





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/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 35 [cawi] Louisiana DU Testing Bill NOW LAW!
 
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:01:44 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
   From: "Ward Reilly" <wardpeace@hotmail.com>
  Date: June 20, 2005 3:16:07 PM EDT
  Subject: [cawi] Louisiana DU Testing Bill NOW LAW!
  Reply-To: cawi@yahoogroups.com

  I am very proud to announce that Governor Kathleen  Blanco. D-Louisiana, 
has now SIGNED the Depleted Uraniumn Testing law that was placed on her 
desk last week, which makes it law.

  This is, as my freind Dennis Kyne says, a "right-hook" to the jaw of the 
Pentagon, who has constantly ignored or understated the effects of DU.

  The bill, HB570, was sponsored by Rep. Juan LaFonta, D-New Orleans,  and VVAW
  and VFP members Ward Reilly of Baton Rouge, and Bob Smith of New  Orleans,
  teamed up and testified in front of both the Senate and House  investigative
  committeesBoth committees and bi=othn houses voted UNANIMOUSLY in favor, and
  the Governor signed the bill after only 2 days on her desk.

  A huge thanks should go to Governor Blanco for this signing this bill,  and
  having the courage to buck the feds in her continuing role as  commander of
  our National Guard and Reserves.

  This makes Louisiana the FIRST state in the nation to support and PASS  this
  legislation, and is truly a measure to "support our troops"...much  more so
  than yellow ribbon magnets on cars, which I personally think that  people
  should mail to the troops, so that they can use them to armor their 
vehicles!!!

  PEACE from Ward Reilly
  Charles Jenks
web Manager and Past President
traprock Peace Center
103A Keets Road
Deerfield, MA 01342
413-773-7427
fax 413-773-7507
http://www.traprockpeace.org

  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 36 [du-list] DOE Openness: Human Radiation Experiments
 
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:07:03 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/
DOE Openness: Human Radiation Experiments

The Office of Human Radiation Experiments, established in March 1994,
leads the Department of Energy's efforts to tell the agency's Cold War
story of radiation research using human subjects. We have undertaken
an intensive effort to identify and catalog relevant historical
documents from DOE's 3.2 million cubic feet of records scattered
across the country. Internet access to these resources is a key part
of making DOE more open and responsive to the American public.

I f you go to the DOE Openness: Human Radiation Experiments and choose
the link for Human Radiation Experiments (HREX) you will receive the
message below. This message is different form the first message that
appeared there.The first message stated due to budget cuts at DOE
,there was not enough money to include this site.I replied with this
e-mail to the feedback link at that time.(Seems kind of odd to me that
the DOE with it's billion dollar budget and new polices of openness
could not keep this web site available to the public.Please response
to me.) Well of course they never responded.
But they did change their explanation of why the site is no longer
available.I have spent many hours at that site and I'm dumbfounded on
what information is crucial to our national security.Other than it
shows what our government is capable of.


The HREX website is currently closed down for two reasons: (1) After
the events of September 11, 2001, the Federal Government undertook a
review of all information on its websites to determine the
appropriateness of the information on the websites. The database for
the HREX website is currently undergoing a review in light of the
events of 9/11 to determine whether all of the information in the
database is appropriate. (2) The HREX website was hosted by antiquated
technology. After the review of the information in the database is
complete, it will be moved to the OpenNet website which is a platform
composed of current technologies. The timing of when the HREX
information will be available on OpenNet is unknown, therefore you may
wish to periodically visit the OpenNet website at
http://www.osti.gov/opennet . Thank you for your patience.

It's still worth going to the main site,but don't hold your breath for
the return of the HREX site.
http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/
DOE Openness: Human Radiation Experiments


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eeoicpvu/?yguid=138369151
Yahoo! Groups : eeoicpvu

Make waves and the ripple effect will take care of the rest.
Richard









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/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 37 CDC: NIOSH: Radioactive resperator standards

                        FR Doc 05-12057 

[Federal Register: June 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 117)]
[Notices]               
[Page 35445-35446]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20jn05-53]                         

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

    Name: Discussion of Concepts for Standards for Approval of 
Respirators for Use against Chemical, Biological, Radiological 
and Nuclear Agents (CBRN) and Guidelines for their Use; and 
Concepts for Standards for a Multi-Function Powered Air Purifying 
Respirator (PAPR).

    Dates and Times: July 19, 2005; 10 a.m.-4 p.m. July 20,
2005; 8:30 
a.m.-3 p.m.

    The Meeting on July 19 will address concepts for standards 
for CBRN Closed Circuit, Self Contained Breathing Apparatus 
(SCBA) and guidelines for use of NIOSH approved CBRN respirators. 
The Meeting on July 20 will address concepts for standards for a 
CBRN Powered Air Purifying Respirator and a Multi-Function PAPR.

    Place: Holiday Inn Select Pittsburgh South, 164 Fort Couch 
Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    Purpose: NIOSH will continue discussions of concepts for 
standards and testing processes for PAPR and Closed Circuit, SCBA 
suitable for respiratory protection against CBRN agents. NIOSH 
will also introduce concepts for establishing multi-function PAPR 
requirements and guidelines for use of NIOSH-approved CBRN 
respirators. NIOSH, along with the U.S. Army Research, 
Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) and the National 
Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), will present 
information to attendees concerning the concept development for 
the CBRN PAPR standard and the CBRN Closed Circuit, SCBA 
standard. 

Participants will be given an opportunity to ask questions on 
these topics and to present individual comments for 
consideration. Interested participants may obtain a copy of the 
CBRN PAPR, the Multi-Function PAPR concept paper, the CBRN Closed 
Circuit, Self Contained Breathing Apparatus concept paper, and 
concepts for the guidance documents, as well as earlier versions 
of other concept papers used during the standard development 
effort, from the NIOSH National Personnel Protective Technology 
Laboratory (NPPTL) web site, address: 
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl. 

The June 20, 2005, concept papers will be used as the basis for 
discussion at the public meeting. Municipal, state, and federal 
responder groups, particularly in locations considered potential 
terrorism targets, have been developing and modifying response 
and consequence management plans for domestic security and 
preparedness issues. Since the World Trade Center and anthrax 
incidents, most emergency response agencies have operated with a 
heightened appreciation of the potential scope and sustained 
resource requirements for coping with such events. The federal 
Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization and 
Interoperability (IAB) has worked to identify personal protective 
equipment that is already available on the market for responders' 
use. 

The IAB has identified the development of standards or guidelines 
for respiratory protection equipment as a top priority. NIOSH, 
NIST, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration have entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding defining each agency or 
organization's role in developing, establishing, and enforcing 
standards or guidelines for responders' respiratory protective 
devices. 

NIST has initiated Interagency Agreements with NIOSH and RDECOM 
to aid in the development of appropriate protection standards or 
guidelines. NIOSH has the lead in developing standards or 
guidelines to test, evaluate, and approve respirators. NIOSH, 
RDECOM, and NIST hosted public meetings on April 17 and 18, 2001; 
June 18 and 19, 2002; October 16 and 17, 2002; April 29, 2003; 
June 25, 2003; October 16, 2003; May 4, 2004; and December 15, 
2004; presenting their progress in assessing respiratory 
protection needs of responders to CBRN incidents. The methods or 
models for developing hazard and exposure estimates and the 
status in evaluating test methods and performance standards that 
may be applicable as future CBRN respirator standards or 
guidelines were discussed at these meetings. 

Three NIOSH CBRN respirator standards and several NFPA standards 
for ensembles, SCBA, and protective clothing were the first 
adopted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On 
February 26, 2004, DHS adopted, as DHS standards, three NIOSH 
criteria for testing and certifying respirators for protection 
against CBRN exposures. NIOSH uses the criteria to test (1) SCBA 
for use by emergency responders against CBRN, (2) PAPR for use by 
emergency responders against CBRN exposures, and (3) escape 
respirators for protection against CBRN.

    Status: This meeting is hosted by NIOSH and will be open to 
the public,

[[Page 35446]]

limited only by the space available. The meeting room will 
accommodate approximately 150 people. Interested parties should 
make hotel reservations directly with the Holiday Inn Select 
Pittsburgh South (412-833-5300 or 1-800-HOLIDAY) before the 
cut-off date of June 27, 2005. A special group rate of $94 per 
night for meeting guests has been negotiated for this meeting. 

The NIOSH/NPPTL Public Meeting must be referenced to receive this 
rate. Interested parties should confirm their attendance to this 
meeting by completing a registration form and forwarding it by 
e-mail (npptlevents@cdc.gov) or fax (304-225-2003) to the NPPTL 
Event Management Office. A registration form may be obtained from 
the NIOSH Homepage (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh) by selecting 
conferences and then the event.

    An opportunity to make presentations regarding the 
discussions of concepts for standards and testing processes for 
PAPR standards and for Closed Circuit, SCBA Breathing Apparatus 
standards suitable for respiratory protection against CBRN 
agents, multi-function PAPRs for industrial applications, and 
guidelines for use of NIOSH-approved CBRN respirators will be 
given. Requests to make such presentations at the public meeting 
should be made by e-mail to the NPPTL Event Management Office 
(npptlevents@cdc.gov). 

All requests to present should include the name, address, 
telephone number, relevant business affiliations of the 
presenter, a brief summary of the presentation, and the 
approximate time requested for the presentation. Oral 
presentations should be limited to 15 minutes. After reviewing 
the requests for presentation, NPPTL Event Management will notify 
each presenter of the approximate time that their presentation is 
scheduled to begin. 

If a participant is not present when their presentation is 
scheduled to begin, the remaining participants will be heard in 
order. At the conclusion of the meeting, an attempt will be made 
to allow presentations by any scheduled participants who missed 
their assigned times. Attendees who wish to speak but did not 
submit a request for the opportunity to make a presentation may 
be given this opportunity at the conclusion of the meeting, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer.

    Comments on the topics presented in this notice and at the 
meeting should be mailed to: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert

    A. Taft Laboratories, M/S C34, 4676 Columbia Parkway, 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone 513-533-8303, Fax 513-533-8285. 
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to niocindocket@cdc.gov. 
E-mail attachments should be formatted in Microsoft Word. 
Comments should be submitted to NIOSH no later than August 19, 
2005. Comments regarding the Multi- Function PAPR should 
reference Docket Number NIOSH-008 in the subject heading. 
Comments regarding CBRN PAPR should reference Docket Number 
NIOSH-010 in the subject heading. Comments regarding the CBRN 
Closed Circuit, SCBA should reference Docket Number NIOSH-039.

    Contact for Additional Information: NPPTL Event Management, 
3604 Collins Ferry Road, Suite 100, Morgantown, West Virginia 
26505-2353, Telephone 304-599-5941 x138, Fax 304-225-2003, E-mail
npptlevents@cdc.gov.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has 
been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee 
management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry.

    Dated: June 14, 2005. Alvin Hall, Director, Management 
Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. [FR Doc. 05-12057 Filed 6-17-05; 8:45 am] BILLING 
CODE 4163-19-P
 
*****************************************************************
 38 Hawk Eye: Quest for claims nears end 

Sunday, June 19, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST   
      
Harkin visits former IAAP workers, families to final step in
long process. 

By AIMEE TABOR 

atabor@thehawkeye.com 

Several hundred former Iowa Army Ammunitions Plant workers
sickened by radiation will be compensated this summer after the
federal government officially recognized their work was
hazardous to their health. 

About 364 workers will be eligible starting today for $150,000
plus medical expenses after being officially included in the
Special Exposure Cohort, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D�Iowa, said
during an announcement Saturday afternoon at Mechanist Union
Hall in West Burlington. 

The move marks the final step in the compensation process for
IAAP workers who have certain cancers from radiation exposure. 

"Today we can acknowledge victory," Harkin told a room full of
former workers and survivors. "You're going to get compensation
this summer." 

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R�Iowa, who didn't attend the event,
said he feels justice has finally been served. 

"(Today) is a momentous day for the former workers at the Iowa
Army Ammunition Plant," Grassley said in a press release.
"Despite all the hardships and hurdles for these folks, justice
will finally be done. And, almost more important than receiving
the payments, might be the satisfaction of the government
admitting they were harmed." 

Former workers, spouses and survivors are eligible if they or
their loved one developed one of 22 specified cancers, worked at
least 250 days on line 1 between 1949 and 1975 and worked with
the nuclear weapons. The only cancers not covered are prostrate,
Hodgkin's and skin cancer. 

The SEC designation started last year when a group of IAAP
workers petitioned the government to be included so they could
be eligible for the funding. 

Last month, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary
Mike Leavitt approved compensation for the IAAP workers. That
approval went to Congress who had 30 days to act. If no action
is taken, the compensation is automatically approved. Congress
hasn't acted on it and won't be in session today which means the
compensation has been approved. 

The U.S. Department of Labor will receive paperwork on Monday
stating the process is finalized. It will then take several
weeks to go through the claims that were filed and the other
paperwork. Claimants will then be notified by mail of decisions,
Harkin said. 

Residents will receive letters from the federal government to
help waive the 60�day waiting period, Harkin said. Once the
residents submit that letter, the U.S. Department of Treasury
will issue a check, Harkin said. 

"As best as I can determine, this process will be completed by
the end of the summer," Harkin said. 

If former workers or their survivors don't have paperwork
showing the dates of employment, they can file an affidavit from
another worker to verify employment, Harkin's office stated. 

Harkin said the road to victory was bumpy but there were many
people including former worker Bob Anderson and members of the
advisory committee who never gave up. Anderson, who was
diagnosed with Non�Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 1988, worked at the
plant from 1968 to 1973 and initiated claims efforts with a
letter to Harkin in 1997. 

Anderson said he never was looking for compensation, but wanted
the federal government to acknowledge there was a cancer cluster
resulting from the nuclear weapons work. 

"We were right," Anderson said. "Working around nuclear weapons
was dangerous to our health." 

Anderson wrote in his letter that he dealt with radioactive
materials on a regular basis and explained what happened to
those materials. 

"I know of personally of three individuals who were with those
cargoes who also have the same disease," Anderson stated in the
letter. "Two of us are cancer survivors so far. I observed the
disposal of retired weapons which were frozen, cracked apart and
burned in open field burning methods. If any radioactive
material leaked from the core into the explosives, they were
certainly placed into the atmosphere by burning. I know of three
daily herds within five miles of the burning." 

Although he only worked there for five years, the radiation
exposure forever damaged his body and changed his and his
family's lives. His oldest daughter has thyroid cancer and his
youngest daughter has an enlarged thyroid. Anderson's thyroid
was removed after it became enlarged and his doctor said it was
the third largest thyroid he's ever seen, Kathy Anderson said. 

Without Anderson's dedication and commitment, Harkin said
today's victory wouldn't have been possible. When the Department
of the Army denied the weapons work eight years ago, Anderson
never gave up and continued the fight. 

In turn, Harkin kept investigating and finally the Department of
Energy admitted to the work. The Army still denies the work. 

"This never would have happened without Bob Anderson and his
wife Kathy," Harkin said. "I wish we had more Americans like Bob
Anderson." 

Grassley agreed and said the workers fought to get the
acknowledgment from the government. 

"These patriotic Americans deserve the admiration of all of us
for not only working in hazardous conditions for the safety of
our nation, but also for their fight to get the compensation
they are owed," Grassley stated. 

Anderson said the compensation and acknowledgment ends a quest
he's been on for the past few years. He thanked Harkin and his
staff for their dedication and commitment to the former workers'
cause. 

"I am a living testimonial that our government does work because
someone in high authority did listen and believed and acted,"
Anderson said. 

State Sen. Gene Fraise, D�Fort Madison, attended Saturday's
announcement and said he's pleased the workers will be
compensated. Harkin acknowledged Fraise for his work and
willingness to help. 

"I think this is probably closure for a lot of the workers,"
Fraise said. "I'm pleased the government finally recognized
there was damage done to these folks." 

Although today marks a victory for some of the workers, Harkin
said more remains to be done for the other of the workers who
have become ill. He said his staff will continue the work for
those people.   
  
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 
� 1-800-397-1708 � FAX 319-754-6824 � webmaster@thehawkeye.com
*****************************************************************
 39 Japan Times: A-bomb survivors will be able to apply for benefits in S. Korea

  Sunday, June 19, 2005   

Atomic-bomb survivors living in South Korea will be able to
apply at Japanese diplomatic offices for medical allowances
under a new government plan.

 Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is expected to bring up the
plan when he meets Monday in Seoul with South Korean President
Roh Moo Hyun, according to government sources.

 The plan would only benefit people who have already been
officially recognized as survivors, or hibakusha, of the U.S.
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but have not yet
applied for benefits. 

People who have yet to receive that recognition would still have
to come to Japan to apply for a health card designating them as
hibakusha.

 In the past, hibakusha living abroad were denied the medical
benefits unless they filed their applications and remained in
Japan. But the government revised the system in 2002 so they can
receive the allowances while living abroad as long as they are
officially recognized as bomb survivors and made the initial
application for benefits in person in Japan.

 The system has drawn criticism from victims abroad and their
supporters because many hibakusha face a tough time traveling to
Japan due to old age or illness.

 The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry and the Foreign Ministry
have opened a review of the law that covers assistance to A-bomb
victims, the sources said Friday.

 While the two ministries discuss details for implementing the
change, they are also expected to consider offering similar
provisions to hibakusha in other countries such as the United
States and Brazil, the sources said.

 About 3,500 people living in more than 30 countries have health
cards recognizing them as hibakusha, with around 2,300 of them
in South Korea, some 900 in the U.S. and about 140 in Brazil,
according to the welfare ministry. 

Another 1,000 or so victims are estimated to be residing abroad
who don't have a card.

 The Japan Times: June 19, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 40 Common Voice: Savannah River Site's wastes 

 Ron Bourgoin

 June 20, 2005

These days, when petroleum-derived fuel consumption has to be
considered, America perhaps cannot afford to burn millions of
gallons of fuel to transport all the nation's high-level nuclear
wastes to Nevada. By sheer force of necessity, the nation will
no doubt have to examine the concept of regional underground
repositories. 

The southeast has not only a huge inventory of spent-fuel rods
from its commercial nuclear reactors, but it has also
weapons-processing wastes at Savannah River Site (SRS) near
Aiken, South Carolina, only 15 miles east of Augusta, Georgia. 

The Energy Department says it will bury only 3.4 million gallons
of its most lethal wastes at SRS in underground rock. But two
gallons of molten glass has to be added to each gallon of this
acid waste, which means that 10.2 million gallons of glassified
waste has to be buried. 

When you figure how much space that much waste will occupy, it's
enough to fill an entire rock repository. 

When the Department of Energy came South in 1984 to study the
seven geologic sites here, we were told a southern repository
would hold about 44,000 tons. The vitrified waste from Savannah
River will weigh 40.8 thousand tons, enough to fill a southern
site. 

Someone might say that Yucca Mountain in Nevada is designed to
hold some defense wastes, and that's true, but it'll come from
Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State, only 800 miles
away. The Savannah River Site, on the other hand, is two
thousand miles away from Yucca Mountain.   

*****************************************************************
 41 Bucks Free Press: Nuclear Waste Was Mooted For District 

By Kris Hall

SECRET documents released by the Government have revealed High
Wycombe was a potential base to store radioactive waste. 

A 195-acre MOD site in the town which has not been named in the
town was one of 537 locations across the UK to be geologically
assessed in the 1980s. 

Although the programme by which sites were chosen was abandoned
in 1997, the sensitive dossier was shelved and its contents
remained secret until last week. 

Buckinghamshire county councillor Richard Pushman said the plan
would have caused anger in Wycombe district if it had gone
ahead. 

He said: "I do not think I would have been happy about it had it
gone ahead. 

"I would need to be very reassurred that it was totally safe and
inert, whether or not they can ever give that assurance I don't
know." 

Details of the historic list, compiled during the late 1980s,
were published by Oxfordshire-based company Nirex under the
Freedom of Information Act. 

The independent firm is responsible for the long term management
of the UK's radioactive waste. The shift in policy won praise
from the Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum (NuLeAF). 

Its chairman Geoff Blackwell said: "We do appreciate that the
release of this list might raise real concerns in the local
communities being named. 

"NuLeAF understands Nirex's view that the list is mainly
historic in nature, but recognises some locations could be
considered again in a new siting process, depending on how the
UK nuclear waste legacy is managed in the future." 

The list explains that High Wycombe was one of 333 sites struck
off the list in December 1984, during the first of six vetting
stages. 

The information has been welcomed by environmentalists. Tony
Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "It's a
disgrace that the location of these sites has been kept from the
public. 

"Every community named on this list should take steps to help
halt plans to expand nuclear power in the UK." 

Chris Murray, managing director of Nirex, said should there be a
new shortlist the current list of locations would not form the
starting point of such a process. 

9:29am Monday 20th June 2005

� Copyright 2001-2004 Newsquest Media Group - A Gannett Company 

*****************************************************************
 42 AU ABC: NT Govt asked to explain uranium mining stance. 

20/06/2005. ABC News Online
 	
="Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online">   

The Northern Territory Minerals Council says NT Chief Minister
Clare Martin appears happy to support uranium mining in South
Australia, but not locally.

 The council is seeking urgent talks with the Martin Government
over its position not to support any new uranium mines.

 Ms Martin says that has always been Labor's stance.

 But the minerals council's Kezia Purick says Territory Labor
needs to clarify its position.

 "I guess what the minerals council has difficulty with is that
it's quite acceptable - and indeed it was promoted and
encouraged - for uranium from South Australia, the yellow cake
from South Australia to travel through the Northern Territory on
our train for export across our wharves, but it's not acceptable
to have any uranium mining here in the Northern Territory," she
said. 

*****************************************************************
 43 GLRC: STORING NUKE WASTE ON ABOVE GROUND LOTS

[great lakes radio consortium]

Nuclear waste storage is an issue that concerns many. Some worry 
that if storage facilities at Yucca Mountain aren't completed 
soon enough, above-ground storage will have to be employed. 
(Photo courtesy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission)    

Some federal officials say work on a nuclear waste storage 
facility at Yucca Mountain isn't moving fast enough. So they want 
the government to start developing above-ground storage sites. 
But one private firm says above-ground storage is already 
available. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Sandra Harris 
reports:
 

Sandra Harris                            
Release Date: June 20, 2005
    
 
copyright  2001 the regents of the university of michigan]        


*****************************************************************
 44 Guardian Unlimited: Agreement Likely on Russian Nuclear Fuel
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
	Monday June 20, 2005 9:46 PM

By BARRY SCHWEID 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Prospects are good that the United States and
Russia will soon conclude an agreement designed to keep Russian
nuclear fuel out of terrorists' hands, a Senate architect of the
program said Monday. 

``Daylight is on the horizon'' and the agreement could be signed
by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the
G-8 meeting of leading industrialized countries in Scotland July
6-8, said Sen. Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., in an Associated Press
telephone interview. 

The goal is to dispose of 68 tons of weapons-grade plutonium.
The main hurdle for the last two years has been arrangements for
compensation in the event of accidents. U.S. contractors are
seeking protection from liability at disposal facilities they
would construct. 

Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, said efforts to define responsibility for accidents
had moved along and the two sides were making headway toward an
agreement. 

He credited Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and John R.
Bolton, the department's top international security official
until he was nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, with major progress toward resolving a two-year
impasse. 

``Bolton took a very active and positive role before I ever
talked to Secretary Rice,'' Domenici said. ``She then went on to
work very hard to unsnarl the liability problem, and we have
made great strides.'' 

Bolton, whose nomination is being contested by Senate Democrats,
has been succeeded as undersecretary of state by Bob Joseph. 

Last June, Domenici rebuked Bolton at a Senate Foreign Relations
Committee hearing for not resolving the liability issue. ``It
ought to be resolved, and if he can't do it, somebody ought to
be put in his place that will do it,'' Domenici said at the
time. 

But in January, U.S. negotiators offered the Russians a
compromise arrangement that eased liability responsibilities and
the Bush administration is now waiting for a formal response
from Moscow. 

``The concept is rather novel to them and very hard to put into
an agreement, but I think they are making headway,'' Domenici
said. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 45 Tri-City Herald: Start of The Reach now in sight 

This story was published Monday, June 20th, 2005 

By Evan Caldwell, Herald staff writer 

It won't look like much at first -- a fence, construction
trailers and one huge pile of dirt. 

But when the work starts this fall at Columbia Point South in
Richland, it will mark a tangible beginning for the Hanford
Reach National Monument Heritage and Visitor Center. 

Fund raising for the $48 million interpretive center is near the
halfway point, and designers are 99 percent done with planning
so the facility can now come to life. 

But before construction can begin, about 100,000 square yards of
dirt need to be trucked to the 50-acre site -- some 10,000
truckloads. 

"What the public will see is a fence, construction trailers and
trucks," said Ron Hicks, interim executive director of the
center, which is being referred to by the nickname The Reach. 

With the expected grand opening of The Reach fewer than three
years away, $23 million has been raised. And Hicks said The
Reach board expects to be able to cover nearly all of the costs
before the scheduled opening in March 2008. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee recently approved $2.25
million for the center that was requested by U.S. Sen. Patty
Murray, D-Wash. The legislation next must be approved by the
full Senate. 

In May, the U.S. House approved spending the same amount of
money in response to a request from Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. 

Hicks said Sen. Murray and Rep. Hastings already had helped
secure $1.7 million from the 2005 budget. 

Burt Vaughan, president of the Richland Public Facilities
District, said he thinks The Reach is the largest undertaking by
any group in Eastern Washington in the past four years. 

The facilities district was created three years ago under a
recently passed state law to oversee land acquisition, creation
and fund raising for the center. The law allows the district to
collect a portion of the state sales tax and use it for the
facility. 

While plans for the facility began modestly, the vision grew as
more partners signed on after President Clinton established the
Hanford Reach National Monument. The idea is that the
interpretive center will showcase the monument that spans
undisturbed portions of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and the
free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River that runs through it. 

To build the center, the city of Richland, the facilities
district, Friends of the Hanford Reach National Monument,
Environmental Science and Technology Foundation (CREHST museum),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Tri-Cities Visitor
&Convention Bureau formed a partnership. Other groups also have
assisted and momentum for the project has grown. 

The Reach will feature indoor and outdoor exhibits, outdoor
trails, art, office space for the Fish and Wildlife Service and
Convention Bureau, rental space for large events, a theater and
a cafe. 

"This is not just a museum," Vaughan said. "This is a cultural
center, visitor center and a place to have large meetings." 

After the center is built, the district will remain the landlord
while The Reach board will oversee center operations. Vaughan
said the district also will lay out expectations for exhibit
design and raise money to change exhibits. 

"We want this to be dynamic," he said. "Every month we want to
change the temporary gallery and we want to change the main
gallery once a year." 

Visitors to The Reach will learn about Ice Age floods, human
history, the ecology of the Basin, the river's importance to
agriculture, Hanford's key role in the Atomic Age and the
region's high-technology future. 

The idea of having regularly changing exhibits and a wide range
of educational programs is to accommodate the varied tastes of
many visitors. 

Designs for The Reach include an 80,000-square-foot campus with
a great hall, interactive galleries, office space, classrooms,
gift shop, cafe and a 220-seat auditorium. 

The project will be built in phases. The first phase will
involve completing the galleries and museum spaces, followed by
classrooms, offices and other administrative items. 

Two nearby buildings that will house office and administrative
space for other agencies including the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the convention bureau will be built later with other money. 

Not everyone is happy with the center's construction, however,
as Native American tribes are concerned that it will disturb
important cultural sites. 

Some tribal officials have met with the facilities district to
say there is a high risk of uncovering ancestral remains at
Columbia Point. The area where the Yakima River enters the
Columbia River was a historical gathering site for Columbia
Basin tribes, who believe the whole area should not be
disturbed. Armand Minthorn, a trustee of the Confederated Tribes
of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, said he's glad to see the
project received federal funding because more strict federal
laws will apply regarding preservation of artifacts and burial
grounds. 

"We'll be able to take some comfort in knowing that federal laws
apply, which means more adherence to any ground-disturbing
activities that take place," Minthorn said. 

The Umatilla tribes still oppose the project because of the
known burial sites at Columbia Point South, but are negotiating
with the facilities district to reach a written agreement on
handling of cultural sites, Minthorn said. 

The Nez Perce, Yakama and Wanapum tribes have restated that they
oppose the project, he said. 

Vaughan said if at any point the work does uncover Indian
artifacts or remains, the district will work with the tribes to
"protect anything we find." 

The Columbia Point South area is not undisturbed, however. Part
of the site was once a strawberry and asparagus farm, Vaughan
said. 

"The museum takes up such a small footprint of the site," he
said. 

� 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 46 lamonitor.com: Panel OKs nuke studies 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

This is the second of two articles on the Senate Appropriations
Committee approval of a bill to fund the Department of Energy,
including Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
Senate appropriators, taking their lead from Sen. Pete Domenici,
R-NM, approved two nuclear weapons initiatives on Thursday.

One of them, the "bunker buster," or Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator (RNEP), which is meant to detonate deeply under the
surface to attack buried enemy targets, was missing from the
House appropriation bill passed by the full House on May 25. 


The other, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), was approved
by both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee but
with a somewhat different rationale in each case.

The House Armed Services committee authorized the Pentagon's
request for the bunker buster, but the House approved an
appropriation bill without the funds for studying the weapon. 
The Senate measure, which will be debated and decided by the
full body later, calls for resuming a $4 million study of the
bunker buster.

The RNEP research was halted when the balance of funding was
applied to the RRW under a consolidated funding bill last year. 
The House and Senate committee agreed on providing additional
funding ($25 million) for the RRW program, conceived in Los
Alamos for simplifying and economizing nuclear weapons
production and maintenance without resumption of testing.

The Senate panel's energy package reflected Domenici's cautious
approach to transformational claims made by proponents of the
RRW, as advanced in a document known as the "Overskei report."

"This is the ninth such study commissioned since 1988," the
Senate committee noted in the report accompanying the
appropriations bill. "Previous studies have proposed a multitude
of wide-ranging proposals, of which many were justifiably
ignored."

The Overskei report, a review of the nuclear weapons complex
infrastructure, written by representatives of the three nuclear
weapons laboratories, was commissioned by the House Energy and
Water Development Appropriation Bill last year and was due April
30, 2005, although it has yet to be officially released.

A copy of the 10-page report, "Sustaining the Nuclear
Enterprise," was obtained by the Monitor.

The thrust of the report continues themes that have been
propounded by National Nuclear Security Administration
Administrator Linton Brooks and Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio,
Domenici's counterpart, chair of the House Energy and Water
appropriations subcommittee.

The Overskei Report called for additional studies toward
reforming and consolidating the nuclear weapons complex around
the idea of the RRW as "the most viable path to the future."

The authors said that the present approach to nuclear stockpile
stewardship, the process of maintaining and certifying a
reliable reserve of nuclear weapons, "looks increasingly
unsustainable."

"As these warheads continue to age and are refurbished, an
accumulation of small changes could lead to increased risk or
increased uncertainty in warhead certification," the report
stated, calling for replacement warheads rather than refurbished
warheads.

The Senate appropriations panel's report explicitly prohibits
any use of funding to implement recommendations in the Overskei
Report for this year.

"This provision will allow Congress to fully review these
suggested changes," Domenici said in a statement Thursday.

Domenici agreed to explore the RRW concept, but his caution
reflected concerns within the nuclear establishment that the
challenge posed by reforming the existing system could backfire
if it is oversold.

Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group, a public interest
group based in Albuquerque, raised an issue in a recent e-mail:

"The 'stockpile stewardship' that the three weapons laboratories
now find to be inadequate ('unsustainable' is the precise word,
sustainability being the exact purpose of the program) is the
same plan they invented in 1994 over the technical objections of
many former and independent scientists," he wrote. "The
laboratories consistently have been quite upbeat about the
stewardship program in testimony, and their budgets have risen
substantially under its auspices."

In a related subject, the House continued to oppose additional
funding for "test readiness," that would accelerate the nation's
ability to conduct underground nuclear experiments at the Nevada
Test Site, saying the RRW program "obviates any reason to move
to a provocative 18-month test-readiness posture."

The House cut $10 million from the administration budget request.

The Senate committee funded the full $25 million request.

Differences between bills passed by the two houses are resolved
through a conference process in negotiations between members
selected from each house.   


  � 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
    
*****************************************************************

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************