***************************************************************** 11/27/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.275 ***************************************************************** 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 Sunday Herald: Report denies link between service in Iraq and ex-sol 2 [NYTr] IAEA Looks Again at Iran's Nuclear Program 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Seeks Guarantees on Nuclear Fuel 4 Xinhua: EU agrees to resume nuclear talks with Iran in December 5 AFP: Iran says enrichment research non-negotiable 6 AFP: EU tests waters for resuming nuclear talks with Iran 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: 3 Years Needed Till the North Gives Up Nu 8 Minjok-Tongshin: Japan to demand N. Korea repay loans for KEDO proje 9 US: WorldNetDaily: Dirty-bomb redux 10 US: Guardian Unlimited: Democrats Urge Congress to Focus on Energy 11 Toronto Star: Poland opens Warsaw Pact archives to historians 12 Guardian Unlimited: Poland risks Russia's wrath with Soviet nuclear 13 PittsburghLIVE.com: Russians fear nuclear expert will spill secrets 14 Guardian Unlimited: France blamed MI6 for Rainbow Warrior 15 London Times: A nuclear Falklands - NUCLEAR REACTORS 16 US: Nuclear's second wind - Climate solution or illusion? 17 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear industry proposal to be examined - 18 London Times: Now for Blair's dodgy nuclear dossier - 19 theage.com.au: Call to study local nuclear industry - 20 US: JS Online: Nuclear reactor returns to service 21 RIA Novosti: China counts on Russia's further participation in nucle 22 BBC: No choice over nuclear - Beckett 23 Sunday Herald: Global warming scuppers Blairs nuclear power plans - 24 Independent: Expert View; It's better to go nuclear than ask people 25 Independent: Nuclear haze: Will new builds take us into the financia 26 Independent: Chancellor 'will refuse to pay for new nuclear reactors 27 Independent: Birt's move to head nuclear inquiry is blocked by Cabin 28 US: Times Herald Record: Indian Point leak unsolved 29 AFP: Britain facing 'energy timebomb' - 30 Xinhua: IAEA warns of loss in closure of Bulgaria's nuclear plant 31 Xinhua: Hungary praised for safe operation of nuclear power 32 Xinhua: Fire forces closure of Brazil's nuclear power stations 33 Scotsman.com News: Critics warn PM over nuclear power 34 Scotsman.com News: Beckett: 'Reluctant' nuclear U-turn 35 US: Middletown Press: Connecticut Yankee rate increase upheld 36 ABC News Online: Nelson seeks Aust nuclear power inquiry. 37 ABC News Online: Greens reject calls for nuclear power study. 38 Guardian Unlimited: Henry Porter: Nuclear power? Don't dismiss it 39 Sunday Times: New tax may fund nuclear stations - 40 London Times: Scotland must face its nuclear destiny - NUCLEAR SECURITY 41 MDN: Fukui government, SDF, coast guard conduct joint drills against NUCLEAR SAFETY 42 [NYTr] An Arab-American Priest, DU and Iraq 43 Bellona: Norway to continue participation in the radiation safety 44 KAVKAZ CENTER: An Arab-American Priest, Depleted Uranium, and Iraq NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 45 US: Arizona Republic: Nuclear-waste plan begins to crumble 46 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Discord mounts on Yucca 47 RGJ.com: Plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain begin to cru 48 CNIC: Further delays at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant 49 US: ABC News Online: WA Labor reaffirms uranium mining ban. 50 US: ABC News Online: Gallop labelled 'dictator' over uranium debate 51 ABC News Online: NT residents assured about high level nuclear waste PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 52 New Mexican: LANL Lab pays double state's average wage ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Sunday Herald: Report denies link between service in Iraq and ex-soldiers ill health - By Liam McDougall, Home Affairs Editor A GROUND-BREAKING study into UK Gulf war veterans who died after returning from Iraq has found no link between their deployment and their deaths. The controversial research, led by scientists from Aberdeen University, also concludes that the number of British soldiers who were exposed to depleted uranium and pesticides and who subsequently died of disease-related causes, such as cancers, was not statistically significant. The research is the first ever to examine possible links between the experiences of British troops in the 1991 Desert Storm conflict and their early death. It casts doubt on the existence of so-called Gulf war syndrome, which veterans claim has caused thousands of ex-soldiers to die or suffer from inexplicable illnesses. The report states: Overall, mortality among Gulf war veterans is considerably lower than what would be expected based on age-sex mortality rates in the UK general population. However the project, conducted by Professor Gary Macfarlane at the universitys department of public health and funded by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), has outraged British and US Gulf veterans, politicians and other academics who have labelled the findings flawed and biased. Around 53,000 UK troops were involved in the first Gulf war, and support groups claim that since then almost 800 British ex-soldiers have died of Gulf war syndrome and thousands more suffer its effects. The study looked at 51,793 Gulf war veterans and 50,808 soldiers, randomly selected from the armed forces, who were not deployed. For the first time, it attempted to determine whether there was a relationship between the troops risk of dying and their experiences in the Gulf. It examined factors long put forward as causing health problems for them and their children. But Macfarlane writes: The mortality rates were very similar between those who did and did not have [anti- biological inoculations]. There were no increased mortality risks associated with reporting any type of pesticide use or handling. Neither smoke from oil well fires nor reported experiences of small arms fire or Scud missiles passing nearby influenced subsequent mortality. Reported exposure to depleted uranium was uncommon among those deployed and, overall, there was no significant increased risk of death. While casting doubt on the existence of Gulf war syndrome, the research records an excess of non-disease-related deaths. Campaigners have reported a high rate of suicides, but the study found that deaths specifically attributed to suicide were not in excess. Instead, the report suggests deaths could be due to risk-taking by ex- soldiers. One hypothesis is that service in the Gulf has altered deployed personnels perception of danger and that they may be willing to take greater risks, putting themselves in danger of accidental death (for example, in exceeding speed limits). Last night, news of the study, which is to be published in the respected International Journal of Epidemiology, led to accusations that the government was involved in a cover-up of the problem. The report comes at a critical time for the government, which is under increasing pressure to recognise Gulf war syndrome. Last month, a landmark appeals tribunal involving former Life Guards Trooper Daniel Martin, a Gulf war veteran, ruled that his asthma, anxiety and memory loss were caused by a conflict-related syndrome. Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the law lord who headed an independent inquiry into illnesses suffered by Gulf war veterans, has urged the MoD to accept that Gulf war syndrome exists. But although the government and the MoD have acknowledged that it is an umbrella term for illnesses experienced by veterans, they refuse to recognise that Gulf war syndrome is a discrete medical condition, a move that has caused widespread anger among veterans groups. Shaun Rusling, vice-chairman of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said of the new research: A study funded by the MoD that uses statistics provided by the MoD is going to have exactly the outcome wanted by the MoD. This is an epidemiological study, but if researchers were to physically examine veterans they would see that we are ill. This is yet another case of dont look, dont find, no problem. Rusling, a former Parachute Regiment medical officer, won a High Court ruling in 2003 that he was suffering from a syndrome linked to service in the Gulf. But the judge made it clear that the ruling did not mean official recognition of Gulf war syndrome. Rusling said he was aware of three veterans who have died of cancer in the last six weeks. It beggars belief what the MoD is up to. What we need is independent research. Kenny Duncan from Clackmannanshire, a tank transporter in the Gulf who has been diagnosed with depleted uranium poisoning, said: It is astonishing that this report can say this. The government think were fighting for compensation, but if they were to offer us a cure or £1 million, we would take the cure every time. Alex Izett, a former Scots Royal Engineer, was given anti-biological injections ahead of deployment to the Gulf. Although he was never sent, he has become ill, suffering severe osteoporosis, paralysis and kidney problems. He said: The report is fraud. Its based on flawed MoD figures, which underplay the severity of the situation. Professor Doug Rokke, a former US Army major who was in charge of the US clean-up operation in Kuwait after the Gulf war, said: You dont get 300,000 guys in the US who were extremely healthy and who are now on permanent disability just by a random accident. Malcolm Hooper, chief scientific adviser to the UK Gulf war veterans and emeritus professor of medicinal chemistry at Sunderland University, said: This is an attempt by the MoD to put forward data that relies on information from sources such as death certificates, which are notoriously imprecise. Its research that has simply been put out to validate the MoDs position. From other studies its clear that many veterans have developed health problems, including brain damage, from their time in the Gulf that has led to suicide and fatal accidents. Professor Macfarlane would not comment on criticisms of the research, but an MoD spokeswoman said: We have always accepted that some 1990/1991 Gulf veterans have become ill and that some of the veterans believe this ill-health is unusual and related to their Gulf experience. While we acknowledge that the phrase Gulf war syndrome is popularly used, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community is that there are too many symptoms reported for this ill-health to be characterised as a syndrome, in the medical sense of a discrete pathological entity. 27 November 2005 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] IAEA Looks Again at Iran's Nuclear Program Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:01:09 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com IAEA Looks Again at Iran's Nuclear Program Vienna, Nov 24 (PL) The Board of Governors of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) initiated in this city Thursday a new inspection of Iran's nuclear program. By the end of the two-day meeting, IAEA President and Director-General Mohamed El Baradei will issue a declaration on the analysis. The governing board's 35 member countries will study a Russian proposal to enrich Iranian uranium in its own territory. Representatives of Germany, France and the UK will have talks in two weeks with Iran on the Moscow initiative and a possible return to the negotiating table. The so-called European Troika has wanted since 2004 that the Islamic Republic give up uranium enrichment, the most controversial matter of its nuclear program, but Iran states that is a sovereign right. Talks were suspended last September after Teheran resumed in August conversion of uranium concentrate into gas to enrich that metal, which is used as fuel in atomic reactors. Iran defends its right to control the process and insists on its civil end. The US, backed by the European Union, criticizes that the Iranian program has a hidden military purpose. The Islamic Republic is member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that allows it access to uranium enrichment with peaceful ends. ln/ymr/hav/mf * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Seeks Guarantees on Nuclear Fuel From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday November 27, 2005 9:46 PM By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Sunday that a meeting with European negotiators should include a guarantee that its nuclear fuel cycle remain in Iran, seemingly rejecting a proposal to move the process to Russia to prevent the production of weapons-grade uranium. Diplomats in Vienna said this month that senior French, British and German officials would make a last-ditch effort to convince Tehran to accept a compromise on its nuclear program. Iran wants an unfettered nuclear program while the United States wants Iran hauled before the U.N. Security Council for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ``In our view the agenda is clear,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. ``It should contain a guarantee for realizing the nuclear fuel cycle inside Iran.'' Under the compromise proposal, Iran would continue its program, but uranium enrichment would be moved to Russia to ensure it cannot be secretly used for weapons. State-run television reported Sunday that the French, British and German ambassadors had sent Iran's top nuclear negotiator a letter saying they were prepared to resume nuclear talks in December. No further details were provided on the letter's contents but any European-Iranian talks are expected to consider the Russian proposal, which has been touted as the offer most likely to resolve the nuclear dispute with the international community. ``Any proposal that contains producing nuclear fuel inside Iran will be supported by Iran,'' Asefi said. ``If Europe sets the date for negotiations with the above specifications then it will begin.'' Asefi said Iran had not heard from Russia itself about the enrichment plan. Iran denies U.S. claims about its nuclear weapon ambitions and says its program is aimed at generating electricity. It insists that it has the right to a full program including the enrichment of nuclear fuel. The International Atomic Energy Agency met Thursday to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions after the U.S. and Europe accused Iran of having documents that show how to produce parts of nuclear warheads. Iran has temporarily halted its enrichment program but negotiations with Britain, France and Germany broke off in August after Tehran resumed the conversion of raw uranium into a gas used in enrichment. Iran has also rejected European calls to halt work at its uranium-conversion facility near Isfahan in central Iran. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 Xinhua: EU agrees to resume nuclear talks with Iran in December www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-28 08:26:03 BEIJING, Nov. 28 -- The European Union has officially informed Iran that they has agreed to resume bilateral nuclear talks in December. The message was conveyed in a letter delivered to Javad Vaeedi, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, by ambassadors of Britain, France and Germany to Iran on Sunday. Earlier in the day, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi says Iran welcomes further talks on the issue of nuclear energy. But it is up to the Europeans to respond officially so that further discussions could take place. "We prefer to solve all the issues through negotiation, negotiations which are serious, constructive and short term. We prefer to solve the issue of nuclear fuel production on Iran's territory through negotiation," said Asefi. However, the spokesman said Iran reserves the right to re-commence uranium enrichment for "research and development" purposes. He insisted, unlike the question of nuclear fuel production, nuclear-related activities in general are not up for negotiation. The IAEA earlier put off taking Iran to the UN Security Council to allow time for a new Russian diplomatic initiative aimed at resolving fears that Iran is using an atomic energy drive as a cover for nuclear weapons development. Under the compromise plan, Russia would conduct uranium enrichment, a process which can make both nuclear fuel and the explosive core of a weapon, on Iran's behalf. But Tehran has already rejected the proposal. (Source: CRI) Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Iran says enrichment research non-negotiable Sun Nov 27, 5:20 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas said it reserved the right to conduct ultra-sensitive uranium enrichment work for "research and development" purposes, insisting the sensitive nuclear activity was not up for negotiation. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also said Sunday forthcoming talks would have to provide "concrete guarantees" that Iran can conduct fuel cycle work on its own soil -- a position at odds with a Russian compromise plan. "The question of research and development is different from the production of nuclear fuel. What can be negotiated is the question of nuclear fuel production," Asefi said, without saying if and when Iran could resume such work. He said Iran was also sticking by its demand for fuel production to take place inside the country. "The subject of the discussions must be concrete guarantees for the carrying out of the fuel cycle inside Iran," he said. "There should not be special rules for Iran." The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyon Thursday put off taking Iran to the Security Council to give time for new Russian diplomacy to resolve the nuclear crisis. The European Union" /> European Unionand United States suspect that the Islamic republic is using an atomic energy drive as a cover for nuclear weapons development, charges Iran has denied. Under the Russian plan, it would enrich uranium on Iran's behalf but Tehran has already rejected the proposal, refusing to give up what it says is its right to enrichment, a process which can make both nuclear fuel and the explosive core of a weapon. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 AFP: EU tests waters for resuming nuclear talks with Iran Sun Nov 27, 1:57 PM ET BARCELONA, Spain (AFP) - Top European Union" /> diplomats wrote to Iran" /> to test the waters for resuming direct talks on the Islamic republic's disputed nuclear program, EU foreign policy head Javier Solana said. "We offered the Iranians to have conversations ... to see if we have enough common basis to restart a negotiation," Solana told reporters covering a summit of European Union and Mediterranean leaders in Barcelona. The letter was sent on the behalf of Solana as well as foreign ministers Jack Straw of Britain, Philippe Douste-Blazy of France, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany, he said. Two years of talks between Iran and the EU-3 broke off in August when Tehran rejected an offer of trade and other incentives in exchange for its promise to limit its nuclear activities amid fears they could be used for military purposes. Solana said the letter set no date for a resumption of the negotiations. "We have to see what is the response that the Iranians give us," he added. A European diplomat who asked not to be identified told AFP in Tehran earlier that the letter offered "an exploratory meeting" with Iran's top national security official Ali Larijani to consider resuming the talks. "The Europeans do not question the rights of Iran (to have a nuclear program), but want to have guarantees concerning its objectives," said the diplomat. According to the semi-official Mehr news agency in Tehran, the letter was handed to Javad Vaidi -- one of Iran's negotiating team -- in response to a letter from Larijani which called for a resumption of negotiations. Although not directly involved in negotiations, Washington suspects the Islamic republic is using an atomic energy drive as a cover for nuclear weapons development, a charge Iran has denied. Iran also broke an agreement signed a year ago to suspend uranium enrichment-related work by resuming conversion -- a precursor to ultra-sensitive enrichment work. Solana did not reply to a question from a reporter in Barcelona on whether the European Union had requested Iran stop conversion as a condition for resuming talks. EU diplomats have already cited December 6 as a possible date for a meeting between the two sides, although the time and venue appear not to have yet been finalized. The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> on Thursday put off taking Iran to the Security Council to give time for a new Russian diplomatic initiative. Under the compromise plan, Russia would conduct uranium enrichment -- a process which can make both nuclear fuel and the explosive core of a weapon -- on Iran's behalf. But there appears to be little space for compromise: on Sunday the foreign ministry said Iran reserved the right to restart ultra-sensitive uranium enrichment work for "research and development" purposes, insisting the sensitive nuclear activity was not up for negotiation. Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also said any talks would need to provide "concrete guarantees" that Iran can conduct fuel cycle work on its own soil -- a position at odds with the Russian compromise plan and the positions of the European Union and the United States. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: 3 Years Needed Till the North Gives Up Nuke Programs: > Updated Nov.27,2005 20:15 KST Korea's Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said it may take about three years for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program. In an interview with the Japanese daily Mainichi Shimbun on Friday, Minister Chung said based on that assumption, South Korea is preparing a roadmap to provide two-million kilowatts of electricity to the North. He added that details of the energy offer will be presented at the next round of six-party nuclear negotiations. The minister also spoke of Seoul's plan to attract foreign investment to inter-Korean business projects envisioning to create an economic bloc centered around an industrial complex in North Korean border town of Kaesong. Arirang News ***************************************************************** 8 Minjok-Tongshin: Japan to demand N. Korea repay loans for KEDO project By TETSYUYA WATANABE, Asahi Shimbun 2005-11-25 - Japan will demand that North Korea repay about $406 million (48 billion yen) in loans for a now-scrapped light-water nuclear reactor project, but odds are Tokyo will be stuck with the tab, officials said. The decision was made in response to Tuesday's agreement of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) to end the long-suspended project in the reclusive country, they said. KEDO was jointly established by Japan, the United States and South Korea in 1995 with the goal of constructing two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea to help the country meet its electricity needs and to promote peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. However, the project has been suspended since October 2002 when North Korea's uranium-enrichment program came to light, fueling fears that the country was trying to build nuclear weapons. KEDO directors on Tuesday decided to finally end the project and dissolve the organization. The contract for the project stipulates that North Korea must repay construction costs in 20 years without interest after the completion of the light-water reactors. "As for the financial loss of KEDO, the government should demand North Korea make repayments," Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said in a news conference Thursday. Japan was responsible for 22 percent of the reactors' total construction cost of about $4.6 billion. The Japanese government had offered about $406 million in the form of loans by the end of July this year through the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. In addition, the government has provided about $87 million from state coffers to help operate KEDO offices. The Japanese government is also considering requesting North Korea pay the $87 million because Pyongyang neglected to fulfill its duties. But government officials say there is a low possibility that North Korea will comply with the requests for repayment. "We don't know how much amount will return from North Korea," Senior Vice Foreign Minister Yasuhisa Shiozaki said. The government decided in 1999 to take every measure to secure the repayment of the loans offered through the Japan Bank for International Cooperation. If North Korea does not repay the loans, the Japanese government will be obliged to shoulder the repayment.(IHT/Asahi: November 26,2005) Copyright © 1999-2005 Minjok Tongshin ***************************************************************** 9 WorldNetDaily: Dirty-bomb redux SATURDAY NOVEMBER 26 2005 [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] Posted: November 26, 2005 On June 10, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft called a press conference in Moscow to announce that Abdullah Al Muhajir – aka Jose Padilla – had been arrested more than a month earlier at O'Hare International Airport by the FBI on a "material witness" warrant. Quoth Ashcroft: I am pleased to announce today a significant step forward in the war on terrorism. We have captured a known terrorist who was exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or "dirty bomb," in the United States. Let me be clear: We know from multiple independent and corroborating sources that Abdullah Al Muhajir was closely associated with al-Qaida and that as an al-Qaida operative he was involved in planning future terrorist attacks on innocent American civilians in the United States. The safety of all Americans and the national security interests of the United States require that Abdullah Al Muhajir be detained by the Defense Department as an enemy combatant. Finally, last week, the Justice Department got around to charging Padilla and four others – apparently subject to FBI surveillance since at least 1996 – with operating and/or participating in a North American "support cell" that sent money and mujahideen recruits to overseas conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Somalia and elsewhere. In particular, the indictment alleges that in July 2000, Padilla [who had been in Egypt since 1998] filled out a "Mujahideen Data Form" – under the name Abdullah al-Espani – "in preparation for violent jihad training in Afghanistan." What about the "dirty bomb"? According to the Department of Justice, Padilla, while in Afghanistan, had suggested to his al-Qaida "handler," Abu Zubayda, that he construct a real nuke, using "plans" Padilla had found on the Internet. Zubayda allegedly didn't think Padilla – or anyone else in al-Qaida – was capable of doing that. However, Zubayda allegedly did think Padilla might be able to construct a radiological dispersal device [aka "dirty bomb"] consisting of "uranium wrapped with explosives." How did Ashcroft know what Padilla allegedly suggested to Zubayda? And how did Ashcroft know what Zubayda allegedly thought? Well, Abu Zubayda was captured in Pakistan in April 2002 – a month before Padilla showed up in Chicago with $10,000 in cash – and has been held for interrogation ever since in one of those secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency. So, maybe the CIA has extracted the truth from Zubayda, and maybe they haven't. In particular, if uranium is actually the "radiological agent" that Zubayda suggested Padilla use, then Zubayda doesn't know diddley-squat about nukes – "dirty" or otherwise. You see, uranium is only weakly radioactive, emitting principally alpha particles, which won't even penetrate rubber gloves. True, uranium is a heavy metal, but unlike lead, is not a "bone seeker." In fact, if ingested in any form other than a fine aerosol, uranium passes right through the body. Shortly after 9-11, the dirty bomb "experts" at the Federation of American Scientists told the world how to make one that would work. The FAS "dirty bomb" was a "coffee jar" containing about a thousand curies of a true radiological material such as Cobalt-60. [That's about the radiological source-strength of a medical radio-therapy unit used to irradiate cancer patients.] A successful bomb would have to be designed with great sophistication, first to break open the "coffee jar," then to gradually heat the radioactive source so that it vaporized, and finally to scatter it to the winds. No explosion? Gradually heat the radioactive source? Scatter vapor to the winds? What's terrifying about that? The only person who would die right away would be the dolt who transported a thousand-curie gamma-ray source into the mall in a coffee jar. There are estimated to be more than 10,000 medical radiotherapy units and 12,000 industrial radiographic units in operation, worldwide. Many are "orphans". That is, no one knows where many of them – still potentially dangerous – are. Thieves have stolen several medical radiotherapy units – not knowing what they had stolen – and sold them as scrap metal. The lead shielding weighs about a ton. In the worst incident – in 1987 in Brazil – the thieves removed the highly radioactive source from the shielded unit. Result? Five persons died within days and others got life-threatening doses of radiation. How many might Padilla's "dirty bomb" have killed? Well, that would depend upon how much explosive he used. So, if Padilla is convicted, it certainly will be "a significant step forward in the war on terrorism." Ashcroft will probably get the Medal of Freedom. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. [WorldNetDaily.com] webmaster@worldnetdaily.com --> news@worldnetdaily.com--> Contact WND ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Democrats Urge Congress to Focus on Energy From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday November 26, 2005 4:31 PM AP Photo NY838 BY RACHEL LA CORTE OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The federal government needs to create a comprehensive energy policy to address rising costs across the country, Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington said Saturday in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address. Gregoire cited actions taken by her state and Democratic governors in New Mexico and Pennsylvania to help people dealing with the record cost of heating their homes. ``We're controlling rising prices and reducing our use of foreign oil by embracing alternative energy sources,'' she said. But to keep pace with the energy demand, she said a comprehensive policy, with commitments from the states and federal government, is essential. ``Sadly, we simply can't rely on the Republican-controlled Congress to create a national energy policy that works,'' she said. Gregoire also addressed a home-state issue, criticizing President Bush and Congress for recent budget cuts for a waste treatment plant at the Hanford nuclear reservation, one of the most contaminated nuclear sites in the nation. ``The cleanup is the largest in the nation and essential to protecting the environment and economy of the Northwest,'' she said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 11 Toronto Star: Poland opens Warsaw Pact archives to historians Sun. Nov. 27, 2005. | Updated at 10:29 PM map of nuclear targets in the West from 1979Nov. 26, 2005. 07:26 AMASSOCIATED PRESS WARSAW, Poland  Poland's defence minister signed an order Friday that will give researchers access to most of the Warsaw Pact's top-secret archives, including decisions related to the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. The document, signed by Radek Sikorski, will make almost all 1,700 volumes of files, currently held at the Defence Ministry archives, available through the state Institute of National Remembrance early next year. Sikorski said he will have to decide whether or not to declassify ``a few" documents that may still be significant to Poland's security. Led by the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact was formed in the Polish capital in 1955 as the counterbalance the U.S.-dominated military alliance, NATO, which was founded in 1949. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. "We will be able to see now how the Warsaw Pact worked, how Poland was made dependent on the big neighbour," Sikorski said in reference to the Soviet Union. As an example of the documents on file, Sikorski showed a 1979 map detailing potential Warsaw Pact targets in case of a nuclear war with NATO  among them Brussels, Belgium, and the German cities Munich and Cologne. Poland recently opened its secret police files, leading to allegations of past collaboration. In one case, a priest who worked closely with the late Polish-born Pope John Paul II was accused of collaborating with communist authorities. A Roman Catholic investigator later concluded the priest spoke too loosely about the inner workings of the Vatican but was not an informer. Also, in Germany, numerous public figures have been discredited by the files of East Germany's secret police, the Stasi, which were opened after reunification in 1990. The Warsaw Pact files, however, are mostly about military matters. Sikorski, who saw the files at a military archive near Warsaw on Thursday, said they include documents "concerning the infamous invasion of Czechoslovakia." Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, Poland's last communist leader, was defence minister at the time of the invasion of Czechoslovakia. He has expressed regrets over his role in sending Polish troops to join other Warsaw Pact armies. The files will be handed over to the state institute, which makes old documents available to researchers. The institute's head, Leon Kieres, said the opening of the files will help clarify Poland's communist-era history. "Every person has the right to know the history of his life and every nation has the right to know how its fate was decided," he said. Copyright Toronto Star ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Poland risks Russia's wrath with Soviet nuclear attack map Nicholas Watt in Warsaw Saturday November 26, 2005 The Guardian Poland's new rightwing government yesterday risked a damaging confrontation with Russia when it published a Warsaw Pact map showing detailed plans for Soviet nuclear strikes against western Europe. Poland threw open the doors of its military archives to show how most of Europe would have been laid to waste in a nuclear conflagration between east and west. Dating from 1979, when presidents Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev were discussing detente, the map showed how Warsaw Pact forces would have responded to an attack by the Nato alliance. A series of red mushroom clouds over western Europe show that Soviet nuclear weapons strikes would have been launched at Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium if Nato had struck first. Red clouds are drawn over the then German capital, Bonn, and other key German cities such as the financial centre of Frankfurt, Cologne, Stuttgart, Munich and the strategically important northern port of Hamburg. Brussels, the political headquarters of Nato, is also targeted. Blue mushroom clouds, representing the expected Nato nuclear strikes, are drawn over cities in the eastern bloc, including Warsaw and the then Czechoslovakian capital, Prague. France would have escaped attack, possibly because it is not a member of Nato's integrated structure. Britain, which has always been at the heart of Nato, would also have been spared, suggesting Moscow wanted to stop at the Rhine to avoid overstretching its forces. The exercise, entitled Seven Days to the River Rhine, indicated Warsaw Pact forces aimed to reach the Franco-German border within a week of a Nato attack. Standing next to the fading map in Warsaw yesterday, Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish defence minister, said: "The objective of the exercise on this map is to take over most of western Europe - all of Germany, Belgium and Denmark." Mr Sikorski, who made a name for himself working for the rightwing American Enterprise Institute thinktank in Washington, made clear he was prepared for a backlash from Russia, whose president, Vladimir Putin, has lamented the demise of the Soviet Union. Announcing the release of 1,700 Warsaw Pact papers from Poland's military archive, he said: "This is crucial to educating the country on the way Poland was an unwilling ally of the USSR in the cold war. The map shows a classic Warsaw Pact exercise - it was a 'counter' attack to defend itself by going all the way to the Atlantic." Mr Sikorski, who was appointed after the Law and Justice party won a surprise victory in the recent elections after pledging to cleanse the country of its communist past, believes the map shows how Moscow was prepared to sacrifice Poland to save the Soviet Union. Nato's policy of retaining the right to a first nuclear strike - because the Soviet Union had far superior conventional forces - meant Polish troops dug in by the River Vistula would have been wiped out. "This map is a moving and shattering personal experience," Mr Sikorski said of the exercise, which estimated that 2 million Polish civilians would have been killed. "It shows that the Polish army was being used to participate in an operation that would have resulted in the nuclear annihilation of our country." With ties between Poland and Russia at one of their lowest ebbs since the break-up of the Warsaw Pact, Mr Sikorski was asked whether he feared a Kremlin backlash. He said: "We think the Soviet regime was very detrimental to Russia - the Russian people suffered the most." Commander Waldemar Wojcik, the head of Poland's Central Military Academy, said: "This was an exercise based on the assumption of a Nato attack. The doctrine of the day was that the Warsaw Pact countries were peace loving." He added: "I visited the Pentagon in 2001 and was shown maps that were the mirror image of this." Other papers released covered Operation Danube, the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and details of a massacre of Polish strikers in 1970 at Szczecin which led to the downfall of Wladyslaw Gomulka, the relatively moderate leader. Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, the new Polish prime minister, insisted Warsaw was not trying to provoke Russia, even though it released the map without consulting Moscow. "The future should be built on the truth about the past. If the truth is damaging to international relations that is a bad thing ... I am sure this will not spoil our relations with Russia." Useful links Itar-Tass news agency Moscow Times Russia Today St Petersburg Times Caucasian Knot [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 13 PittsburghLIVE.com: Russians fear nuclear expert will spill secrets - Sunday, November 27, 2005 By Jason Cato TRIBUNE-REVIEW Hardly talked about here, the possible extradition of a former Russian nuclear energy minister to face federal charges in Pittsburgh makes the national news every few days there, observers say. That's because many Russians are convinced the United States is after Yevgeny Adamov for the secrets he harbors, not the laws he allegedly broke. "The Russians clearly have a very deep anger about this and feel like we're abusing our relationship," said Marshall Goldman, associate director of Harvard University's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. "They believe once we get our hands on him, he'll reveal all their state secrets. ... They see this as a return to the Cold War." Adamov, 66, was visiting his daughter in Bern, Switzerland, in May when he was arrested at the request of the U.S. government, which claims he stole $9 million of U.S. Department of Energy money intended to improve safety at Russian nuclear plants. Some of that money, prosecutors say, ended up in bank accounts in Pittsburgh, where Adamov owned two businesses with Monroeville resident Mark Kaushansky, 53. The men are charged with money laundering, tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Adamov faces up to 60 years in prison and a $1.75 million fine if convicted. Kaushansky faces up to 180 years in prison and a $5 million fine. Attorneys for both men say their clients are innocent. Like all defendants in the federal court system, Adamov has three options: maintain his innocence and take his chances at trial, plead guilty but refuse to cooperate with the U.S. government, or plead guilty and cooperate. The third option would be rewarded with the least amount of time in jail. "He may choose to cooperate because he'd save his own skin," said Douglas McNabb, senior principal partner with McNabb Associates, a global criminal defense group with offices in Washington, D.C., Houston, London and Milan. "If I was Russia, I'd be incredibly worried that Mr. Adamov could disclose national security secrets the United States did not know about and confirm ones the U.S. suspected." Adamov, a nuclear physicist, headed the Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering, one of Russia's largest nuclear engineering and technology centers, from 1986 to 1998. He was appointed Russia's nuclear energy minister in 1998 by then-President Boris Yeltsin and was dismissed in 2001 by President Vladimir Putin over allegations of corruption. Adamov returned to work as a leading scientist at the institute. Russian prosecutors filed fraud and abuse of office charges against him in May, shortly after he was arrested in Switzerland. Given his extensive knowledge of the Russian nuclear energy program, Adamov possesses enough nuclear security secrets to cause a diplomatic meltdown, said Nikolai Sokov, a senior research associate with the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif., and a former employee of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Should Adamov reveal everything he knows, Sokov said it would be the most serious breach of nuclear security in Russian or U.S. history. "This could completely shut down cooperation between Russia and the United States on the safety and security of fissile materials," Sokov said. Many speculate that the U.S. is interested in Adamov's knowledge of the nuclear programs in Iran, China and North Korea. Sokov doesn't think there's much that Adamov could reveal that the U.S. doesn't already know. The real damage could come if Adamov discloses secrets about Russia's nuclear weapons program, including design information and operation details. U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan in Pittsburgh has heard the rumblings coming out of Russia. "I am familiar with the concerns that some individuals in Russia have raised, but there is no merit to those concerns," said Buchanan, adding that Adamov is being prosecuted "solely for violating federal laws in the Western District of Pennsylvania." Buchanan and a U.S. delegation working on the case traveled to Moscow in October to meet with Russian prosecutors. Buchanan would not say what was discussed during the trip. Yevgeniy Khorishko, spokesman for the Russian embassy in Washington, said the government is aware some Russians fear the U.S. action against Adamov is motivated more by a desire for intelligence than justice. He called that fear "pure speculation." The only official statement from the government is that Adamov should be extradited to Russia, not the United States, Khorishko said. "We should have priority," he said. A Swiss lower court disagreed in October when it ruled in favor of the U.S. extradition request. Both countries now are awaiting a decision on an appeal filed with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. A ruling could come in January, said spokesperson Michel Vogelsang. Adamov is being held in a Swiss jail. His attorney, Lanny Breuer, of Washington, D.C., did not return calls seeking comment for this story. Kaushansky is free on $100,000 bond. He entered a plea of not guilty in U.S. District Court on May 17. No trial date has been set. Kaushansky moved to the U.S. from the Soviet Union in 1979. From 1985 to 1997, he worked as a nuclear power plant engineer for Westinghouse Electric Corp. in Pittsburgh, according to the indictment. Kaushansky and Adamov met in the early '90s while Kaushansky was acting as an interpreter for Westinghouse, the indictment states. The indictment states that Adamov and Kaushansky formed two companies -- Energo Pool Inc. and Omeka Ltd., a consulting firm, both of which had offices Downtown. The firms have since closed. McNabb, who is not involved in the case, said he doesn't believe the U.S. has ulterior motives for wanting Adamov. But the fact Adamov could be prosecuted and divulge intelligence secrets is a win-win for the United States, he said. That victory could cost more than it's worth, said Sokov. "It's like a hot potato in your hands. You want it, but it's too hot to handle," he said. "This case is only valid if the U.S. limits interrogations to the specifics of the case. "Personally, I think the U.S. has a problem there -- because the potato is so hot. So much so, they may prefer not to handle it at all." Jason Cato can be reached at jcato@tribweb.comor 412-320-7840. Images and text copyright © 2005 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: France blamed MI6 for Rainbow Warrior Rob Evans and Paul Brown Monday November 28, 2005 The French government tried to blame the British intelligence service MI6 for the sinking of the Greenpeace flagship, the Rainbow Warrior, in a campaign of "misinformation and smears" that infuriated the Thatcher government, newly released documents have revealed. French secret agents, on the orders of the government, planted bombs on the Rainbow Warrior in a New Zealand harbour, killing one of the crew. The scandal rocked the French government, which lied for more than two months, denying responsibility for the act of state terrorism. The documents, released under the Freedom of Information Act to the Guardian, show how French attempts to incriminate M16 soured relations between the two countries. The then French president, François Mitterrand, was in danger of being toppled, as politicians and officials struggled to avoid the blame and save their jobs. Sir John Fretwell, the British ambassador in Paris, privately warned London that Mitterrand could be forced to resign in a Watergate-style scandal. He wrote: "The highest personalities in the land are fighting for political survival and even the fabric of the state is beginning to shake under the impact of repeated revelations, denunciations, attempts to acknowledge bits of truth while concealing others ... and the desperate attempts to find answers which will somehow satisfy public opinion while keeping the president above the melee." Soon after the bombing in July 1985 French media reported the theory that MI6 had sunk the Rainbow Warrior in order to discredit France and had then framed French secret agents. In other versions French media claimed that French secret agents had bought the dinghies used to plant the bombs from people close to MI6 and that MI6 had prior knowledge of the planned sabotage. By late August the Sunday Times was telling the Foreign Office that "French official sources were briefing freely 'anyone who would listen' about British involvement in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior". The British government traditionally never comments on anything to do with MI6, but off the record told reporters that the stories were "pure fantasy". Malcolm Rifkind, then a Foreign Office minister, instructed British diplomats in Paris to urgently tell the French government to put a stop to this "campaign of misinformation". But still the stories continued to appear in the French media, with Whitehall suspecting that the "mischievous" French embassy in London was spreading the stories. British officials again expressed their displeasure to the French, who denied everything. On September 4 one Foreign Office mandarin wrote: "Despite all these protestations of innocence, the cumulative evidence from many quarters of French official briefing now seems irrefutable." He recommended firmer action to end "this debilitating campaign of smear". Geoffrey Howe, foreign secretary, was "disturbed" that stories persisted after he had complained to the French foreign minister. By October one mandarin commented that the stories had probably resulted from efforts by the French secret service to divert attention from themselves. "Allegations of British skulduggery continue to find a receptive audience in France, but have surfaced less and less frequently as French responsibility has become unmistakably clear." Mitterrand clung on, sacking his defence minister, Charles Hernu, and the head of the secret service, Admiral Pierre Lacoste. It only emerged this year that Mitterrand had authorised the bombing. Lacoste wrote in a leaked memo that Mitterrand wanted to stop Greenpeace disrupting French nuclear weapon tests in the Pacific. Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace campaigns director aboard the Rainbow Warrior at the time of the sinking, said: "This kind of French smoke screen to try and divert attention would be typical tactics. They were trying to put a protective shield round the president and make Hernu the fall guy." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 15 London Times: A nuclear Falklands - Sunday Times - Times Online But, while no nuclear missile firing submarines were involved in this campaign, and that should not be a surprise to anyone, five torpedo-firing British nuclear submarines did deploy to the South Atlantic and operated with great distinction — they were Conqueror, Courageous, Valiant, Spartan and Splendid. Toby Elliott Commanding Officer, HMS Resolution 1981-1983 Monmouth NAVAL CARRIERS: Super Etendards were (and are) naval aviation aircraft and not of the “Argentine airforce”. Guillermo Gabriel Zotta Buenos Aires, Argentina THREATENING GESTURE: It was common knowledge at the time that by sending a Vulcan over the occupied islands, Mrs Thatcher was indicating that Britain could also send a V-bomber over Argentina. At that time our V-bombers were still able carry nuclear weapons. It was not only France that understood the gesture. David Diprose Saundersfoot, Pembrokeshire Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 16 Nuclear's second wind - Climate solution or illusion? Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:44:50 -0600 (CST) X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127 Nuclear's second wind - Climate solution or illusion? http://www.newint.org/issue382/index.htm Almost 20 years on from the Chernobyl disaster, the nuclear industry now appears to be recovering from the fallout of negative public opinion and is increasingly being seen as a 'green' solution to the world's intensifying energy demands. This issue of the NI seeks to unpack the arguments supporting a renewed interest in nuclear power and some of the enduring impacts of our quest to harness the power of the atom. Not long ago, you could have been forgiven for thinking that nuclear technology was on its way out. After major disasters such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, officials were sizing up the nails for the industry's coffin. But it would seem that nuclear power wasn't dead - just resting. And in Asia it has been experiencing something of a renaissance. Now with climate change emerging as a matter for urgent attention, nukes are getting a new look-in in countries which had, until recently, shunned the atom in favour of oil, gas and coal. 'Nuclear is the new black,' remarked my friend Ell in exasperation at pronouncements from some prominent environmentalists who've swallowed the climate-friendly hype coming from the industry. And hype is just what it is. As anti-nuclear campaigners often say, the industry is 'all subsidies, no substance'. Its climate claims are equally full of hot air. Meanwhile, all this talk of a new nuclear dawn is just holding us back. Nuclear's had its chance (remember those promises of 'electricity too cheap to metre'?). The nuclear power station - big, expensive, corporate, toxic and wasteful - is a perfect symbol of the kind of blinkered development model we have been pursuing. And now with the race towards fusion, it seems we are still blindly following this destructive path. It's time to change the way we think about power - literally and politically. As the anti-nuclear movement folks would say: 'Nuclear Energy? No Thanks!' newint.org home > http://www.newint.org/ The New Internationalist workers' co-operative (NI) exists to report on the issues of world poverty and inequality; to focus attention on the unjust relationship between the powerful and powerless worldwide; to debate and campaign for the radical changes necessary to meet the basic needs of all; and to bring to life the people, the ideas and the action in the fight for global justice. Search /RENEGADE/ for articles that mention nukes - http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?keywords=NUKES&increment=weeks&many=52 [only articles for the last one year will be indexed] Search /RENEGADE/ for articles on climate action - http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?CLIMATE FYI: climatecrisisaction list info - Subscribe: climatecrisisaction-subscribe@yahoogroups.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatecrisisaction articles last ten days @ /RENEGADE/ http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?search=Search&increment=days&many=10 -- Peace! *STRIDER* Sector Air Raid Warden at /RENEGADE/ Home: http://fornits.com/renegade/ DEDICATED TO SPIRIT, TRUTH, PEACE, JUSTICE, AND FREEDOM Articles posted in the last 10 days: http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?search=Search&increment=days&many=10 Blogs: Strider's RENEGADE [activism] http://striders-renegade.blogspot.com/ Strider's REDEMPTION SONG [movies, music & thoughts] http://striders-redemption-song.blogspot.com/ Bay_Area_Activist list ---- Membership by invitation only - moderated / archives for members only Contact bay_area_activist-owner@yahoogroups.com to request membership. EF! list --------------- earthfirstalert - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/earthfirstalert List-Subscribe: usenet: news:misc.activism.progressive e-mail: mailto:strider@fornits.com strider@fornits.com No War! No Nukes! Impeach! SOS! WHEN SPIDERS UNITE, THEY CAN TIE DOWN A LION -- Ethiopian Proverb ***************************************************************** 17 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear industry proposal to be examined - By David Uren November 28, 2005 [Lucas Heights / File] Expansion ... the Federal Government is looking at plans for a local nuclear power industry / File THE Federal Government is building the case for a nuclear power industry in Australia, planning a high-level academic inquiry into its prospects. Science Minister Brendan Nelson and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane have put a proposal for the inquiry, costed at less than $1 million, to Prime Minister John Howard. The proposal responds to Mr Howard's call earlier this year for a nuclear power debate. In a television interview yesterday, Dr Nelson said the inquiry would involve the Academy of Science, together with the academies of social science and humanities. The Technical Science and Engineering Academy is also involved. "I think we owe it to our future to examine all of our options," he said. "We can't responsibly dig 30 per cent of the world's uranium out of the ground, export it overseas and allow some 450 reactors to operate and expand in other parts of the world and not seriously consider this as an option for ourselves." He said the inquiry would examine the geological, environmental, physical and social aspects of a nuclear power industry in Australia. Although the academies often make submissions individually to government inquiries, such as reviews of higher education, it is the first time a Government has gone to them with a proposal for a combined inquiry. "The Government certainly had strong support from the academies from the outset," Academy of Social Science executive director John Beaton said yesterday. "The academies all welcome the opportunity to consider how issues of nuclear power and related topics will affect society. "Nuclear power generation and waste management have come a very long way since Chernobyl and this debate needs to be had in the light of a much better understanding and newer technology, but it also must respond to concerns of the Australians." The Government is still refining the terms of reference for the inquiry, which is expected to take a year to complete. The Government's objective is to have a set of facts that can be marshalled against opponents of nuclear power. Although there has been discussion within the Labor Party about its policies on uranium and nuclear power, it remains opposed to an expansion of the industry. Labor spokeswoman for education and research Jenny Macklin said yesterday that no matter which organisations Dr Nelson got to do the study, it wouldn't address the concerns of Australians about nuclear power. "Australia is as far into the nuclear cycle as the Australian public wants to be," Ms Macklin said. "It's absurd that Brendan Nelson is running this issue of nuclear energy when he can't even get consensus or public support to locate a dump for existing low-level waste." Dr Nelson said the Government was determined to build a low and intermediate-level nuclear waste repository for waste from medical and industrial uses in the Northern Territory. He noted there was already 16 cubic metres of nuclear waste stored at Darwin Hospital and at Mt Todd, 40km from Katherine. "We owe it to ourselves. I mean, every Australian will benefit from a nuclear-sourced medical procedure," he said. Dr Nelson said that "under no circumstances" would the proposed repository be used for storing high-level nuclear waste from any eventual nuclear power industry in Australia. ***************************************************************** 18 London Times: Now for Blair's dodgy nuclear dossier - Sunday Times - Times First we had a contrived panic — over energy prices and gas supplies — then a welter of Downing Street’s anonymous briefings. Now, in the shape of the energy review to be announced this week, we are likely to get the pièce de résistance: the “dodgy dossier” — a report designed to give Tony Blair the pretext that he needs to implement a policy he has already decided on. Advisers led by Sir David King, Blair’s hyperactive chief scientist, have given us all a fright, saying that only nuclear power can keep Britain’s lights on after 2015. Seemingly Blair is standing back, playing the no-decision-yet-taken card, while allowing King to push ahead with the case for nuclear. Meanwhile, environmentalists cry foul and hit back with their own counter-claims. Battered by both sides the public is understandably confused. The dodgy dossier is yet to come, although the wait will be short. On Tuesday Blair will announce the commissioning of a new energy review; like its predecessor that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq, it will not be an independent inquiry but one led by members of Blair’s own strategy unit, nominally reporting to Alan Johnson, the trade secretary. Their true loyalties will, no doubt, rest in Downing Street. On the face of it such a review is hardly needed. It is just two years since the energy white paper — an exhaustive and expert study that took nearly three years to complete. That seemed to slam the lid on the nuclear coffin, deeming the costs of a new generation of nuclear plants to be “unattractive”. Instead it set out a vision under which Britain’s energy policy would be dominated by efficiency measures and renewable power generation. It produced detailed figures showing how cutting waste in homes and businesses, plus investment in wind, solar and other forms of “green power”, could plug the gap left by the closure of Britain’s ageing nuclear and coal-powered generators. However, even though the figures appeared to add up and the policies needed to implement them seemed clear, the action taken by government since then has been minimal, leading us straight into the energy crisis that the white paper was meant to forestall. That crisis is what has largely allowed the nuclear industry to spring back from the grave and — say the critics — prepare to suck taxpayers’ blood once again. It was, after all, only last April that the government created the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency to clear up the industry’s past mistakes, spent fuel and other waste at a predicted cost of £60 billion. That is on top of many billions more in subsidies that the industry has had over the past five decades. Where does this energy crisis come from? Lack of investment is the main cause. The liberalisation of Britain’s energy markets in the 1990s meant lower prices for consumers, but it also made investing in new power stations deeply unattractive. The consequence is that about half of the 17 coal-fired power stations that supply more than a third of Britain’s electricity are so old and inefficient that they contravene incoming European Union rules to safeguard the environment. They must close by 2016. Those left will supply less than a fifth of our needs. Our nuclear stations are closing, too. At present there are 23 reactors generating a fifth of Britain’s power but by 2020 the few that are left will supply just 4% of our needs. What all this means is that by 2016 Britain’s generating capacity will have fallen to 250 terawatt hours (Tw/h), while demand will have risen to 350 Tw/h — a huge gap. Skilfully, King and the nuclear industry have leapt on this. Last year the Nuclear Industry Association set up a special committee to oversee a lobbying operation that has repeatedly pushed the nuclear cause as the nation’s potential saviour. One aim of that lobbying was to prompt Blair into another energy review. It has won that battle but a tougher one lies ahead: proving its claim that nuclear really can save Britain from the evils of power cuts and carbon emissions, and all at a reasonable price. The reality is likely to be far more complex. What often gets lost in the controversy is that although nuclear power provides about a fifth of Britain's electricity, this translates into only 7% of the nation's total energy needs. About a third of the energy that we consume is in the form of oil and petrol for transport while the rest - mainly gas and coal - is used by industry and for heating buildings. Nuclear energy simply cannot replace fossil fuels for such purposes. What's more, Britain's growing population and economy are both pushing up the demand for all forms of energy (including electricity) at a rate of 1.5%-2% a year. Given that a typical nuclear power station would produce about 2% of the nation's electricity, Britain would need to build a new plant every year just to keep pace with demand. Even if we built at twice that rate, the savings in greenhouse gases would be small when compared with the surging emissions from industry and transport, especially aviation. Of course, most of the same arguments apply to renewable energy, too. Wind has been held up as the great green hope for Britain's energy future. But even the explosive growth in unattractive wind farms cannot keep pace with the increasing demand for electricity. The government has said that it wants 20% of our electricity to come from such sources by 2020 but, with demand still rising, wind power can do little more than meet some of the extra demand, let alone replace fossil fuels. The argument that at least wind farms avoid the need to generate more electricity from coal and gas may even be false. Wind, after all, gets huge subsidies which help to keep energy prices down - and low prices are what keeps demand growing. The same argument applies to nuclear power, which is also heavily subsidised. All of which brings us back to the main plank of the recent energy white paper: efficiency. It set out licences restricting companies' carbon emissions, grants for energy saving insulation and a range of measures that could all be used to reduce demand without affecting the economy or people's lifestyles. Such measures could, it suggested, slash 25m from the 183m tons of annual carbon emissions in Britain. Tom Burke, the veteran environmentalist and opponent of nuclear energy, believes that, as with the Iraq war, the public is being misled about the choices. "Nuclear power stations won't make energy supplies more secure or significantly cut carbon emissions," he says. "What's more, since the Treasury will never agree to pay for the power stations, the electricity market will have to be rigged for 30 years to guarantee a return for nuclear investors." Three decades of bigger energy bills for homes and businesses: will that be Blair's real legacy? THE ALTERNATIVES # Cleaner coal About 10 of Britain's coal-fired power stations must shut down or clean up under EU pollution rules. One option is to upgrade them to operate at higher temperatures and pressures and run on bio-fuels. This would raise efficiency and cut carbon emissions at a fraction of the cost of a new power station # Energy efficiency Britain wastes more than half the power it produces through generation and transmission losses in the National Grid. Inefficient homes and businesses lose another 13%. Better transmission systems and insulated homes could reverse the growth in demand # Carbon sequestration New technology will allow generators to strip carbon dioxide from power stations and pump it into the ground, making coal and gas almost as "clean" as wind power # Renewables Domestic wind turbines and solar panels could make homes almost self-sufficient in electricity Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 19 theage.com.au: Call to study local nuclear industry - By Jewel Topsfield, Canberra November 28, 2005 FEDERAL Science Minister Brendan Nelson has recommended that the Prime Minister establish a $1 million study into a nuclear power industry in Australia. "Notwithstanding the enormous coal deposits we have in our country, I think we owe it to our future to examine all of our options," he told Channel Nine. Dr Nelson said Australia's energy demands would treble over the next 40 years. It was obvious that human behaviour had contributed to global warming, he said. Despite supplying 24 per cent of the world's primary production of uranium last year, the development of nuclear power in Australia is illegal. However, many believe it is the only way to deliver rapid reductions in greenhouse emissions. "We can't responsibly dig 30 per cent of the world's uranium out of the ground, export it overseas and allow some 440 reactors to operate and expand in other parts of the world and not seriously consider this as an option for ourselves," Dr Nelson said. He said he and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane had formally proposed the Australian Academy of Science conduct a $1 million study into a nuclear power industry in Australia. "But as I say, that's a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government," Dr Nelson said. Meanwhile, a nuclear dump is expected to be built in the Northern Territory, despite objections from traditional owners and the NT Government that it poses environmental and health risks. "We're determined to build a low-level and intermediate waste repository in Australia for the nuclear waste which we have produced from medical and industrial use," Dr Nelson said. However, he stressed the Government was not proposing to store high-level nuclear waste in the Northern Territory dump. "Every state and territory is required to store its own waste," he said. "And in terms of high-level waste, if it were ever to be produced from an Australian nuclear industry, well that will be a matter for the governments of the day." | Copyright © 2005. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 20 JS Online: Nuclear reactor returns to service Maintenance, refueling prompted 2-month shutdown at Point Beach By THOMAS CONTENT tcontent@journalsentinel.com Posted: Nov. 25, 2005 A reactor at the Point Beach nuclear plant in Manitowoc County has resumed generating power after a two-month shutdown. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday that the Point Beach Unit 1 reactor was generating at 47% of its capacity. The reactor was shut Sept. 24 for refueling and maintenance. During the shutdown, crews replaced the vessel head, or reactor cover. Since the fall of 2004, vessel heads on all three nuclear reactors in Wisconsin have been replaced as part of the nuclear industry's response to problems detected several years ago at an Ohio plant. The Davis-Besse reactor near Toledo had to be shut for two years after inspectors discovered that leaking boric acid had created a football-sized hole in the vessel head. Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson operates the Point Beach plant, which is in Two Creeks, for plant owner Wisconsin Energy Corp., the state's largest utility. The vessel head at the Kewaunee nuclear plant east of Green Bay was replaced last year at a cost of $20 million. The combined cost for the replacement this year of both reactors' vessel heads at Point Beach was $52 million, Allen Leverett, Wisconsin Energy's chief financial officer, told investment analysts last month. The Wisconsin nuclear plants faced the possibility of a boric acid leak because the plants are similar in design and age to Davis-Besse. Because of that risk, the utilities that operate the plants said they faced frequent and costly commission inspections of the vessel heads if they decided not to replace them. The Point Beach Unit 1 reactor returned to service the week that the Kewaunee plant was shut down. Dominion Resources Inc. shut down Kewaunee to investigate a moisture problem in the reactor's main electrical generator, a plant spokesman said this week. Kewaunee remained shut down on Friday, the commission said. Nov. 26, 2005, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of . ***************************************************************** 21 RIA Novosti: China counts on Russia's further participation in nuclear project 26/ 11/ 2005 LIANYUNGANG (China), November 26 (RIA Novosti, Alexei Yefimov) - China expects Russia to build the third and fourth energy units of the Tianwan nuclear power station. "We would like to see Russia continue its participation [in the project]," Wang Jianhua, the first secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Lianyungang city committee, said. He stressed that Russian technology used in building the first two power units had proven excellent. "The decision on building units 3 and 4 will be made by the central authorities of course," Wang Jianhua added. The first unit is to go online in early 2006, while the second will not become operational until some time between 2006 and 2010, China's 11th five-year plan period. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 22 BBC: No choice over nuclear - Beckett Last Updated: Sunday, 27 November 2005 [Dungeness Nuclear Power Station] Nuclear energy provides 20% of Britain's electricity Nuclear power may have to be embraced in a bid to combat climate change even though it is not a "sustainable" energy source, Margaret Beckett has admitted. The environment secretary said she was very reluctant to build new nuclear power stations, but that she had "accepted that it could happen". But Mrs Beckett said any investment in nuclear must not be at the expense of renewable energy sources. An energy policy review is set to be announced early this week. In an interview with ITV1's The Jonathan Dimbleby Programme, Mrs Beckett was questioned about her view that nuclear power is not a sustainable energy source. Rather than increasing fu costs to pay for nuclear the government should be investing in renewable energy Norman Baker Lib Dem environment spokesman "I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability," she stressed. "But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change and I've always accepted that that could happen." Nuclear power currently meets about a fifth of Britain's electricity needs, but that is set to fall to just 4% by 2010 when old power stations are decommissioned. Mrs Beckett's comments come as a report in the Sunday Times suggested the government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King wants to put a levy on consumers' energy bills to fund a new generation of power stations. Energy mix Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker said: "Rather than increasing fuel costs to pay for nuclear the government should be investing in renewable energy." A Department of Trade and Industry spokesman said the government's policy was to carry out a review which looked at the entire energy mix. "There is no silver bullet to meeting our objectives and we will continue to look at a mixture of energy sources including use of fossil fuels and developing renewable energy as well as energy efficiency measures. "We will also examine the options for civil nuclear power and whether and to what extent we should replace the existing generating stations that will reach the end of their lives over the next 30 years." Any further use of nuclear power would require an extensive public debate, he added. Green group Friends of the Earth said research showed many potential sites for new nuclear power stations are at risk from sea level rises. It called on the government to drop any idea of building new plants. ***************************************************************** 23 Sunday Herald: Global warming scuppers Blairs nuclear power plans - By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor Prime Minister Tony Blairs plans to build new nuclear power stations were thrown into doubt last night after a government agency warned that the preferred sites would be flooded or eroded by global warming. This week, Blair will announce an energy review, which is expected to back up to 10 nuclear stations at existing sites around the UK coast, but a study by nuclear waste agency Nirex reveals that most of them are threatened by climate change. If those sites are ruled out, reactors will have to be built inland on new, greenfield sites some in Scotland which will provoke a furious outcry. The Nirex report, unearthed by the Sunday Herald, reveals that at least 11 of Britains preferred nuclear sites are so low-lying that they could be drowned or damaged by rising seas, causing radio active waste to leak. It may be superficially attractive to build new nuclear power stations at existing sites, said Ian Jackson, a leading nuclear expert. But unless we are planning to put the reactors in submarines, it would be more sensible to find new sites inland. The sites at long-term risk include Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Dounreay in Caithness, as well as nine in England and Wales. Dounreay, where the cliff-face is being eroded by waves, had to be closed on Friday due to bad weather. Two nuclear sites in England Bradwell in Essex and Berkeley in Gloucestershire are virtually at sea level. The Dungeness nuclear plant in Kent is only two to five metres above sea level and faces a very high risk from beach erosion. The massive nuclear complex at Sellafield in Cumbria and the nearby radioactive waste dump at Drigg are also said to be highly vulnerable to coastal erosion. The latest predictions suggest that the global warming caused by pollution will increase average sea levels around the UK by nearly half a metre by 2100. Within the next 50 years, the height of storm surges is likely to increase by up to 1.4 metres. The biggest danger is that ever-fiercer and more frequent storms will undermine nuclear sites, the Nirex report warns. Coastal erosion can be dramatic and may, for many, if not most sites, provide a far greater worry than sea level rise alone, it concludes. If the Greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets start melting away, as some experts now predict, sea levels could eventually increase by as much as 12 metres. The report points out there is even a risk of a tsunami, like that which hit northeast Scotland 7900 years ago. The Nirex study, which was commissioned by the governments Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, is based on research by the independent nuclear consultant, Mike Thorne. He argues that the government will now have to review its policy for siting new reactors. Our siting criteria are 50 years old, he said. It would be imprudent to think that we could build new nuclear stations on the coastal sites of old stations without a full evaluation. Nearly all Britains nuclear stations have been built by the shore, so they could use sea water for cooling and as a sink for wastes. Initially, they were also sited in remote areas because of the risk of accidents. Some nuclear sites, such as Torness in East Lothian and Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway, are missing from Thornes study simply because he has no information on them. Whether or not they are at risk is still to be investigated. Thorne favours a new nuclear programme, but points out that there may be problems winning public approval. There is a legacy of public distrust about nuclear power and any future programme will need detailed consultation with potentially affected communities, he said. Nuclear power is promoted by the industry as a way of combating climate change because it does not emit large amounts of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Blair has latched on to the idea to help reverse Britains poor record in cutting emissions, in advance of crucial United Nations climate talks, due to begin in Montreal tomorrow. But environmental groups argue that a new nuclear programme wouldnt be capable of preventing nuclear sites from being flooded. The contribution nuclear power could make to solving the climate-change problem is pathetically small, and it is probably the most expensive way of saving carbon dioxide, said Pete Roche, a consultant to Greenpeace. Friends of the Earth Scotlands chief executive, Duncan McLaren, warns that current thinking on siting nuclear stations would be turned on its head by the Nirex study. It looks very much as if sea-level rises induced by climate change will put paid to any revival of nuclear powers fortunes in this country, he said. If Tony Blair foolishly decides to back a return to nuclear power then it will spark a desperate scramble for new inland locations to site reactors. Almost anywhere in Scotland and the rest of the UK thats a reasonable height above sea level will become a possible target for siting new nuclear facilities. 27 November 2005 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 24 Independent: Expert View; It's better to go nuclear than ask people to be nice The real world is pushing the politicians to adopt the US way By Mark Tinker Published: 27 November 2005 Winter has arrived in Britain with a vengeance and with it the realisation that UK energy policy is in a complete mess. Mother nature has exposed the foolishness of policymakers who have spent the past few years discussing the need to consume less energy to save the planet, while ignoring the reality that people are keen that everybody else should make the sacrifice but them. Thus we are closing down nuclear and coal-powered stations without any real plan for making up the lost output. And simultaneously, we are devoting large amounts of time and (human) energy to policies such as wind farms. The latter are enthusiastically embraced by greens and the rich investors getting tax breaks from them, but their contribution to the need for energy right now is, well, almost nothing. Gas prices, meanwhile, have trebled in recent weeks, leaving large parts of gas-hungry industry talking of the need to close down production. A few months ago, I wrote an article that produced a flurry of angry emails when I dared to suggest politicians were going to abandon Kyoto and that nuclear energy would once again appear on the agenda. All of the emails focused on the problem, and expressed their authors' certainty of impending environmental disaster, when in fact I was discussing the practically of the Kyoto treaty as a solution. My expertise, such that it is, is not as a scientist in discussing the problem, but as an economist in discussing the solution. Sorry to say it, but the "if only everybody would be nice" route never works. People are selfish. Fact. Adam Smith recognised this back in the 18th century, and the underlying philosophy of his work is that incentives matter and that society is best served if selfish interests are channelled for the common good. The role of government here is to prevent the abuse of this - the formation of cartels and monopolies - but also to allow innovation to deliver the solution. In effect, carrots are better than sticks. Of course, we now find Sir David King, the UK's chief scientific adviser and the man who said global warming was a bigger threat than terrorism, admitting that no government in the world would switch off its power stations to hit C02 targets, if this seemed to threaten the country's economy. In effect, he has described Kyoto as unrealistic. The real world is pushing the politicians to adopt the US approach - voluntary reductions combined with technology. As for incentives, the current high level of energy prices is producing a lot of carrots to develop alternative energy. It is also providing the cash for the oil companies to spend billions to reduce the pollutants in petrol and diesel and to develop "clean coal". Some are looking enviously across the channel, where the state control of energy "prevents" this price volatility, but to do so, some honesty is required. One reason why the French, for example, have not seen their energy prices rise so rapidly is that 80 per cent of their electricity generation is nuclear. That's right, nuclear - the source that is currently causing such anxiety among the environmentalists in the UK, Italy and Germany, although, as I noted earlier in the year, it continues to be adopted in countries such as Sweden and Japan. It is also going to be an important part of China's growing energy output. If it's C02 you are worried about then here's an answer and, whatever the politicians say in the UK, it is going to be a significant part of the medium-term solution to the world's need for energy. That's one of the reasons why uranium prices are up around 75 per cent so far this year. Mark Tinker is a director of Execution Stockbrokers. Mark.Tinker@ Executionlimited.com © 2005 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 25 Independent: Nuclear haze: Will new builds take us into the financial unknown again? www.independent.co.uk By Tim Webb Published: 27 November 2005 Back in 1993, Nuclear Electric (which later formed half of generator British Energy), published a "user's guide". In the foreword to the glossy brochure, it said: "We recognise that some people are concerned about what we do. At Nuclear Electric we work constantly to allay their worries - too many of which arise through a lack of information, or misunderstandings or hearsay - with a policy of openness, honesty and integrity." Up until then, the record of the UK civil nuclear industry had certainly been secretive, often inefficient and not always truthful. But while the industry has tried to clean up its act, and become more transparent and efficient, old habits die hard. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent, and wasted - for example, when British Energy was privatised and then had to be bailed out by the Government to avoid going into administration. Billions more (at least £60bn at the last count) will be needed to clean up the radioactive waste created by the industry. Because of the secretive nature of the nuclear sector, it is hard to analyse its historical financial performance, but whether it has ever made a real profit must be extremely doubtful. The point is a timely one, for at the CBI conference on Tuesday, Tony Blair is set to announce the terms of the energy review, which is expected to pave the way for a new generation of nuclear reactors. These, we are told, will be better, cleaner - and profitable. So before the Government sets about creating a new breed, what are the costs and benefits of nuclear power to date - and how can we be sure the mistakes of the past will not be repeated? The UK civil nuclear industry was born out of the arms race at the start of the Cold War. Sellafield, the sprawling site in Cumbria that hosts the Thorp fuel reprocessing factory, was originally owned by the Ministry of Defence. In the early days, the industry was chaotic, experimental and, since it was (until the mid 1990s) entirely state-owned, the attitude seemed to be that costs were largely incidental. Many mistakes were made. The biggest was choosing to reprocess spent nuclear fuel - the idea being to use the plutonium and uranium again rather than rely on scarce and expensive imports. The plutonium also had military uses. The first reactors, the Magnox fleet, were designed specifically with fuel reprocessing in mind, as were the next generation, the AGRs. This added to the cost and complexity. The Thorp reprocessing plant, which cost £1.8bn to build, was closed in April this year after the discovery of a major leak and may never reopen. Thorp was never efficient anyway, as it was not able to separate all the radioactive waste from the depleted uranium it produced. It became far easier and cheaper for generators to import uranium, the price of which fell as new reserves were found - undercutting the whole rationale for reprocessing. Another facility, the Mox plant, was built in 2001 to take the reprocessed fuel from Thorp and produce new fuel, but it has won few contracts. Critics who said at the time it was not economic appear vindicated. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which has inherited the public sector nuclear liabilities, says it is discussing with the Government whether to treat unused, reprocessed plutonium (an estimated 75 tons is in storage at Thorp) as an asset or a liability. If, as is likely, it is the latter, disposing of it will add billions more to the NDA's estimated liabilities, set at £56bn (excluding those of British Energy). British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), which remains state-owned, was formed in 1971. It inherited the generation, reprocessing and manufacturing activities from the UK Atomic Energy Authority. BNFL's accounts for the 1980s give the balance of its retained profits and reserves, but little clue as to how much money it received from government, and how it was spent. The late Dr Mike Sadnicki, an academic at Sussex University, produced, in 2002, a forensic analysis of BNFL's historical financial performance. It painted a picture of underestimated liabilities, inefficiency and government subsidy via various departments and other state-owned utilities. He found that BNFL's cash position was enhanced in the 1980s and 1990s because it was the sole reprocessor in the UK, providing services for British Energy, its forerunners and BNFL's generating subsidiary, Magnox Electric. (Indeed, British Energy's near collapse was in large part due to its uneconomic but compulsory reprocessing deals with BNFL.) BNFL's contracts with UK generating utilities were always agreed on a cost-plus basis, so any budget overrun - a frequent event in the UK nuclear industry - was borne by the customer, not BNFL. The group was also given a remarkably free rein by government and regulators. John Wakeham, a former energy secretary, said in 1990: "BNFL's directors are responsible for its management on a day-to-day basis. This includes the financial management of the company and its internal systems. I have no responsibility for these matters." Even a decade later, good financial housekeeping had apparently not taken hold. The former chairman of BNFL, Hugh Collum, who died earlier this year, was quoted as saying in 2000, when he took over: "There is nobody at board level with proper plc experience ... This company is not good at forecasting and not good at estimating." His comments followed the scandal a year earlier when BNFL staff were found to have fiddled data on a shipment of Mox fuel to Japan. There was no way of knowing how economic nuclear generation was compared to coal- and gas-fired power stations because the CEGB, responsible for supplying electricity until privatisation in the 1990s, did not split out the costs of generation. In the 1990s, as the Government looked to privatise the nuclear industry, attempts were made to produce more open accounts. Some were laughable. The interim results statement from Nuclear Electric in 1992, for example, consisted of three brief pages of information. The more government officials looked into the industry's accounts - and liabilities - the more shocked they became. Only the eight most modern reactors were deemed suitable for privatising. The float price of British Energy, £1.5bn, was around half what it cost to build its most modern reactor, Sizewell B. Its obligation to pay only £17m per year for its estimated £5bn clean-up bill was the product of a flawed short-term fix to get the privatisation away in 1996 - another major factor in British Energy's near-collapse in 2002. It is highly unlikely that reprocessing will form part of any new nuclear building programme. Nor will new reactors be of British design - for good reason. While nuclear power has consistently provided around a fifth of the UK's electricity, the extent of the waste - both radioactive and financial - will never be known. A report by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will propose how to deal with the nuclear waste - probably by building an underground repository at a cost of around £8bn. If the Government acts on this report, this will help get rid of at least some of the uncertainty. However, nuclear energy consultant John Large says: "You won't know for sure for another 100 years if there's been a slow leak somewhere." The nuclear industry says next time it will be different. It had better be. FIFTY YEARS OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY 1954: the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) was established and given responsibility for virtually all aspects of the developing UK nuclear industry. 1956: the UK became the first country in the world to adopt nuclear power on an industrial and commercial scale when Calder Hall, a Magnox prototype, was commissioned by the UKAEA. 1957: fire at Windscale, a nuclear complex near Calder Hall. In 1982, a report was issued suggesting that 32 deaths and 260 cases of cancer were attributable to radiation leaked. The UKAEA changed the complex's name to Sellafield. 1964: the Government decided to develop Advanced Gas Cooler Reactor (AGR) technology to succeed Magnox. In all, seven of these reactors were built in the 1970s and 1980s. 1971: BNFL split off from the UKAEA. 1994: new, 900-ton-per-year, thermal oxide reprocessing plant (Thorp) opened at Sellafield. Sizewell B, the UK's first Pressured Water Reactor station, opened. 1996: British Energy privatised and floated. 1999: scandal over falsified information concerning shipments of BNFL's Mox fuel. 2001: Mox fuel production plant opened despite opposition from the Irish government. 2002: British Energy bailed out. 2004: Government sets up NDA to take responsibility for the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK's legacy nuclear sites. 2005: Thorp forced to close after discovery of 83,000 litres of leaked radioactive waste. Jill Ferguson © 2005 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 26 Independent: Chancellor 'will refuse to pay for new nuclear reactors' www.independent.co.uk By Marie Woolf, Political Editor Published: 27 November 2005 Tony Blair is facing a fresh clash with Gordon Brown over his plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain. The Treasury is to warn Mr Blair that no taxpayers' money will be made available to build new reactors and that the Prime Minister must prove "the numbers add up" in return for the Chancellor's support. As the Government prepares to announce an official energy review this week, the Treasury has insisted that it examine the cost of different forms of energy - including nuclear - that could be used to combat climate change. "There will be no public subsidy for nuclear, we have made that clear," said a senior Treasury source. "The numbers will have to add up." Mr Brown is being backed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has insisted that cost is of paramount importance in the new energy review. The review, which will include officials from the Department of the Environment, the Treasury, Downing Street and the DTI, is being led by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Alan Johnson. © 2005 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 27 Independent: Birt's move to head nuclear inquiry is blocked by Cabinet By Andrew Grice, Political Editor Published: 28 November 2005 Lord Birt, a strategic adviser to Tony Blair, has failed in his attempt to be appointed head of the Government's inquiry into whether to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. The former BBC director-general conducted a preliminary assessment of Britain's energy needs for Downing Street and hoped to chair the full-scale review to be announced by the Prime Minister tomorrow. But the move was blocked by cabinet ministers including Alan Johnson, the Sec-retary of State for Trade and Industry, whose department is responsible for energy. The review is now expected to be conducted by civil servants. Lord Birt is rated highly by Mr Blair but is regarded as a shadowy and controversial figure at Westminster. Last week, the Prime Minister was criticised by MPs for refusing to allow his "blue skies" thinker to be quizzed by a Commons select committee. Earlier this year, Lord Birt was reported to have applied for a £300,000-a-year job as chairman of Urenco, one of the world's biggest uranium enrichment companies. He did not land the post and his contract as an unpaid Downing Street adviser was renewed. Mr Blair wants the review of energy supplies to report next year so he can push through plans to build new nuclear stations on the site of existing plants before he stands down. He will try to "sell" the idea as a way of combating global warming. But the move is highly controversial within the Labour Party. Many MPs are worried about the potential costs, the risks of a nuclear accident and terrorist attack, and waste disposal problems. Some ministers hope to delay a decision until after Mr Blair steps down. Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment, said further studies might be needed after this week's review. She told ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby programme nuclear power was not a "sustainable" form of energy but conceded it might have to be embraced to combat climate change and secure supplies. In a blow to the Prime Minister's plans, it has emerged that Nirex, the nuclear waste body, had warned most nuclear station sites are threatened by climate change because they are vulnerable to coastal erosion and a rise in the sea level. Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser, suggested a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear stations, according to the leaked transcript of a meeting with representatives of the nuclear industry. But the Department of Trade and Industry stressed that Sir David's views do not necessarily represent government policy, and said the energy review would "look at the entire energy mix". © 2005 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 28 Times Herald Record: Indian Point leak unsolved Tony Blairinto a review into the cost of nuclear and renewable energy. In what would be a major switch in policy -- and likely to provoke strong opposition from both within his party and environmentalists -- Blair is reportedly in favour of resurrecting Britain's nuclear energy programme. Business leaders have voiced strong concerns about the country's future power supplies and recent hikes in the cost of gas. The Business reported that the research's authors considered that Britain's energy supplies had been "taken for granted" in recent years and their security had "rarely appeared on the political front-line". "Things have changed," the report was quoted as saying. "The UK's future energy risk profile is climbing rapidly as import dependency and global competition begin to bite." Concerns about increases in gas prices during colder weather demonstrated what the report calls "the incendiary nature of energy politics when markets tighten" and warned the situation might get worse. If energy markets in Europe fail to liberalise and increase gas supplies to Britain, consumers will be forced to choose between secure supplies and low prices, the report added. "A policy is needed" to ensure economic growth and security of supply while adhering to internationally-agreed carbon emissions limits, it added. "There is an energy timebomb ticking for Britain," the report stated. Britain's environment secretary, meanwhile, signalled Sunday she might have to endorse a new generation of nuclear power stations despite being "very reluctant to do so". Nuclear was not a "sustainable" energy source, Margaret Beckett told ITV1 television, but she conceded it might have to be embraced as a means of combating climate change and securing supplies. Environmental group Friends of the Earth later renewed their calls for the government to disregard the nuclear option, citing research suggesting potential coastal locations for plants were at risk from sea level rises. Chief executive Duncan McLaren said that put paid any plan to site new power stations next to existing facilities and would spark a "scramble" for above-sea-level locations inland. "It really is time to drop any ideas of a return to nuclear. There are cheaper, faster and cleaner ways to tackle climate change than nuclear power. And it is those we should be concentrating on right now," he added. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 Xinhua: IAEA warns of loss in closure of Bulgaria's nuclear plant www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-26 21:26:44 SOFIA, Nov. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- A senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Friday warned that the closure of two reactors in Bulgaria's Kozloduy nuclear power plant in 2006 may lead to a major economic loss to the country, local media reported on Saturday. Hans-Holger Rogner, head of nuclear energy planning and economy at the IAEA, made the remarks when he handed to the Bulgarian government an assessment report on closing reactors in Bulgaria ahead of schedule. Units 3 and 4 of the six reactors in the Kozloduy plant were originally set to be shut down in 2011 and 2013 respectively, and once the shut-down schedule was reset for Jan. 1, 2007, as the European Union requested (EU), Bulgaria may sustain a loss of 1.6 billion euros (1.872 billion US dollars) to its economy, according to Rogner, whose remarks were carried in local newspaper TRUD. He also stressed that if new power plants fail to be completed as scheduled, while the two reactors are shut down, the country will suffer power shortage against the freezing cold in the winter. Kozloduy plant supplies some 45 percent of the Balkan state's total power output, and the shut-down could probably drive up energy prices, impairing Bulgaria status as a major power exporter in the region. The EU is concerned over Kozloduy's Soviet-era reactors, the same type of those in Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear power plant, it is therefore strongly demanding the closure of Units 1 to 4 before Jan. 1, 2007, when the Balkan nation joins the European bloc. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 Xinhua: Hungary praised for safe operation of nuclear power www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-26 10:53:29 BUDAPEST, Nov. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) on Friday praised Hungary for its safe operation of a nuclear power plant at Paks. The skills and qualifications of Hungary's only nuclear power plant are a guarantee of its safe operation, said Jaroslav Holubec, head of an investigation panel of the WANO. A team from the WANO evaluated the plant between Nov. 14 and Nov. 25 at the initiative of the nuclear power plant itself. Holubec said that 18 experts from 10 countries had participated in the evaluation, adding that their investigation had focused on organizational performance rather than on technical conditions. On Nov. 21, the Hungarian parliament passed a law that would extend the operation of the facility by 20 years and allow construction of a permanent nuclear waste disposal site nearby. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 Xinhua: Fire forces closure of Brazil's nuclear power stations www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-26 10:56:46 RIO DE JANEIRO, Nov. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- A fire in an electrical transformer forced the closure of Brazil's Angra I and Angra II nuclear power stations early Friday morning, state-owned nuclear electricity company Eletronuclear said. The fire triggered the automatic protection system, which immediately shut down the nuclear electricity generation units of the two nuclear power stations, located in Rio De Janeiro state, Eletronuclear said. The accident happened outside the Angra II plant and was not related to the nuclear generators, said the company, adding that no abnormalities have been recorded inside the plant. Angra II will remain closed until investigators find the cause of the fire. The automatic system disconnected Angra I automatically, although it has no problems inside or outside. It will resume electricity generation straight away, Eletronuclear said. The southeast of Brazil will not have access to the 1,350 megawatts of electricity generated by the two plants, but other generation sources will make up for the loss, it said. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Scotsman.com News: Critics warn PM over nuclear power "The Press Association" />Sun 27 Nov 2005 Opposition politicians and environmental campaigners have warned Tony Blair against giving his backing to a new generation of nuclear power plants amid cost and safety concerns. They pointed to leaked comments from the Government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King in which he suggested that a levy on consumer bills may be needed to finance the plants. The critics also cited research by the nuclear waste agency Nirex warning that most of the sites for potential plants are threatened by climate change. The Prime Minister - who is thought to favour the nuclear option for the long-term - is expected to announce a review of energy policy on Tuesday. Nuclear power met almost a quarter of Britain's energy needs in recent years but that will fall to just 4% by 2010 if ageing reactors are not replaced. The Sunday Times reported that Sir David has suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new plants. Sir David proposed the charge as a way of ensuring that a resurgent nuclear industry - which has traditionally run at a loss - would be assured three or four decades of guaranteed profit on new reactors. Glasgow's Sunday Herald newspaper said that the Nirex study suggested that a number of sites for potential nuclear plants were at risk from rising sea levels and coastal erosion, including Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Dounreay in Caithness. Two nuclear sites in England - Bradwell in Essex and Berkeley in Gloucestershire - are virtually at sea level. The massive nuclear complex at Sellafield in Cumbria and the nearby radioactive waste dump at Drigg are also said to be highly vulnerable to coastal erosion. © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2005, All Rights Reserved. ©2005 Scotsman.com| contact ***************************************************************** 34 Scotsman.com News: Beckett: 'Reluctant' nuclear U-turn The Press Association" />Sun 27 Nov 2005 Nuclear power is not a "sustainable" energy source but may have to be embraced as a means of combating climate change and securing supplies, Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett has conceded. Mrs Beckett, whose scepticism about nuclear is well documented, signalled she might have to endorse a new generation of atomic power stations even if she would be "very reluctant" to do so. Prime Minister Tony Blair - who is thought to favour the nuclear option for the long-term, despite the opposition of environmentalists and many Labour MPs - is expected to announce a review of energy policy early this week. Nuclear power met almost a quarter of Britain's energy needs in recent years but that will fall to just 4% by 2010 if ageing reactors are not replaced. Interviewed on ITV1's The Jonathan Dimbleby programme, Mrs Beckett was asked whether she stood by her previously expressed view that nuclear is not a sustainable form of energy generation. She responded: "I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future generations at all under any circumstances. "But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change and I've always accepted that that could happen. Very reluctant on my part but I've accepted that it could happen." Mrs Beckett warned, however, that any decision to pursue a new generation of nuclear stations must not result in a dip in investment in renewable energy sources such as wind and wave power. The Sunday Times has reported that the Government's chief scientific adviser has suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear power stations. The report suggested that Sir David King has proposed the charge as a way of ensuring that a resurgent nuclear industry - which has traditionally run at a loss - would be assured three or four decades of guaranteed profit on new reactors. A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry stressed that Sir David is an independent adviser and that his views do not necessarily represent Government policy. © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2005, All Rights Reserved. ©2005 Scotsman.com| contact ***************************************************************** 35 Middletown Press: Connecticut Yankee rate increase upheld News - 11/26/2005 By JOSH MROZINSKI, Middletown Press Staff11/26/2005 HADDAM -- A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission judge ruled on Tuesday that Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Plant can maintain a rate increase instituted to help pay costs associated with decommissioning the plant. The increase has the effect of increasing the amount collected for the plant from $16.7 million annually to $93 million annually. Connecticut Yankee plans to collect the new rate through 2010 by charging the consortium of electric companies that shared in the cost of building and operating the nuclear power plant. These companies will continue to pass the rate increase along to their customers throughout New England. Decommissioning of the plant started in 1998. When FERC initially granted the increase on Aug. 30, 2004, the state Department of Public Utility Control appealed. State officials have claimed that at least $200 million in cost overruns was caused by Connecticut Yankee’s mismanagement of the decommissioning process. In addition to finding that the entire $831 million rate increase is justified, Administrative Law Judge Bruce L. Birchman found that Connecticut Yankee has been acting prudently. During a Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee earlier this month, Connecticut Yankee Vice President Ken Heider said that the growing costs of providing security around the plant’s fuel storage pad, weakened stock market investments and the federal government’s failure to open a facility for nuclear waste has made decommissioning more expensive then anticipated. "We’re very pleased with the ruling. It affirms that not only did CY manage its decommissioning activities appropriately, but it is also appropriately managing its groundwater cleanup program," Heider said in a statement. Bechtel Power Corporation which had been hired to conduct the decommissioning was fired in 2003. ©The Middletown Press 2005 ***************************************************************** 36 ABC News Online: Nelson seeks Aust nuclear power inquiry. 27/11/2005. Federal Education and Science Minister Brendan Nelson has put a submission to the Prime Minister calling for a $1 million inquiry to examine the benefits and impact of Australia having its own nuclear power industry. The minister says it is a joint submission with the Industry Minister and asks for a major scientific investigation. Dr Nelson has told Channel 9 that Australia should examine the potential of nuclear energy. "I think we owe it to our future to examine all of our options, we can't responsibly dig, if you like, 30 per cent of the world's uranium out of the ground, export it overseas, and allow some 440 reactors to operate and expand in other parts of the world and not seriously consider this as an option for ourselves," Dr Nelson said. "But as I say that is a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government." ***************************************************************** 37 ABC News Online: Greens reject calls for nuclear power study. 27/11/2005. The Greens have condemned calls for a study into the prospects of an Australian nuclear power industry. The Education and Science Minister, Brendan Nelson, and the Industry Minister, Ian Mcfarlane, want the Prime Minister to approve $1 million in spending on a scientific investigation. The two ministers argue that the environmental impact of traditional fuels and the nation's role as a uranium exporter mean the study is needed. The Australian Greens leader, Bob Brown, says that is a furphy. "It's about saying we want to get into the running on nuclear power because big corporations can make money out of it," he said. "Let's be clear about this, nuclear power is not the answer to global warming and if there's a million dollars spare let us put that into solar power in this sunny country." ***************************************************************** 38 Guardian Unlimited: Henry Porter: Nuclear power? Don't dismiss it We cannot afford to dither any longer about the impending energy crisis. All governments must act now Henry Porter Sunday November 27, 2005 The great game of the 21st century is being played out before our eyes, but few seem to notice. Last week, Tony Blair hinted that he was prepared to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear reactors at an as yet unknown cost. In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election. In Russia, President Putin has ruthlessly constructed a monopoly of oil and gas production which controls some 90 per cent of the country's reserves. On the way, he imprisoned Mikhail Khodorkovsky, stripping his oil giant, Yukos, of its assets and, in a separate deal, paid off Khodorkovsky's fellow oligarch, Roman Abramovich, with US $13 billion for his stake in the oil producer Sibneft. The link is the supply of energy to the high-consuming, wasteful Western democracies. With about 50 years of oil reserves left and maybe 85 years of gas, the struggle for control of the world's energy resources will increasingly dictate events. It will impact on each of us and there will be almost no area of domestic or foreign policy unaffected by this desperate scramble. Lest people think that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken to establish democracy and eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, rather than to secure Iraq's oil reserves, then last Monday's revelations about Chalabi's 30-year binding contracts should give them pause. If you imagine that Tony Blair's musing on the nuclear option popped out of the blue, just remember Putin's visit to Britain in October and the conversation the two leaders had on the sidelines of the Russia-EU summit. Believe me, they were talking about gas, not chatting about democratic reform in Russia. Having consolidated Russia's state monopoly, Putin came to Europe with his power greatly enhanced. More than 25 per cent of Europe's natural gas is supplied by Russia: By 2020, that figure will be nudging 40 per cent. The former KGB officer has got his hand resting on Europe's throat and with rising gas prices, it cannot be anything but sensible for Blair to look at other options. These events and the cold assessment of what lies ahead are way above an average individual's understanding or awareness. We are so used to having all the energy we require that we are barely conscious of our needs and do not trouble ourselves with realities of the world as it is and, more seriously, as it will be. I am often reminded of Sydney Pollack's 1975 classic thriller, Three Days of the Condor, which starred Robert Redford as Joe Turner and Cliff Robertson as a CIA officer named Higgins. Turner uncovers the CIA's covert plan to invade the Middle East and secure the oil supply for the US. At the end of the film, the two meet outside the offices of the New York Times, where Turner has just delivered a dossier exposing the CIA's operation. Higgins asks the idealistic Turner what the US government should do when people start running out of fuel. Turner replies: 'Ask them.' 'Not now; then!' Higgins snaps. 'Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!" Never a truer word was spoken in an espionage thriller. When the film was released in the wake of Watergate, Joe Turner seemed unquestionably heroic, but 30 years on, it's possible to admire Higgins's scathing realism for the reason that at least he's not having it both ways. Today, there's so much in the liberal stand against the war in Iraq that is simply politics for the naive, who tremble at the idea of the war while at the same time demanding as much energy as they can use. We were lied to about Saddam's WMD because realists like Dick Cheney, Alastair Campbell and Ahmed Chalabi knew that the Western public would not accept that oil was even part of the mission in Iraq. They know that in our hearts, we just want them to get it for us. Iraq is an utter mess and the invasion has undoubtedly played into al-Qaeda's hands, but I suspect the highest counsels both in Russia and the West regard the menace of al-Qaeda as a side issue in the scramble for energy. Indeed, the fear of terrorism can be rather useful to governments that want to impose greater controls on their societies or even persuade them to go to war. What we need is true enlightenment in the liberal classes, not the naivety that shudders at the idea of nuclear power, or places undue faith in renewables, or runs an SUV that uses four times the fuel of an ordinary car, or maintain homes haemorrhaging energy. The other day, I flew into Britain on one of those cold, clear evenings when everything is pin-sharp. It's a spectacular sight if you forget that the carpet of light is one of the reasons why we're heading for such trouble. Half the people producing all that light below were probably against the war in 2002. The same proportion have doubts about nuclear power and fret about global warming. But all were spewing energy and carbon into the atmosphere, apparently unaware that these things are related. (I am far from guiltless in this respect. For one thing, I was on a transatlantic flight, typically calculated to release about one ton of carbon dioxide per passenger.) Nuclear power appears to be a solution because it is held to occupy a position where the requirements for clean electricity and for independence from suppliers like Vladimir Putin overlap. I am tempted, but have yet to be convinced. No sensible debate has yet taken place and I am certain it would be disastrous if Tony Blair briskly commits us to this course without one. We need to know the costs and estimate the risks of nuclear power and see how they compare with other combinations of power generation, including renewables. More important, this debate has to take place in a context of a settlement between government and the people about the immediate need for energy conservation, which is why David Cameron's idea of cross-party group dedicated to the environment is a good one. This is no longer a matter for party politics. The urgency is great. Those who read the scientific press or attend conferences on climate change know of the profound threat. Equally, they can see the disconnect between what society accepts intellectually and how people continue to behave. We have to understand that the crises of energy and global warming will intersect soon and that this will change the course of history in a most terrifying manner. Governments can do much to help - creating a dedicated ministry that links energy to the environment would be a start. The redeployment of funds allowed for, say, the update of Trident (£12.5bn) and the ID card scheme (upwards of £3bn) into energy conservation and education is essential. But it requires a shift on our part, for these things have become a matter of conscience - of linking the use of the SUV with your stance on the war, of tying together the cheap flight to Majorca with a failure to insulate your home. We can no longer expect the government to get fossil fuels for us to burn because, quite apart from anything else, they ain't going to be there for much longer. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 39 Sunday Times: New tax may fund nuclear stations - Sunday Times - Times Online The Sunday Times has obtained transcripts of a meeting King held with senior nuclear industry executives at which he said that Britain should aim to get 35% of its future electricity from nuclear generation. “I would say getting 30%- 35% of our power from nuclear would be probably optimal,” he said. At present 20% of Britain’s electricity comes from nuclear plants, but the reactors providing it are old and most will be decommissioned by 2015. There is no legal obstacle to prevent power companies building replacements. But the industry’s disastrous financial history and the uncertainty over future electricity prices mean that investors would never take the risk. King’s charge — provisionally named the “security of supply levy” — would remove that uncertainty by giving nuclear operators a premium on every unit of electricity generated. The same system applies to electricity generated from renewable sources and is responsible for the rapid and controversial expansion of wind farms. Under the system they can claim nearly three times the market value of the electricity they generate, an extra cost ultimately met by consumers. “For the nuclear new-build industry to go ahead, they would need some assurance that they would not be faced with short-term competition,” King said. King, who is one of Blair’s more trusted advisers, suggests that the same system should now be adapted to fund the far greater costs of building a new generation of reactors. The disclosure comes ahead of an announcement by Blair of a review of Britain’s energy policy. In a speech on Tuesday he will warn that Britain could face serious power shortages over the next 15 years unless additional power stations are built. It will reinforce concerns that the prime minister has made up his mind that a new generation of nuclear power stations is the best way to secure Britain’s energy supplies and meet targets for reducing carbon emissions. Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 40 London Times: Scotland must face its nuclear destiny - Sunday Times - Times Online Last week that pretence unravelled. No 10 was still imprecise and the advice from Sir David King, the government’s chief scientific adviser, avoided firm conclusions. But nothing could disguise the logic. Without a new generation of nuclear power stations, Britain will fail to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At Holyrood there was predictable dissent. Labour, Liberal and Green MSPs recalled Jack McConnell’s pledge that the executive has the power to stop nuclear power stations being built in Scotland, whatever Westminster decides. In a week when the first minister was humiliatingly rebuffed for pretending Scotland can operate a different asylum regime from England, that sounded highly unlikely. But among devolved politicians, faith endures that the executive can use planning laws to block a nuclear power programme. It is nonsense. Energy policy is a reserved power. Using student union-style reinterpretation of rules to obstruct government will just win another bloody nose for the executive. But the problem is not that local politicians can prevent a new era of nuclear power. They can’t. But they can deprive Scotland of the environmental and economic benefits. When Whitehall commissions new nuclear power stations, it will have no strong opinion about where they should go. The most plausible result of executive hostility is that nuclear operators will avoid building where hostility is guaranteed. Since 1997, Scotland has been treated to a parade of incomparable piffle about the prospects for renewable energy. Let us delude ourselves no longer. If every site of natural beauty from Eyemouth to Wick were covered in windmills and the coast was lined with wave generators, Scotland would still need to find a reliable source of electricity. The British government knows it; Scotland must wise up. UK-wide, the proportion of power generated by nuclear stations stands at 22%. But Scotland is ahead of the game. The nuclear facilities at Hunterston B and Torness supply 50% of Scotland’s electricity demand. But British Energy expects to decommission Hunterston in 2011 and Torness in 2023. If replacement capacity is not ordered, we will fall back on coal, gas and oil. Scotland’s carbon footprint will expand. Rather than cutting greenhouse gases, our insatiable demand for electricity will increase them year on year. The opportunity facing ministers in Edinburgh is plain. We have scientists who understand nuclear safety and the storage of waste. Our police and military have procedures for ensuring security. So Scotland can approach a new nuclear era with confidence. Against this opportunity stand increasingly peculiar arguments from the anti-nuclear lobby. I first witnessed the origins of that hostility near Dunbar in 1978, where, to my enduring shame, I was one of the idiots who turned up to protest against Torness nuclear power station. The assorted peaceniks, Socialist Workers and girls in dungarees who made up the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace (Scram) alerted me to my silliness. Their arguments were a confused collage of the hideous consequences of nuclear war, mutant monsters from 1950s’ sci-fi movies and a conspiracy theory that Torness must, secretly, house weapons. During the cold war, nuclear power had become linked with weapons. Even sensible people condemned anything involving radioactivity as inherently sinister. Paranoia lurked around the fact that radioactive waste remains radioactive for centuries. I forget how many times Scram activists reminded me “Long after you’re dead it will still be emitting radiation”. It is a non-argument. Years after we are all dead the M8 will still be a motorway. Longevity does not confer intrinsic moral status. But Scotland is powerfully swayed by the illusion that nuclear power is malign. A poll during the general election revealed that only 17% of the electorate backs nuclear power. How different that is from the heady mood of optimism that existed in September 1964 when the Queen Mother opened Hunterston A. Contemporary reports described "one of the cleanest plants in the country, where 560 men and women work in ideal conditions of safety". The Glasgow Herald boasted that from the moment the Hunterston reactor was connected to the national grid in July 1964, "Scotland used more nuclear electricity per head of population than any other country in the world". Granted, this was the new Elizabethan era. School children learnt that a 1in-long nuclear fuel pellet could produce as much electricity as two tons of high-quality coal, and Nigel Molesworth, their literary hero, declared "Whiz for Atoms". The government hinted nuclear electricity might one day be unmetered. Principle among the claims advanced by today's anti-nuclear lobby, notably Friends of the Earth Scotland, is the notion that the nuclear industry does not know how to deal with waste. This is silly. Waste must be encased in concrete, glass or lead and stored on secure sites. Hard lessons have been learnt, not least at Dounreay, about what happens when it is done badly. But the argument is designed to be misleading. When Friends of the Earth claims: "The nuclear industry has been unable to demonstrate any safe way to manage its waste," it means it objects to the storage of waste anywhere, ever. It is that old longevity argument again, luminous in its simpleton stupidity and combined with a threat to object to any proposal to store nuclear waste in Scotland. Beyond that, anti-nuclear obsessives fall back on the claim that nuclear power routinely kills lots of people. That happened only once, at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. Opponents of nuclear power exaggerate the death toll. Friends of the Earth Scotland says "30,000 or more extra cancer deaths are expected to result overall" and claims Chernobyl is still poisoning the world. A definitive report by the Chernobyl Forum, a coalition of the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency, dismisses that as nonsense. A total of 4,000 will die from the long-term effects of the accident and the danger is restricted to an area of about 19 miles around the site. Of course it is too many, but nothing like it has ever happened anywhere else. Comparing Chernobyl to anything proposed for Scotland is to compare the Wright brothers' Flyer with Air Force One. Western nuclear power stations have proved the safest way of generating electricity there is. Coal-fired power stations emit more radioactivity. The French power company Electricit‚ de France is a veteran of an economy in which 80% of electricity is nuclear generated, and nobody would have it any other way. It can build clean, efficient nuclear stations in three years without any public subsidy. If the executive cared about the environment it would stop wittering on about planning laws and petition Whitehall for permission to start building four power stations now. They could deliver all of Scotland's energy needs and present a huge environmental bonanza. Twenty eight other countries have started to convert to nuclear energy, including Finland, where the wind blows hard and often. For Scotland the choice is not if but when. Delay would be inexcusable. Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 41 MDN: Fukui government, SDF, coast guard conduct joint drills against nuclear terrorism - MSN-Mainichi Daily News Fukui government, SDF, coast guard conduct joint drills against nuclear terrorism Coast guard ships scouted port facilities and troops escorted citizens through city streets as part of joint security drills Sunday in Fukui Prefecture, simulating terrorist attacks on a nuclear power plant. Government officials, police, self-defense force troops, power company employees and local residents were among the 1,900 people who took part in the drills -- which simulated mortar attacks by foreign terrorists against the Mihama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture, said prefectural employee Shuji Kawakami, who took part in the exercise. Authorities set up a task force in Mihama town, where officials staged a mock radiation leak, ordered citizens to stay indoors, called for Self-Defense Force troops and told a nuclear reactor in neighboring Tsuruga to shut down, according to Kawakami. Troops then evacuated residents within a 3-kilometer radius of the Mihama plant in buses, according to Kawakami. Twelve boats and 10 choppers also transported residents and patrolled the town. Authorities had no particular country in mind in Sunday's exercises, Kawakami said, but Tokyo has been concerned about possible attacks from North Korean agents. In December 2001, the Japanese Coast Guard sank a spy boat believed to be North Korean in a shootout. Fukui hosts 15 nuclear power reactors -- the most in Japan. Local authorities there drew up a set of contingency plans against nuclear terrorism soon after Japan adopted the safe evacuation law last September, which calls for the safe evacuation of residents in an emergency. (AP) November 27, 2005 Copyright 2004-2005 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 [NYTr] An Arab-American Priest, DU and Iraq Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:07:57 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by mart Washington Report On Middle East Affairs - Nov, 2005 http://www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2005/0511029.html Special Report An Arab-American Priest, Depleted Uranium, and Iraq By Robert Hirschfield TRAVELING around southern Iraq in the late 1990s to investigate the effects of U.N. economic sanctions on ordinary Iraqis, Jesuit Father Simon Harak stopped at a hospital in Basra. Meeting with him and his colleagues from the anti-sanction group Voices in the Wilderness, Dr. Jenan Hassan briefed them about the medical horrors she and other doctors were confronting as a result of the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons by the U.S. Army in southern Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war. There was a fivefold increase in cancer, especially leukemia, she said, and a five- to eightfold increase in children born with genetic defects. Dr. Hassan showed the Voices group some of the newborns. "We saw a baby with a head growing out of his head," recalled Harak. "We saw babies with intestines growing outside their bodies." Sitting in his spartan cubicle in Lower Manhattan, where he works as the anti-militarism coordinator for the War Resisters League, Harak, a 57-year-old Arab-American whose parents are from Lebanon, emphasized that, in comparison to the 300 tons of DU weaponry used against Iraq in the first Gulf war, U.S. forces deployed more than 1,000 tons during the 2003 invasion. "Given the fact that there is an incubation period involved here," he pointed out, "we shall soon be seeing the second wave of cancer and birth defects as a result of that war." >From his computer, a crucial weapon of 21st century dissent, the Jesuit dispatches the results of his DU research to hundreds of people throughout the country. He maintains close contact with the Manhattan Project, the only group that devotes itself exclusively to DU. Their collaboration is still mainly on the level of information gathering. Harak's goal is for information to translate into social action. "Depleted uranium," he explained in his methodical, professorial way (having once taught ethics at Fairfield College), "is 60 percent radioactive. It is also heavy metal toxic. It is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process of nuclear weapons production from which uranium's most radioactive isotope, U235, is recovered for re-use in new fuel rods." The DU weapons used in Iraq were far more deadly, he explained, far more enduring-Japanese scientist Katsuma Yagasaki estimates that DU's radiation has a half-life of 4.5 billion years-and far less publicized than car bombs and roadside bombs. The DU was present in missiles, tank shells, and rocket-propelled grenades. Formidable at armor piercing, these weapons were known to aerosolize on impact into tiny particles that could be inhaled or ingested. Harak used the case of Basra to illustrate how the damage was done. "Basra is on a river," he noted. "A DU shell poisons the water in a river. It poisons the grasses and the grains. It sinks into the ground and poisons the water table. When it gets into the body, it does incredible damage. The combination of radioactivity and heavy metal toxicity is such that it affects the DNA in such a way that you get genetic alterations." Harak recalled being told by doctors in Basra that the deformed children they were delivering reminded them of the pictures they had seen of Chernobyl babies. When a baby is born in Basra, the doctors said, the first question the mother asks her obstetrician is: "Is it all right?" Lacking in the late '90s, when he was in Iraq, and needed now, he said, were scientific studies, longitudinal and cause-and-effect studies, that would prove conclusively that there was uranium in the blood of deformed children and cancer victims. "The tests cost $1,000 each," Harak bemoaned. "And when the sanctions were in effect, the equipment doctors would have had to bring in to run the tests were banned. The sanctions forbade pencils, for the love of God!" As an Arab-American, Harak was powerfully moved by the suffering of Iraqis, and said he would like to go back. But he doesn't want his Iraqi friends to run the risk of being seen with an American, even an Arab-American-in his case, an Arab-American who speaks no Arabic. Lamented the Christian Arab: "Catholics always took so seriously the words of Jesus when he said, 'This is my body.' But Jesus also said, 'Love your enemies.' That, unfortunately, was never taken so seriously." Harak reflected on the underpublicized issue of the exposure of U.S. veterans to DU. "How much of what was called Gulf War Syndrome was due to exposure to DU?" he asked. "It's hard to say. But some of the symptoms are similar to those Iraqis suffered from: fatigue, blood disorders, heart conditions, the damaging of the genetic code. You see parallel defects in children of American veterans and Iraqi children: the little flipper hands growing out of the children's shoulders without any arms attached." Soldiers worried about exposure to uranium and wanting to be tested found that their veteran's medical insurance refused to cover the cost. Harak recalled one case in which The New York Daily News agreed to pay to have nine Gulf war veterans tested. Four of them were found to have uranium in their bloodstream. Last year, Harak helped organize a small rally in New York's Washington Square Park at which speakers and singers alerted people to the dangers of DU. On the question of why this issue has failed to make more of an impact, Harak speculated, "Maybe it's because a lot of the damage is not immediate. There is an incubation period involved. You don't see hands being blown off, or people being cluster-bombed," he noted. "It's much more insidious." [Robert Hirschfield is a New York-based free-lance journalist.] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 43 Bellona: Norway to continue participation in the radiation safety programs in Murmansk region Another contract concerning environmental rehabilitation of the former Northern Fleet base in Andreeva bay has been signed in Murmansk. 2005-11-25 16:10 The contract’s price tag is 2.5m Norwegian crowns aimed at preliminary works on designing infrastructure net in Andreeva bay. The Norwegian Foreign ministry is financing the project through the Northern county Finnmark. The project, in particular, concerns the electricity, water and sewage nets, because at the moment these nets are out of order or destroyed, Interfax reported. The Murmansk governor Yuriy Evdokimov is hoping six contracts on Andreeva bay will ne signed in the beginning of next year. He also mentioned that the effectiveness in Andreeva bay mostly depends on the Russian Federal Nuclear Agency, which has not yet approved the general plan of works for this site. Finnmark Governor Gunnar Kjønnøy said the cooperation will depend on the level of provided information about the polluted zones in Andreeva bay. He said Norway allocated 188m Norwegian crowns for the projects concerning Andreeva bay and Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs). Kjønnøy said he would ask the Foreign Ministry not to reduce the financing in 2006, reported Interfax. 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 ***************************************************************** 44 KAVKAZ CENTER: An Arab-American Priest, Depleted Uranium, and Iraq 2005-11-27 10:49:50 Djokhar Traveling around southern Iraq in the late 1990s to investigate the effects of U.N. economic sanctions on ordinary Iraqis, Jesuit Father Simon Harak stopped at a hospital in Basra. Meeting with him and his colleagues from the anti-sanction group Voices in the Wilderness, Dr. Jenan Hassan briefed them about the medical horrors she and other doctors were confronting as a result of the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons by the U.S. Army in southern Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war. There was a fivefold increase in cancer, especially leukemia, she said, and a five- to eightfold increase in children born with genetic defects. Dr. Hassan showed the Voices group some of the newborns. “We saw a baby with a head growing out of his head,” recalled Harak. “We saw babies with intestines growing outside their bodies.” Sitting in his spartan cubicle in Lower Manhattan, where he works as the anti-militarism coordinator for the War Resisters League, Harak, a 57-year-old Arab-American whose parents are from Lebanon, emphasized that, in comparison to the 300 tons of DU weaponry used against Iraq in the first Gulf war, U.S. forces deployed more than 1,000 tons during the 2003 invasion. “Given the fact that there is an incubation period involved here,” he pointed out, “we shall soon be seeing the second wave of cancer and birth defects as a result of that war.” From his computer, a crucial weapon of 21st century dissent, the Jesuit dispatches the results of his DU research to hundreds of people throughout the country. He maintains close contact with the Manhattan Project, the only group that devotes itself exclusively to DU. Their collaboration is still mainly on the level of information gathering. Harak’s goal is for information to translate into social action. “Depleted uranium,” he explained in his methodical, professorial way (having once taught ethics at Fairfield College), “is 60 percent radioactive. It is also heavy metal toxic. It is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process of nuclear weapons production from which uranium’s most radioactive isotope, U235, is recovered for re-use in new fuel rods.” The DU weapons used in Iraq were far more deadly, he explained, far more enduring—Japanese scientist Katsuma Yagasaki estimates that DU’s radiation has a half-life of 4.5 billion years—and far less publicized than car bombs and roadside bombs. The DU was present in missiles, tank shells, and rocket-propelled grenades. Formidable at armor piercing, these weapons were known to aerosolize on impact into tiny particles that could be inhaled or ingested. Harak used the case of Basra to illustrate how the damage was done. “Basra is on a river,” he noted. “A DU shell poisons the water in a river. It poisons the grasses and the grains. It sinks into the ground and poisons the water table. When it gets into the body, it does incredible damage. The combination of radioactivity and heavy metal toxicity is such that it affects the DNA in such a way that you get genetic alterations.” Harak recalled being told by doctors in Basra that the deformed children they were delivering reminded them of the pictures they had seen of Chernobyl babies. When a baby is born in Basra, the doctors said, the first question the mother asks her obstetrician is: “Is it all right?” Lacking in the late ‘90s, when he was in Iraq, and needed now, he said, were scientific studies, longitudinal and cause-and-effect studies, that would prove conclusively that there was uranium in the blood of deformed children and cancer victims. “The tests cost ,000 each,” Harak bemoaned. “And when the sanctions were in effect, the equipment doctors would have had to bring in to run the tests were banned. The sanctions forbade pencils, for the love of God!” As an Arab-American, Harak was powerfully moved by the suffering of Iraqis, and said he would like to go back. But he doesn’t want his Iraqi friends to run the risk of being seen with an American, even an Arab-American—in his case, an Arab-American who speaks no Arabic. Lamented the Christian Arab: “Catholics always took so seriously the words of Jesus when he said, ‘This is my body.’ But Jesus also said, ‘Love your enemies.’ That, unfortunately, was never taken so seriously.” Harak reflected on the underpublicized issue of the exposure of U.S. veterans to DU. “How much of what was called Gulf War Syndrome was due to exposure to DU?” he asked. “It’s hard to say. But some of the symptoms are similar to those Iraqis suffered from: fatigue, blood disorders, heart conditions, the damaging of the genetic code. You see parallel defects in children of American veterans and Iraqi children: the little flipper hands growing out of the children’s shoulders without any arms attached.” Soldiers worried about exposure to uranium and wanting to be tested found that their veteran’s medical insurance refused to cover the cost. Harak recalled one case in which The New York Daily News agreed to pay to have nine Gulf war veterans tested. Four of them were found to have uranium in their bloodstream. Last year, Harak helped organize a small rally in New York’s Washington Square Park at which speakers and singers alerted people to the dangers of DU. On the question of why this issue has failed to make more of an impact, Harak speculated, “Maybe it’s because a lot of the damage is not immediate. There is an incubation period involved. You don’t see hands being blown off, or people being cluster-bombed,” he noted. “It’s much more insidious.” Robert Hirschfield is a New York-based free-lance journalist.Wrmea Copyright © 1999-2005. "Kavkaz-Center" News Agency ***************************************************************** 45 Arizona Republic: Nuclear-waste plan begins to crumble [azcentral.com] Nuclear-waste plan begins to crumble Congress looking at alternatives to storage at Yucca Doug Abrahms Gannett News Service Nov. 26, 2005 12:00 AM WASHINGTON - For more than 20 years, the federal government's sole plan to dispose of nuclear waste has been to bury it in a rural mountainside in Nevada about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But there have been hints that a new plan is in the works, especially as the deadline moves to open the Yucca Mountain repository as a long-term nuclear-waste dump. Since 1982, when Congress approved burying high-level radioactive waste in a national repository, the nation's energy scene has shifted dramatically, with utility companies poised to build nuclear power plants for the first time in a generation, said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a staunch supporter of nuclear power. "I believe we must look anew on our policy on spent nuclear fuel," he said. "And I think that re-evaluation is under way." Nuclear power generates about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, and proponents say it offers the best hope to cut air pollution and lower natural-gas prices. Disposal of the nuclear waste remains a problem. The Energy Department's long-range disposal plan would move 77,000 tons of nuclear waste by trains and trucks to Yucca Mountain. The project would cost electric consumers at least $58 billion. The department remains committed to the project, spokesman Craig Stevens said. The license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Yucca project will proceed despite a federal appellate decision in 2004 that federal radiation safety standards for Yucca are inadequate, he said. The last deadline to open Yucca Mountain was 2012, but the department no longer offers any timetable. This month, Congress agreed to spend $50 million to study reprocessing nuclear waste, which breaks down enriched uranium rods for more-efficient use. Proponents say it could reduce waste and eliminate the need for Yucca. But many nuclear experts say the reprocessing technology doesn't work. The practice was stopped in 1979 because of expense and ineffectiveness and because the process generates a kind of plutonium isotope that is a key element in nuclear bombs, said Steve Kraft of the Nuclear Energy Institute. "At the end of the day, you still have material to dispose of," Kraft said. "It doesn't make (nuclear) waste go away. All it does is separate it into different fractions," said Ed Lyman, senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group that opposes reprocessing. In theory, a new type of atomic reactor could be built that would consume most of the nuclear material and vastly reduce the amount of waste to be stored, said Joe Egan, a nuclear physicist and attorney working to block the Yucca project. Scientific American magazine published an article this month describing such a reactor that uses liquid sodium rather than water as a coolant, he said. "The only problem is that no one has ever built one of these reactors successfully," Egan said. "It's like the Mars project: It's a nice thought, but it's not going to happen anytime soon." Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign plan to introduce legislation to store nuclear waste at reactor sites with the federal government assuming ownership, said Tessa Hafen, a spokeswoman for Reid. Copyright © 2005, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Discord mounts on Yucca November 26, 2005 Editorial: Discord mounts on Yucca Criticisms by longtime Yucca Mountain supporter Sen. Pete Domenici are the latest in a string of reversals for the plan to bury high-level nuclear waste in Southern Nevada The state of Nevada and its congressional delegation, with support from an overwhelming majority of its residents, has spent 20 years fighting the federal government's plan to haul high-level nuclear waste from the nation's power plants and permanently bury it 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain. And for all of that time, the state has stood its ground virtually alone. In 2002 Nevada's fight reached a low point. President Bush approved the Energy Department's recommendation of Yucca Mountain and the House and Senate added their approvals. Nevada, however, kept up its fight and filed lawsuits, striking gold last year when a federal court ruled that Yucca Mountain was being built to the wrong radiation standard, a key safety issue. The finding sapped a lot of the pro-Yucca momentum, forcing the Energy Department into an indefinite delay in filing for a license to operate the facility. Since that ruling there have been more developments tilting toward Nevada's position, which maintains that transporting the waste to Yucca would be a grave risk and that storage inside the mountain poses an unacceptably high chance that air and ground water would become contaminated. In September, after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to approve a temporary nuclear dump in his state, Utah Sen. Robert Bennett saw the light on Yucca. The Republican Bennett had long been an ardent supporter of the project. "However much the idea of a single repository may have made sense decades ago, it is now clear that it does not make sense, and we need to move in some future direction," Bennett said in a Senate speech. Another Yucca blow came earlier this month, when Congress slashed funding for the dump. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, at the time hinted that he was reassessing his long support for Yucca. He said the cuts to the project were the "beginning of a re-evaluation of a bigger policy, which will include Yucca." From the day in 1987 when Yucca Mountain was chosen as the site for burying nuclear waste, Domenici has been one the project's most passionate supporters. But he didn't sound like that on Wednesday when he addressed a group of nuclear power leaders. "As most of you know, (Yucca) was not a good solution either on straight science, or surely, on economic grounds," Domenici told the group in a stunning change from his past remarks. Domenici went on to make other disparaging statements about Yucca. It's far too early to believe that the fight against Yucca Mountain has been won. But Congress and the Energy Department are now working on a new waste policy, one that won't be released until next year. We believe the new policy should call for storing nuclear waste at the power plants where it is produced until there is a solution that doesn't involve Yucca Mountain. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 47 RGJ.com: Plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain begin to crumble Reno, Nevada, USA 775-788-6200 November 27, 2005 Doug Abrahms DABRAHMS@GNS.GANNETT.COM --> Posted: 11/27/2005 Energy Department: www.energy.gov Union of Concerned Scientists: www.ucsusa.org Nuclear Energy Institute: www.nei.org WASHINGTON -- For more than 20 years, the federal government's sole plan to dispose of nuclear waste building up at atomic reactors around the nation has been to bury it in a rural mountainside in Nevada about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But lately there have been hints that a new plan is in the works, especially as the deadline to open the Yucca Mountain repository as a long-term nuclear-waste dumping ground keeps slipping. Since 1982, when Congress approved burying high-level radioactive waste in a national repository, the nation's energy scene has shifted dramatically -- with utility companies poised to build nuclear power plants for the first time in a generation, said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a staunch supporter of nuclear power. "I believe we must look anew on our policy on spent nuclear fuel," he said in a speech Tuesday, "and I think that re-evaluation is under way." Nuclear power generates about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, and proponents say it offers the best hope to cut air pollution and lower natural gas prices. Disposal of the nuclear waste remains a problem. The Energy Department's long-range disposal plan would move 77,000 tons of nuclear waste by trains and trucks across the country to Yucca Mountain, and the project will cost electric consumers at least $58 billion. The department remains committed to the project, spokesman Craig Stevens said. The department's license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Yucca project will proceed despite a federal appeals court decision in 2004 that federal radiation safety standards for Yucca are inadequate, he said. The last deadline to open Yucca Mountain was 2012, but the department no longer offers any timetable. This month, Congress agreed to spend $50 million to study reprocessing nuclear waste, which breaks down enriched uranium rods into components for more efficient use. Proponents say it could reduce nuclear waste volumes and eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain. But many nuclear experts say that current reprocessing technology doesn't work. The practice was stopped in 1979 because expense, ineffectiveness in reducing nuclear waste and also because the process generates a certain kind of plutonium isotope that is a key element in nuclear bombs, said Steve Kraft, an official with the Nuclear Energy Institute. "At the end of the day, you still have material to dispose of," Kraft said. "It doesn't make (nuclear) waste go away. All it does is separate it into different fractions," agreed Ed Lyman, senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group that opposes reprocessing. In theory, a new type of atomic reactor could be built that would consume most of the nuclear material and vastly reduce the amount of waste to be stored, said Joe Egan, a nuclear physicist and attorney working for Nevada to block the Yucca Mountain project. Scientific American magazine published an article this month describing such a reactor that uses liquid sodium rather than water as a coolant, he said. "The only problem is that no one has ever built one of these reactors successfully," Egan said. "It's like the Mars project -- it's a nice thought, but it's not going to happen anytime soon." Nevada U.S. Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign plan to introduce legislation next month to keep nuclear waste stored at reactor sites with the federal government assuming ownership, said Tessa Hafen, a spokeswoman for Reid. The spent fuel rods would be stored in protective casks and could remain there safely for many decades until a better solution can be developed, she said. >© Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 48 CNIC: Further delays at Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant (Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) November 18th Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. (JNFL) announced that active trials (using spent nuclear fuel) at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant will be delayed two months to February 2006. Start-up of Rokkasho will also be pushed back two months to July 2007. The announcement was made while demonstrations were being held in Tokyo opposing the reprocessing plant in general and the impending active trials in particular. Sit-ins, demonstrations and public meetings were held from November 16th - 19th. Two overseas speakers were invited to participate. Martin Forwood of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment spoke about problems at the THORP reprocessing plant in the UK. He emphasized that the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant project should be cancelled before similar problems arise in Japan. Professor Hong Seong Tae of People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy gave a South Korean perspective on Rokkasho, stressing proliferation and environmental concerns. Martin also spoke in Morioka (Iwate Prefecture) on the 20th and in Aomori on the 21st. The major reason for the two-month delay is modifications to the vitrified high-level waste storage facility (see NIT 105). It was discovered that, due to a design error, the cooling system of buildings in this facility was inadequate. The governor of Aomori Prefecture indicated that he wouldn't give his approval for active trials until this problem was fixed. JNFL now says that these modifications will be completed by the end of this year. On November 9th JNFL released its latest progress report on the uranium trials (using depleted uranium), which are currently being conducted. The report failed to provide evidence to support JNFL's claim that the uranium trials are proceeding smoothly. Rather, it showed that JNFL is nowhere near ready to enter the active trial phase. Of greatest concern, there is no indication that JNFL plans to undertake a true test of the whole process. JNFL claims that it will conduct comprehensive trials of the whole plant, but there is no indication that it will run uranium from beginning to end in such a way that inputs and outputs can be quantitatively compared. Unless a test is conducted showing how accurately inputs and outputs balance, it will be impossible to judge whether it is safe to proceed to active trials. In addition to the general problem of testing the whole plant, CNIC is also unsatisfied with the information that has been released. While we recognize that nuclear safeguards requirements impose limits on what can be made public, in this case essential information is being withheld simply for commercial confidentiality reasons. On the basis of the information released, it is impossible to ascertain how much progress has really been made with the uranium trials. The report repeats formulas such as "within the target level", providing few numerical values to back up its assertions. Active trials entail far greater dangers than the uranium trials. They involve much higher levels of radioactivity and they carry the risk of a criticality accident. These are not things to be treated lightly for the sake of meeting arbitrary schedules. It is simply not good enough for JNFL to say 'trust us' and expect to be allowed to proceed to active trials. Philip White (NIT Editor) (This article, printed in Nuke Info Tokyo 109, is an updated version of our 17 November 2005 press release.) CNIC Citizens' Nuclear Information Center TEL.03-5330-9520 FAX.03-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ Email ***************************************************************** 49 ABC News Online: WA Labor reaffirms uranium mining ban. 26/11/2005. Western Australian Premier Geoff Gallop has exerted his authority on the state Labor party, forcing it to back his position against uranium mining. Some Labor MPs had hoped to force the issue at the party's conference in Perth today, however under pressure, they withdrew a controversial motion at the last minute. Their motion called for a working group to be established to look into future energy options, including uranium. Instead, a motion carried, reaffirming the state government's ban on uranium mining. Dr Gallop told the conference future generations should not be saddled with the expensive problem of disposing nuclear waste. "And let us here in Western Australia play our role, however small it is, to keep the world on a path of sanity, to keep the world on a path where we solve the greenhouse problem without creating a massive radioactive problem, thankyou very much." ***************************************************************** 50 ABC News Online: Gallop labelled 'dictator' over uranium debate gag. 27/11/2005. The WA Opposition has accused the Premier of running his party like a dictator, after a debate on uranium mining was thwarted at the Labor Party conference this weekend. Premier Geoff Gallop exerted his authority yesterday, ending debate once and for all on whether Labor should revisit its anti-uranium position. A motion calling on Labor to examine future energy options, including uranium, was withdrawn at the last minute and replaced by a different motion reaffirming the Premier's position. "Let us here in Western Australia keep our clean green reputation," Dr Gallop said. The Premier's motion passed without a murmur. Liberal spokesman Norman Moore has accused Dr Gallop of gagging debate to save face. "The tragedy of the whole thing is he put himself in such a corner that he wouldn't allow any other position to be tolerated and that's either dictatorship or stupidity," he said. Mr Moore says it would have been appropriate for Labor to debate the issue in view of the global problem of greenhouse gases. ***************************************************************** 51 ABC News Online: NT residents assured about high level nuclear waste. 28/11/2005. The Federal Science Minister has guaranteed high level waste from an Australian nuclear power industry would not be sent to the Northern Territory's proposed nuclear waste dump. Dr Brendan Nelson has put a submission to the Prime Minister requesting a $1 million scientific investigation into the prospects of an Australian nuclear power industry. He says under no circumstances would the high-level by-products of a nuclear power industry be stored at the dump proposed for the Northern Territory. Dr Nelson says the facility proposed for the Territory would only house low and intermediate level nuclear waste. ***************************************************************** 52 New Mexican: LANL Lab pays double state's average wage By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican November 26, 2005 Average yearly salaries at Los Alamos National Laboratory are more than twice what the average job in New Mexico pays, lab and state figures show. Lab technicians make an average salary of $63,377, support staffers are paid $73,228, and technical staff members, a group that includes scientists, earn $119,777, a lab spokesman said. Twenty-eight people make between $200,000 and $290,000, the top salary at the lab, according to a November salary list posted on the employee-association Web site. The average job in New Mexico paid $31,638 in 2004, according to the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of New Mexico. The lab pays well because the market demands it, said spokesman James Rickman. "Also, since we are a world-class scientific institution, we do like to offer salaries that do attract the best and brightest," Rickman said. "... And also, it's a reason why the lab is such a desirable place to work at all levels." Some science-policy leaders, such as Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., have described a general labor shortage in the science and engineering fields. The heads of two coalitions competing to take over management of the labs -- Paul Robinson and Michael Anastasio -- have agreed with Bingaman's concerns. However, the president of the lab's employee association said the lab's higher salaries mean some workers are afraid to speak out about health and environmental problems. "If you start looking at the general area and what's paid in the locale, you cannot find an institution that has better salaries than the laboratory," said Manny Trujillo of the University Professional and Technical Employees Association. "Which is one of the reasons why it's very hard for those local people who live here and have been raised here to voice any opposition for the laboratory when there is abuse and when there's obvious reasons for crying out about issues about health and the environment." Trujillo also referred to a pending lawsuit in U.S. District Court in which several women allege the lab has discriminated against them by paying them less than their male peers. The case is pending, court records show, and lawyers for the University of California, which manages the lab, have denied those allegations. "Even though it might be high," Trujillo said of the salaries, "there are still inequities in the LANL work force." The lab employs 15,375 University of California and contractor employees and has a $2.2 billion budget. The National Nuclear Security Administration on Wednesday delayed an announcement scheduled for Dec. 1 for what group would take over management of the lab. No new announcement date had been released as of Friday evening. Trujillo said lab employees are frustrated and want to know. "And I'd say being in a state of limbo is no place to be," he said. "The employees need to start moving on." Lockheed Martin Corp. has teamed with the University of Texas to submit a proposal to the government to manage the lab. The University of California has joined Bechtel National to submit a proposal. The winner can earn up to $79 million a year. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@ http://sfnewmexican.com. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************