***************************************************************** 10/09/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.234 ***************************************************************** 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 Guardian Unlimited: Only threat of force will tame Tehran 2 BBC: Iran press fumes over UK claims 3 Sunday Herald: One illegal war was bad enough Tony, so dont meddle i 4 AFP: US briefs on alleged Iranian nuclear warhead work - diplomats - 5 Xinhua: Iran calls for negotiations, not threats to handle nuclear i 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, West Urged to Resume Nuclear Talks 7 BBC: China deputy meets N Korea leader 8 Korea Times: China Discusses Nuke Deal With N. Korea 9 US: DenverPost.com: Energy answer blowing in the wind 10 US: The Boston Globe: Bottling the nuclear genie - 11 [smygo] Tomgram: Ira Chernus on Where Fear Can't Take Us 12 Interfax: Belarus could not use strategic nuclear weapons in 1990s - 13 Guardian Unlimited: Nations Hail Project to Destroy Nuke Fuel 14 Guardian Unlimited: MoD papers reveal Falklands nuclear fear NUCLEAR REACTORS 15 [NYTr] Robertson, VoA Play Up the Venezuela Nuke Reactor Story 16 GL: Nuclear power PR campaign debunked 17 US: Rockford Register Star: Byron nuclear plant assessment due 18 US: thedesertsun.com: Is there a role for nuclear power? 19 US: WP: The Debate: Global Warming: Is Nuclear Energy the Answer? 20 US: York Daily Record: Nuclear energy: ‘The other white meat’ - 21 US: St. Petersburg Times: Nuclear plant idea has support NUCLEAR SECURITY 22 US: Las Vegas SUN: Terrorism on track? 23 Guardian Unlimited: New Project Aims to Eliminate Nuclear Fuel NUCLEAR SAFETY 24 US: Deseret News: Learning what makes us sick 25 US: Philadelphia Times: Critics say Ohio EPA response less than adeq NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 26 US: Bradenton Herald: Further testing needed, EPA says 27 US: Deseret News: Safety stressed at nuclear waste forum 28 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: News flash: More Yucca blunders 29 Las Vegas SUN: Billy V. 30 Las Vegas SUN: Hearing the truth about Yucca 31 US: Green Left: Yellowcake fever running high in NT 32 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah's elected elite 33 US: The Boston Globe: Utah firm begins Starmet cleanup - 34 London Times: Plans to bury nuclear waste under the sea - PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 35 Guardian Unlimited: Energy Dept. May Miss Hanford Deadline 36 lamonitor.com: Anastasio names deputy 37 Rocky Mountain News: Rocky Flats wraps up radioactive cleanup 38 Colorado Daily News: Opportunity and animosity ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Only threat of force will tame Tehran Britain must stop being soft and use its might to stop terror, says Michael Rubin Sunday October 9, 2005 The Observer Tony Blair confirmed last week that bombs used to kill eight British soldiers in Iraq were a type used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and groups that it supports in Lebanon. His words were circumspect, but the point was clear: London considers Tehran responsible for killing British troops in Iraq. Blair's accusations confirm that the British-secured zone, once praised as a triumph for the 'softly-softly' approach, is a model no more. In recent weeks death squads have kidnapped and murdered journalists, most famously Steven Vincent, an American freelance writer who had warned of Iranian infiltration of the police. Dozens of Iraqis have fallen victim to Iranian-backed militias. It did not have to be this way. The Iranian challenge in Iraq has long been apparent. In January 2004, Lebanese Hizbollah opened offices across southern Iraq. In the centre of Basra, Lebanese Hizbollah flags flew from an annexe to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq headquarters. In exchange for quiet, British officials have turned a blind eye to the Iranian challenge. When Shia militias turned away from schools girls not conforming to Muslim standards of dress, British forces did nothing to guarantee them a right to education. When young gangs plastered the University of Basra with posters of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, British officials remained silent. An official assessment following Muqtada al-Sadr's uprising in April 2004 blamed a British political officer in al-Kut for 'intentionally toning down' reports of [Shia] insurgent activity'. In Amara, British officials transferred the Baath party headquarters to the Badr Corps; many locals wanted to use it as a health clinic instead. The Iranian-trained militia festooned their new headquarters with anti-coalition slogans. British troops refused to be provoked. For terrorists and their sponsors, British restraint is assumed. There is little fear of military reprisal. A major factor behind the Iranian government's willingness to murder British troops has been the impotence and naivety of UK diplomacy. It has become conventional wisdom among the foreign policy elite that military force is never appropriate. The outbreak of the Iraqi insurgency and the fumbled reconstruction have reinforced anti-war sentiment among the chattering classes. If only President Bush had listened to the international community and allowed United Nations inspectors to finish their job, they say, war might have been averted. War should always be the last resort. But a credible military threat is sometimes necessary to maintain peace. In the case of Iran, British cabinet officials have undercut diplomacy. As tension between Washington and Iran escalated last month, for example, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was asked about the possibility of military action. 'US Presidents always say all options are open. But it is not on the table, it is not on the agenda. I happen to think it is inconceivable,' he told the BBC on 28 September. Al-Jazeera's headline for this was: 'No military action against Iran.' Straw may have wanted to reinforce the notion that London remained committed to diplomacy, playing to a British public conditioned to view the American President as a reckless cowboy and religious nut. But his words were interpreted in Tehran as weakness. Engagement alone can backfire. Between 2000 and 2005, trade between Iran and the European Union has almost tripled. During the same period, it doubled its number of executions and spent several billion dollars on its nuclear programme. Iranian diplomats may be sincere. They may have impressed Straw. But the Islamic republic's structure leaves them impotent. Only the Supreme Leader, the Revolutionary Guards, and the Intelligence Ministry wield power. It is no accident that Iran's envoy to Iraq was not from the Iranian Foreign Ministry, but from the division of the Revolutionary Guards charged with the export of revolution. Diplomacy backed by the threat of military force can be a winning combination. What little success the negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear intentions have had are due not only to European carrots, but also American sticks. Iran is not alone in this. Examining Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi's decision to settle his differences with London and Washington, US columnist Charles Krauthammer suggested it was no coincidence that 'Gadaffi's first message to Britain, the principal US war ally and conduit to White House war counsels, occur[red] just days before the invasion of Iraq. 'And his final capitulation to US-British terms occur[red] just five days after Saddam Hussein is fished out of a rathole.' Had Straw assured Gadaffi he need never fear military reprisal, the Libyan leader would today be nearing completion of his nuclear bomb. Might matters. If democracy prevails in Iraq, the Iranian leadership understands that 70 million Iranians will clamour for the same rights. Iraq's success poses an existential challenge. While Iran's youth crave Western pop, fashion and freedom, ideology dominates the Islamic republic's leadership. Khomeini's constitution enshrines theocracy and the export of revolution. No amount of reform can change that. And no amount of engagement can ameliorate its challenge. The best the West can hope for is containment. Diplomacy can repulse the Iranian challenge in Iraq, but nice words alone are insufficient. Deals must be obeyed and promises kept. Sometimes that takes a willingness to use force. Armies, not words, are a diplomat's most potent tool. · Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is the editor of the Middle East Quarterly [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 BBC: Iran press fumes over UK claims Last Updated: Sunday, 9 October 2005 [Iranian Press] Iranian newspapers have been building up a head of steam over the past few days after Britain accused elements in Iran of involvement in fatal attacks against British forces in southern Iraq. Press commentators accuse Britain of making the claims to increase pressure on Iran to curtail its nuclear ambitions, and question the benefits of continued relations with Whitehall. Hardline Jomhuri-ye Eslami The custodians of our foreign policy are not reactin appropriately to the hostile stance of Britain and the impudent behaviour of its government. The new Iranian government has chanted good slogans on how to deal with countries that pursue hostile policies against Iran, but so far nothing has been put into practice. The procrastination of the government in dealing with London will make the British statesmen even more impudent. Limiting our response to a few statements or denials by the foreign ministry spokesman is not proportionate to the wickedness of the British government. Editorial in Arabic-language Al-Vefagh Tony Blair's accusations against Iran were only a attempt to cover up the fiasco of the occupation in achieving its illegitimate goals in Iraq. Blair had the insolence to talk about a possible Iranian interference in southern Iraq. Since it occupied Iraq, Britain has been determined to control the oil in the south and to send its agents to sow civil strife by carrying out terrorist operations. This shows the extent of the British fox's policy gamble, the aim of which is to plunder the natural wealth of the oppressed Iraqis. Commentator in hardline Kayhan Iran's arch enemy is Great Britain which in additio to hatching plots on every issue, drags other countries along with it. It has always taken steps against Iran throughout history. MP writing in reformist Mardom-Salari We have lost more than we have gained from friendshi with Britain and Britain has perpetrated nothing but crimes against Iran. Britain should be shut out from Iran once and for all and this country should not be allowed to perpetrate such sly mischief against Iran. Statement by conservative movement quoted in moderate Iran We urge the country's statesmen to revisit Iran' diplomatic and trade relations with the British government. We call on them to formulate a new strategy and plan in order to prevent further mischievous plots by that old hyena of conspiracy and divisiveness. Comment in moderate Iran News Recent remarks made by Blair and other Britis officials can be assessed from several viewpoints. Firstly, the remarks may be a reaction to Iran's claims about the role of British agents during the recent unrest in Khuzestan Province. Secondly, it should be noted that only a couple of weeks have passed since the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] Board of Governors issued its anti-Iran resolution and they are determined to put more pressure on Iran. Therefore, as long as they have not achieved their goal in dissuading Iran from access to peaceful nuclear technology, such allegations are sure to recur. selects and translates news from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages. It is based in Caversham, UK, and has several bureaus abroad. ***************************************************************** 3 Sunday Herald: One illegal war was bad enough Tony, so dont meddle in Iran - 09 October 2005 What we think Ever since President Bush announced that Iran was part of his axis of evil there has been a split in transatlantic policy about how to deal with the country. While the US promoted the idea that Iran had to be coerced into dropping plans for its nuclear industry, either by military force or through the use of economic sanctions, the British and European response was to extend the hand of friendship to Tehran in the hope that Iran could be persuaded to develop its industry for peaceful purposes and not yield to the temptation to develop nuclear weapons. By and large, the British and EU policy has worked. Until recently, Iran co- operated with the International Atomic Energy Agency and showed that it was prepared to heed warnings not to continue its alleged weapons programme, and there are still signs that the Iranian government wants to co-operate with the international community. This seemed to satisfy the hawks in Washington and there has been a welcome scaling down of the implied threats to use pre-emptive strikes to bring Iran to heel. Then out of nowhere Prime Minister Tony Blair has cranked up the pressure by making allegations that Iran has been responsible for providing the insurgents in Iraq with sophisticated roadside bombs triggered by infrared devices. The claims were quite specific. New and powerful improvised explosive devices were being used to kill British soldiers in southern Iraq and these weapons were supplied by Iran or through their proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon. No precise evidence was offered, only the claim that Iran was guilty as charged. There is no denying the fact that British and US troops have been killed by these deadly roadside bombs which are capable of destroying even the most powerful armoured vehicles, but, as we report today, there is no hard evidence that Iran has been involved in supplying them. On the contrary, British and US military sources say that the absence of clues means that the finger cannot be pointed at Iran. While it is known that Hezbollah developed and uses this kind of weapon and that they receive most of their support from Iran, that does not mean that the government in Tehran ordered them to be smuggled into Iraq for use against coalition forces. Besides, why should they do such a thing? There is an old tradition in diplomatic circles that policy must be formed by questioning whether or not the end result is in the countrys interests. In this case it is difficult to see why Iran should want to destabilise Iraq by contributing to the violence. It is the Sunni insurgents who want to destroy the coalition-backed administration which will be dominated by Shias, who are Irans natural allies. When the Iraqis vote in their constitutional referendum this week Iran will want a Shia majority; anything which detracts from that cannot be in their interests. While politicians claims cannot always be taken at face value, there is more than a ring of truth in Iranian claims that they want to see the creation of a settled neighbour and that they have no interest in fomenting further trouble in Iraq. In any case, we have been here before. The main reason for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam was the supposed threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Later, these claims were found to be based on faulty intelligence and we now know that Blair used those fears to steamroller through his policy for invading Iraq, even though he knew that it was rooted in a false premise. Once again there are eerie echoes of that flawed policy in Blairs words about Iran. Once again a country is being threatened, once again weapons are involved and once again there are big question marks about the accuracy of the intelligence. Instead of pursuing the policy of containment and inclusion that helped to control Irans nuclear ambitions, Blair has embarked on a reckless new course of action. His accusations have heightened tensions in the region and added to fears in the Islamic world that the West is intent on imposing its will on the Middle East, if necessary by the use of force. Doing this once, against Iraq, was a serious error of judgement which resulted in an illegal war; doing it twice, this time against Iran, smacks of irresponsibility. A victory for transparency THE Sunday Herald welcomes the ruling by the Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion that the Scottish parliament was wrong to refuse to release details of taxi trips taken by Conservative leader David McLetchie. When this newspaper lodged requests for these details we did so not out of any desire for a witch-hunt, but because there seemed to be a genuine principle at stake. If taxpayers fund MSPs expenses, surely they have a right to know what this money is being spent on. If an MSP is using taxpayers money to pay for transport to another place of work, that information should be in the public domain. The reasons put forward by the parliament mainly that releasing the information somehow compromised the safety of the MSP involved were spurious and have been rejected by Dunion. The arguments put forward by McLetchie himself for the secrecy are equally specious. If as he continues to argue the taxi journeys were entirely justified, why did he not put the details into the public domain before our appeal? McLetchie has now said he regularly took taxpayer-funded taxi trips from his parliamentary office to the offices of Tods Murray, the Edinburgh legal firm in which he was a partner until earlier this year. He has said his expenses were not excessive and that the average number of journeys was less than one a week over five years and that the total cost of the fares was under £900. And he has argued that he used his legal offices for parliamentary work, which justified making the expenses claim. The size of the bill seems irrelevant in this case, as there remain more important questions to answer: l Why did McLetchie consider it necessary to conduct parliamentary business at a legal office less than a mile away from the parliaments base at the Mound? l If he regularly used the Tods Murray office for parliamentary business, why did he not declare that use as a donation as required under electoral law? When the parliament eventually releases the information later this week, it will be a victory for the effectiveness of the Freedom of Information Act and testament to the independence of Dunion. It will also send a message to the parliament, whose commitment to transparency of government brought the Act on to the statute books, that it too should meet the standards that it has expected of other public bodies. © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 4 AFP: US briefs on alleged Iranian nuclear warhead work - diplomats - VIENNA (AFP) - The United States has briefed key nations on intelligence that it says shows Iranian atomic weapons work, namely research on getting a missile warhead to explode at an altitude that would maximize the blast of a nuclear explosion, diplomats and analysts told AFP. However, a non-Western diplomat said the US briefing, carried out in various capitals ahead of a meeting in September of the UN atomic watchdog, "looks plausible but there is no hard evidence," namely direct proof of a nuclear warhead project. Iran says its nuclear work is strictly peaceful and on Sunday hit back at the US allegations, with foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi saying: "It's a lie. It needs no more explanation." A diplomat close to the Vienna-based watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that setting a warhead explosion at such a height, which is about 600 metres (yards), the same altitude at which the Hiroshima atomic bomb was detonated, would make sense only for nuclear weapons. Chemical, biological or conventional weapons need to detonate closer to the ground in order to be effective. The intelligence does not indicate whether the weapon the warhead is to hold is nuclear but the United States still considers the data the most important information it has on Iran, diplomats said. The intelligence, the existence of which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal in March, contains diagnostic test information on putting a package, a so-called black box, inside the cone of the medium-range Shahab-3 ballistic missile, a diplomat told AFP. It consists of extensive Farsi-language computer files and reports. US officials are confident the data is genuine, diplomats said, even though some analysts have criticized it as unreliable since it is believed to come from only one source. US officials in Vienna refused to comment on the matter. A diplomat said that, according to the briefings, Iranian research was done from 2001-2003 at a semi-government owned industrial group that works on the Shahab missile and which was on a project commissioned by the elite Revolutionary Guards military. The black box, actually a round container, is not identified as a nuclear warhead nor do blueprints show pits for uranium or plutonium, the two atomic bomb materials, but experts believe the package is meant to be atomic, diplomats said. The United States gave the briefing to IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei and his deputy director for international safeguards Ollie Heinonen in July and then to several nations, including Russia, China, India, South Africa, as well as Ghana and Mexico, which are on the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors, diplomats said. The briefings ahead of an IAEA board meeting in September were part of campaigning for a resolution that found Iran in non-compliance with international nuclear safeguards and could lead to referring Tehran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Non-proliferation expert Gary Samore, a former US White House official under then-President Bill Clinton, described the data as "basically computer calculations of different configurations for a warhead delivery." "I'm very confident that it's authentic," Samore said of the information, adding that it was "pretty clear that it was a nuclear warhead that was being designed." ElBaradei, whose IAEA has been investigating Iran since February 2003, says "the jury is still out" on whether there is a covert atomic weapons program. A Western diplomat said: "People are being careful because they have been burnt in the past," referring to faulty weapons intelligence about Iraq that was used to justify the US-led invasion of that country in March 2003. But Washington-based non-proliferation expert David Albright, a physicist and former UN weapons inspector, said: "From my own knowledge of the documents, it appears to be a first effort to develop a credible re-entry vehicle for a nuclear weapon." A diplomat said the program had the code-name Project 111. Drawings for the warhead showed "a set of bridge wires," used to detonate explosives arranged in a circle to drive material inwards, the diplomat said. Albright explained that this "very precise detonation of explosives creates a shock wave typically used to force a chain reaction in nuclear weapons." The IAEA is trying to get access to certain military sites in Iran, including the Parchin facility where high-explosives work is carried out, as well as interviews with key people like Mohsen Fakrizadeh, who may be the head of the alleged Project 111, a diplomat said. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Xinhua: Iran calls for negotiations, not threats to handle nuclear issue www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-09 03:23:49 TEHRAN, Oct. 8 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran on Saturday urged the European Union (EU) to pursue negotiations rather than threats on Iran's nuclear issue, expressing optimism over resumption of talks. "It would be reasonable for Iran and the EU to avoid any threatening approach toward the nuclear case and merely solve it through negotiations," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy chief of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told the official IRNA news agency. He said the two sides should find proper ways to solve the nuclear issue under the principle of removing international concerns over Iran's nuclear program and at the same time completely securing Iran's rights to peaceful nuclear technology, especially the right to build nuclear fuel cycle. "If the issue is solved through practical, rational, legal and technical ways, the positive outcome of such negotiations will be to the interest of Iran, Europe and the United States as well," Saeedi said. He urged the EU not to go extreme in nuclear talks with Iran, referring to the EU's attempt to refer Iran's case to the UN Security Council. "If Europe chooses to go extreme, Iran will have many options. But I hope that they would not take such a measure and that reasonable EU members will prevent the radical ones from extremist approach," he said. "If the dossier is to be referred to the UN Security Council, the harsh atmosphere expected to follow such a decision will neither be to our interest, nor to that of Europe," the official stressed. Saeedi said Iran hoped that the EU will not set prerequisite for the resumption of nuclear negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said that Iran had always underlined the importance of negotiations for resolving the nuclear dispute, expressing optimism about the resumption of talks with the EU. "Iran is optimistic about the nuclear talks, noting that the negotiations should be resumed on the logical subject of Iran's right to possess nuclear technology," Larijani told Iran's student news agency ISNA. But Larijani owed the deadlocked nuclear negotiations to the EU, saying Tehran was not responsible for the breakdown of the talks. The negotiator reiterated Iran's strong will to resist pressure exerted by the EU and the United States on the country's nuclear program. "No country can challenge the national will of a country and the national will of the Iranian nation will never be diverted. Iran has chosen a peaceful way to develop nuclear technology and will continue its efforts," Larijani said. Nuclear negotiations between Iran and the EU have been stalled since Iran resumed its uranium conversion work, a preparatory step toward uranium enrichment, in early August in defiance of EU warnings. As a result, Britain, France and Germany, the EU trio negotiating with Iran on behalf of the union, backed by the United States, threatened to resort to harsh measures to deal with Iran's nuclear program. On Sept. 22, the International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a EU-drafted resolution, urging Tehran to suspend enrichment-related activities before November and warning that its case will be referred to the UN Security Council. Iran has repeatedly stated that it will never re-suspend uranium conversion activities but expressed willingness at the same time to resume negotiations with the EU. The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons under the disguise of civilian program, a charge denied by Tehran. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, West Urged to Resume Nuclear Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday October 8, 2005 11:46 PM AP Photo XHS109 TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - An Iranian official said Saturday it would be in the interests of both Iran and the West to hold unconditional talks on resolving suspicions about Tehran's nuclear program. Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization, reiterated that Iran would not accept any conditions for resuming talks with the European Union that broke off in August, an allusion to demands that Iran again halt its uranium conversion operations. ``If the case could be settled through practical, logical, legal and technical solutions then the positive result of the negotiations will be in favor of Iran as well as Europe and the United States,'' Saeedi was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency. He added that talks were preferable to threats, an apparent reference to a recent resolution passed by the U.N. nuclear agency warning Iran it will be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions unless it allays fears about its nuclear program. Washington accuses Iran of trying to build atomic bombs - a charge Iran denies, saying its program is aimed only at producing electricity. Urged on by the EU, the International Atomic Energy Agency has called on Iran to halt uranium enrichment activities until it disproves the accusation. ``If Europe chooses a radical stance to confront Iran and refers the country to the Security Council, we will use our options,'' Saeedi said. Iran has threatened to block U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities unless the IAEA steps back. It also warns it could go beyond its resumed conversion of uranium into gas and start the next step in uranium enrichment, which produces material suitable for both nuclear reactor fuel in electricity generation and for atomic weapons. Saeedi said Iran hopes to resolve its case at the November meeting of the IAEA. The U.S. and EU want Iran to permanently stop enrichment as a confidence-building measure, something Tehran says it is not prepared to do. It rejected an EU offer of economic aid and a guaranteed supply of reactor fuel in return for scrapping its enrichment facilities. Talks with Britain, Germany and France, which negotiated on behalf of the 25-nation EU, broke off in early August after Iran resumed uranium conversion. Tehran had suspended such work under a November 2004 deal for holding talks with the European nations. Iran and the United States have been at odds over a number of issues, including Iran's involvement in Iraq. Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, on Saturday denied claims by President Bush that the Persian state is sheltering Islamic radicals, saying his country is committed to regional stability and security. Mottaki's comments, reported by state-run TV, were aired after Bush reiterated accusations Thursday that Iran and its ally Syria were harboring extremists wanting to undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq. Mottaki said Washington ``should learn from its loss of credibility in international public opinion on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and avoid intervening in domestic affairs of other countries.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 7 BBC: China deputy meets N Korea leader Last Updated: Sunday, 9 October 2005 [China's Vice-Premier Wu Yi is welcomed by North Korea's Kim Jong-il] China has said it hopes for progress in nuclear talks with North Korea Chinese Vice-Premier Wu Yi has been greeted by the North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang, at the start of a four-day visit to North Korea. Correspondents say talks are likely to focus on Pyongyang's nuclear programme. North Korea agreed at six-party talks in Beijing last month to abandon the programme in return for economic and security guarantees. But soon after, it said it would not scrap its nuclear deterrent until it was given a civilian nuclear reactor. Both Japan and the US have rejected Pyongyang's demand for a reactor. Personal message The visit by the high-ranking Chinese delegation is being seen as an attempt to push for further nuclear discussions, correspondents say. Announcing the trip last month, China's foreign ministry said Beijing would like to see more progress in the six-party talks. The next round of negotiations is due in November. CRISIS TIMELINE Oct 2002: US says North Kore is enriching uranium in violation of agreements Dec 2002: North Korea removes UN seals from Yongbyon nuclear reactor, expels inspectors Feb 2003: IAEA refers North Korea to UN Security Council Aug 2003: First round of six-nation talks begins in Beijing Feb 2005: Pyongyang says it has built nuclear weapons for self-defence Sep 2005: N Korea agrees to give up nuclear goals Timeline: China's chief nuclear negotiator, Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, is among the Chinese visitors. No details of Saturday's discussions in Pyongyang have been given, but the North Korean leader received a personal message from the Chinese President Hu Jintao. The Chinese delegation is expected to take part in celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the North's ruling Workers' Party on Monday. The nuclear dispute with Pyongyang began in late 2002, when the US accused North Korea of having a uranium-based nuclear arms programme, in violation of international agreements. Since then four rounds of nuclear talks - between Russia, China, Japan, the US, South and North Korea - have failed to end the dispute. ***************************************************************** 8 Korea Times: China Discusses Nuke Deal With N. Korea Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Reuben Staines Staff Reporter Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi, on a four-day visit to Pyongyang, met with reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong-il over the weekend for discussions that are believed to have included the Stalinist country¡¯s nuclear weapons programs. According to a report from the North¡¯s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Wu delivered a ``verbal personal message¡¯¡¯ from China¡¯s President Hu Jintao to Kim. The report did not indicate the contents of the message. The North Korean leader hosted the Chinese delegation for a dinner meeting that was also attended by Pyongyang¡¯s chief nuclear envoy, Kim Kye-gwan, the KCNA reported. The North Korean news agency described Wu¡¯s trip as an ``official goodwill visit,¡¯¡¯ noting that it coincides with the 60th anniversary of the founding of its powerful Workers¡¯ Party, which falls on Oct. 10. However, diplomatic sources said the visit was focused on the nuclear standoff, which is delicately poised following a tentative six-party denuclearization framework signed last month in Beijing. According to an unidentified diplomat quoted by Seoul¡¯s Yonhap News Agency, the Chinese official planned to urge North Korea to stick by the multilateral agreement and promised increased economic aid to its communist ally. China¡¯s Foreign Ministry confirmed the six-nation nuclear talks would be among the issues discussed during Wu¡¯s trip but offered few details. Some experts suggested Wu¡¯s message may also be a precursor to a long-rumored state visit to Pyongyang by the Chinese president. Wu arrived in the North on Saturday together with Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, Beijing¡¯s chief delegate to the six-party nuclear talks. The delegation reportedly met with several top North Korean officials and toured the Kumsusan Memorial Palace, where late founder Kim Il-sung¡¯s body is embalmed. The visit came as nations involved in the multilateral nuclear negotiations seek to step up diplomatic interactions ahead of the resumption of talks in November. Song Min-soon, South Korea¡¯s chief negotiator, is scheduled to visit the United States and China this month to prepare for the new round of talks. Officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Seoul said he will set off on Wednesday. Christopher Hill, the top U.S. delegate, is also planning to shuttle between Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo this month to consult on the nuclear standoff. rjs@koreatimes.co.kr 10-09-2005 17:47 ***************************************************************** 9 DenverPost.com: Energy answer blowing in the wind OPINION Article Launched: 10/09/2005 01:00:00 AM john stulp Across Colorado, consumers are feeling a painful pinch from rising energy prices. At the pump and the home thermostat, a double dose of skyrocketing gasoline and natural gas costs is delivering a powerful one-two punch. The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline in Colorado topped $3 earlier this month, according to the federal Energy Information Administration - up more than $1 per gallon from a year ago. Natural-gas prices are also on the rise and Colorado's utilities have said they expect the cost of heating homes to increase significantly this winter. Whether you are a metro Denver resident, or, like me, a wheat farmer in Prowers County, these rising expenses will burden all Coloradans with new economic challenges. But there is a long-term alternative to help offset some of these costs, one that's good for consumers, blowing in the wind. Across eastern Colorado, a steady wind sweeps the plains, and the opportunity to harvest it for clean, renewable energy is a growing reality for farmers and ranchers. The state's Office of Economic Development &International Trade estimates there are 6 million acres of potential wind resource lands in Colorado, mostly on the eastern plains. The time is right for seizing energy from the wind. In 2004, Colorado voters became the first in the nation to pass a statewide renewable energy requirement by referendum. Voter approval of Amendment 37 requires the state's largest utilities to provide 10 percent of their retail electricity sales through wind and other renewable energy by 2015. In addition, Congress recently extended the production tax credit for wind power projects. The credit kilowatt-hour benefit for the first 10 years of a facility's operation, and its extension to December 2007 is expected to give a significant boost to the U.S. wind market - including in Colorado, where companies are planning several large wind projects. Wind power won't solve all of today's energy problems, but it is already making a difference. Colorado has more than 220 megawatts of wind-generated power on its electricity grid. And wind turbines across the United States generate enough electricity to provide power for more than 4 million Americans. By 2020, wind power could supply at least 6 percent of the nation's electricity, according to industry estimates. Wind energy is also clean energy. It doesn't require mining or drilling, or generate radioactive waste and other pollutants. Further, the power generated by wind mitigates the pollution that would have been generated by a conventional coal or natural gas plant. Because it has no fuel costs (wind is free), wind energy costs are stable over time. Adding more wind power to our electricity mix will therefore stabilize the cost of electricity and help protect Coloradans from the dramatic fluctuations we have recently seen in prices for natural gas, oil and other resources used to generate electricity. Closer to home, wind energy can help bring economic revitalization to rural Colorado communities by helping diversify local economies that are largely reliant on agriculture. I know this from personal experience. In 2003, Colorado Green, a 162-megawatt wind project, was constructed in Prowers County. At that time, the area was back on its heels, fighting the effects of a lingering five-year drought. Main Street Lamar was in tough shape and the spirits of residents were down. It's hard to measure hope, but Colorado Green helped turn our community around. The project increased our county tax base by nearly 30 percent. It brought new jobs to town and new revenues to local businesses - particularly during the construction phase, when at its peak, the project employed nearly 400 people. Today, we have an alternative crop to harvest, as well as a new source of income for farmers and the communities they support. Wind power won't be the silver bullet for all of our energy needs, but it is a step in the right direction for Colorado and our nation. It's time to take steps to make wind power a greater portion of tomorrow's energy mix, so that we avoid the energy price spikes that plague us today. John Stulp is a farmer/rancher near Lamar. He is a former Prowers County commissioner and has also served on the Colorado Wildlife Commission, the State Board of Agriculture, and the Colorado Board of Land Commissioners. He is a partner in Prairie Wind Energy, a group of southeast Colorado landowners working to develop community wind projects. All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 10 The Boston Globe: Bottling the nuclear genie - By Anne Wu | October 9, 2005 DECADES AGO, the nuclear genie escaped from the bottle. Recently we learned that even Venezuela, which had sounded rebellious at the recent UN summit, is borrowing the tactic of North Korea and Iran by proposing to start research into peaceful use of nuclear energy. The problem of Pyongyang and Tehran exposes the paradox among the three pillars of nonproliferation strategy -- disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful use of nuclear energy. This year's UN summit failed to address the proliferation of nuclear weapons because UN members could not agree which pillar should be given the priority. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan describes this gap as a ''real disgrace." The world anticipates the ''haves" to be guards of the nonproliferation regime, but also expects them to lead by example by reducing their own nuclear arsenals and helping ''have-nots" to develop nuclear energy. It is no great wonder that Pyongyang demands denuclearization of the whole Korean Peninsula instead of unilateral denuclearization on the North and that Iran accused Washington of ''nuclear apartheid." The united front of Pyongyang and Tehran poses a greater challenge to the global nonproliferation regime. Though informal allies in their nuclear tug-of-war with the international community, North Korea and Iran are watching and following each other's step. They are drawing upon each other's strategies and lessons, and they are judging how the world's nuclear watchdogs plan to deal with them differently. Washington, which is in direct confrontation with Pyongyang and Tehran, will find it extremely difficult to maintain a consistent approach toward the two. The six-party talks agreement has made it clear that the provision of a light water reactor to Pyongyang would be discussed at a later stage. However, recognizing Pyongyang's right to a peaceful nuclear program will make Iran's demand irresistible. It's always hard to apply double standards. The inconvenience in nodding to Pyongyang will halt the denuclearization process on the Korean Peninsula, and delay the resolution of the Iran issue. Washington has to deal with the alliance in a consistent manner. Thanks to Beijing's efforts in leading the denuclearization talks, the North Korean nuclear issue has become more manageable. Washington also believed that, under the shepherd of its old brother Beijing, Pyongyang is unlikely to go astray. However, manageability does not mean that Washington can ease up on Pyongyang and play hardball against Teheran. Though agreement was inked to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula this September, how to implement the accord that affords equal importance to verifiable denuclearization and satisfying Pyongyang's security and energy concerns is the real daunting task ahead. Iran is watching and calculating the accord's mirror effect. Heavy-handedness with Iran will not end its nuclear program. President Ahmajinejad's tough position has expedited the referral of this issue to the UN Security Council for sanctions, warmed up by a resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board accusing Iran of noncompliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Similar IAEA procedures happened to Pyongyang in 2003, but went nowhere because China and Russia objected to sanctions. Iran has threatened to resort to enrichment program should Washington and its allies impose their wills. Whether Russia and China will grant the referral to the UN Security Council is still a question mark. Repeating strategies that failed on Pyongyang will be a dead end. Negotiations based on confidence-building, reciprocity, and compromise are the best strategy to dissolve the Pyongyang-Tehran alliance. The agreement on a peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is a welcome development and bears useful lessons for resolving the Iran issue. With the next round of North Korean denuclearization talks expected in November, the international community will have an opportunity to develop ''best practices" to put the nuclear genie in Pyongyang and Tehran and potential others back into the bottle. Anne Wu is a research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. [ /] © Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. More: ***************************************************************** 11 [smygo] Tomgram: Ira Chernus on Where Fear Can't Take Us Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:46:12 -0500 (CDT) Tomgram: Ira Chernus on Where Fear Can't Take Us This post can be found at: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=26377 A WORLD OF FEAR: By the end of 1953, the United States had close to 1,000 A-bombs, H-bombs, and "tactical" nuclear weapons. I was 9 years old. The effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had, by then, largely disappeared under a cloud of official secrecy, as had evidence of atomic dangers in the United States, where test blasts were already being set off with remarkable regularity. And yet in private dreams and popular culture, a lack of information about nuclear weapons and their effects, a lack of "realism," would only lead to a splurge of apocalyptic fantasies in which ever more bizarre, mutant futures were imagined, all of which put a deformed ending on anything resembling an American tale. In one of the great victor nations of World War II, children like me would huddle under school desks with test sirens howling outside and learn to live with a kind of triumphalist despair. Amid the stories of our fathers' triumphs, imagining ashes where there were burgeoning suburbs, we would try to adjust to and find thrills or excitement in, a strange new world of apocalyptic destruction; while at night, in our dreams, that mushroom cloud would rise again and again. And those world-ending dreams of ours couldn't have been more normal. After all, by the early 1950s, wakeful officials at the highest levels of our government -- in secret directives written only for each other -- were discussing a possible "global war of annihilation." In classified National Security Council documents, these men began to plan for the possibility that 100 atomic bombs landing on targets in the United States would kill or injure 22 million Americans, and that an American "blow" might result in the "complete destruction" of the Soviet Union. By 1960, American military and political leaders had signed off on the country's first Single Integrated Operational Plan or SIOP for the use of nuclear weaponry in war. It promised the delivery of over 3,200 nuclear weapons to 1,060 targets in the Communist world. Included among these targets were at least 130 cities which would then, if all went well from a war-making perspective, cease to exist. Official estimates of global casualties ran to 285 million dead and 40 million injured (and radiation effects may have been underestimated). Tens of millions of Chinese, for example, were guaranteed to die in any future superpower nuclear exchange, or U.S. first strike, even though China then had no nuclear weapons -- and even if China's leaders opted not to go to war with the United States. On October 22, 1962, President Kennedy appeared on nationwide television to tell Americans that the world was at the brink of destruction. "Unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on [the] imprisoned island [of Cuba]," he warned, informing us of a confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States, whose unthinkable possibilities were then being considered. "We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth," he said grimly, "but neither will we shrink from the risk at any time it must be faced." Neither will we shrink from the risk. I was 18 years old and at college when I heard Kennedy deliver his Cuban Missile Crisis speech. Like many Americans at that moment I thought I might be toast by morning; that my life, which (as far as I could tell) showed no sign of having begun, might well be over. Nothing could rally Americans for such a war, even if the Soviet Union had launched a first strike -- something that it was essentially incapable of doing at the time. After such an Alamo, there would be no Texas; after such a Pearl Harbor, no Hawaii (possibly, we feared, no planet). This was the world before George W. Bush, before the Soviet Union fell, before the post-Cold War "peace dividend" came and went without paying out a cent to any of us. This was the world of insecurity that underlay American prosperity, that so many of us grew up enmeshed in during those years when American politicians and military men were building a Pentagon-based national insecurity state. Today, young people are caught in a veritable grid of exterminatory possibilities, both real and fantastical -- and grim enough that nuclear weapons have to line up in a jostling queue of possibilities just to get their fifteen seconds of apocalyptic infamy. In the meantime, just beyond our sight, the Bush administration has been hard at work ramping up our nuclear forces. Plans are afoot to wield nuclear weapons "as just another item in the warfighting toolbox" for future "preventive" wars against powers our government merely thinks might be considering using chemical or biological weaponry against U.S. forces or our allies. (Check out the Greenpeace website for the latest Pentagon document on this. "Executing a nuclear option, or even a portion of an option," it reads, "should send a clear signal of United States' resolve. Hence, options must be selected very carefully and deliberately so that the attack can help ensure the adversary recognizes the 'signal' and should therefore not assume the United States has escalated to general nuclear war, although that perception cannot be guaranteed.") At the same time, Bush and his top officials managed to focus American fears -- well banked from all those decades of insecurity -- on a significant but non-exterminatory threat, that of terrorism, which made a mobilization for war possible. After this New York, there could be an Afghanistan, an Iraq, an... Below, Ira Chernus considers what it means for all of us, critics as well as supporters of this administration, to be caught in the coils of an insecurity state and of mobilizing fears. He offers a canny caution about what we need to consider as we try to head forward, or even as we try figure out which direction forward might be in. Tom Beyond the (In)Security State Where Fear Can't Take Us By Ira Chernus Who can deny it? It's an almost physical pleasure to watch George W. Bush's fall from grace. And it's so easy. All you have to do is say, "Bush has botched the war on terrorism. Bush is not keeping us safe from terrorists -- or from the terrors of nature." You've already got over half the country with you, and more are jumping on board the anti-Bush train every day. But before we settle in to ride that train to political glory, we ought to consider whether it can really take us to a better future. A recent TV ad from MoveOn.org sums up the commonest theme of the campaign to cripple, if not topple, the Bush presidency: "We're no safer today than we were four years ago." The rest of the case goes something like this (and who can deny its accuracy): We have good reason to be afraid. We're more vulnerable than ever to another attack on our soil, because the Bush administration is fighting the war on terrorism totally the wrong way. In fact, in Iraq it isn't really fighting the war on terrorism at all. In growing numbers, critics, even conservative ones, agree that the President's misadventure in Iraq has diverted us from the war we have to fight, the war against the real threat: Al Qaeda. At the huge DC peace rally, speakers denounced the war as a diversion from another pressing threat. "National security begins in New Orleans, homeland security begins at home," Jesse Jackson told the crowd. When real danger was upon us, the President's critics charged, you were busy doing something else. You failed in your solemn duty to protect us. How can we trust you to protect us in the future from the threats that we fear? One demonstrator's sign summed up the point succinctly: "Make levees, not war." Again, who can deny that making levees makes much more sense than sending more Louisiana National Guards to Iraq? But if we only hold back the peril we fear, and stop at that, we won't ever get real safety or security. Here's why: Hurricane Katrina has sealed the public image of Bush as a failure. He is, after all, a one-issue president. His success hinges completely on getting high marks in protecting us from danger. Now his big gamble -- turning the war on terror into a war on Iraq -- is backfiring big time. When the waters of Lake Pontchartrain washed away much of New Orleans, they also washed away most of Bush's "political capital." But he had already been losing plenty of that between the Tigris and Euphrates. The Bush administration still doesn't seem to get it. With hundreds of thousands descending on Washington to protest his war, the President could only repeat his stale old mantra: "will, resolve, character." With more of the same coming from the White House, we can pretty well count on a steadily weakening presidency -- unless there is another terrorist attack that kills a large number of Americans or destroys a symbol of American nationalism. The President's only chance to recoup would be a reprise of 9/11, sending another chill of fear up the spine of the body politic. Bush's success has always depended on the fear factor, on the prospect of threat without end. Fear does move public opinion. That's a lesson the anti-Bush forces have learned well. Their nemesis in the White House has turned out, in this way, to be their master teacher. They are using fear most effectively to bring down a presidency built on fear. It's a delicious irony. It's also a blessing, at least in the short run. A weakened presidency suffers on every front. The privatization of social security is moribund and will soon be pronounced dead on Capitol Hill. Chief Justice Roberts will be bad, but he may not be the Scalia clone that Bush promised his right-wing base. And when was the last time you heard the words "compassionate conservatism"? Though there is plenty to worry about under a weak Bush, it would have been far worse under a strong Bush. But what price will we pay for this blessing in the long run, if we purchase it with the currency of mounting public fear? The Price of Fear: Fear can be an energizing emotion. It can move us to fight or flight. But fear, when it becomes overwhelming, is more likely to paralyze -- think of the proverbial deer in the headlights. Long ago, in Hiroshima, psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton discovered that when there's too much fear, it curdles into despair. If threat seems to be everywhere, with no escape in sight, people stop trying to imagine how things could get better. In fact, it seems that they stop imagining anything at all, except more peril. Lifton called this condition "psychic numbing." His great insight was that the bomb didn't have to fall for this tragedy to befall us. In a sense, Hiroshima had already come to America. During all those Cold War years, when Americans lived under the shadow of superpower "mutual assured destruction" or MAD (as the madly accurate acronym of that moment had it), seeing no way out, psychic numbing took its toll. What historians often call the "national security state" has actually been a national insecurity state, based on the sort of numbing fear that was bound to make Americans more conservative, more fearful of change. The idea of a whole society working together to imagine a better world, and then turning imagination into reality, has been off the American radar screen for some six decades now (except for a brief ray of light in the 1960s). When it seems safer to allow no significant change at all, politics naturally becomes an exercise in circling the wagons and hunkering down for an endless siege. The 9/11 attack and the Bush-orchestrated response insured that the United States would continue to be a hunkered-down national insecurity state (and now a homeland insecurity state) well into the 21st century. All of us, supporters and critics alike, have absorbed this lesson. When we criticize Bush because he has failed to keep us safe, we score valuable political points. But we pay a price for those points, because we reinforce the basic premises of the national insecurity state -- that danger is everywhere and can never be eliminated; that all systemic change is dangerous; and that our best hope lies in a government strong enough and pugnacious enough to prevent significant change and so protect us from fear's worst effects. The urge to be safe, to keep fear at bay, is certainly natural and understandable. But after more than half a century in a state of heightened national insecurity, Americans have largely forgotten the other side of the human coin: the urge to be daring, to take chances that can lead to positive change. Insecurity is now in the national bloodstream. That's why anti-Bush campaigns that evoke fear can be so successful. To be successful in the longer term, though, we have to constrict that sense of insecurity, to return it to the more modest place where it belongs, until actual security comes into sight. Otherwise, no matter how much anti-Bush campaigns weaken the President, they end up reinforcing the pervasive insecurity that has been the key to his political success. They make it more likely that the public will want future leaders in the Bush mold, who demand "peace through strength." No flip-flops need apply. Securing a Politics of Hope: The human resource -- potentially so readily available -- that can help us break out of this cycle of fear and numbing is imagination. Imagine American political language and life no longer based simply on the question, "How can we be safe?", but on the question, "How can we make life better for all of us?" Imagine it for a little while, and you begin to realize that such a profound shift would give us the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to be really secure. Consider, for example, Class 5 hurricanes. It's a good idea to build stout levees, if they are just a first step. For real security, though, we have to move beyond fear to hope. We have to focus on the positive changes that will help everyone, even if there is never another great storm. We should reclaim wetlands -- nature's own buffer against flooding -- to create a stable environment where a myriad of species, including humans, can flourish creatively. We should support the decades-old local organizations in poor, stricken areas, the folks who know how to build vibrant communities in their own neighborhoods. We should take steps to cool down the Earth to make wetlands more stable, growing seasons more predictable, and harvests more bountiful. The prospect of really making things better gives people a reason to think and act together. It makes them feel empowered. Once set loose, hopeful attitudes and actions build on each other. That's when genuine change begins -- whether in relation to wetlands, poverty, global warming or any other issue, including the "war on terrorism." You hardly have to be as well educated as the average Al Qaeda activist (who, it turns out, is pretty well educated) to see that present American efforts to "make the world better" are mainly efforts to protect U.S. power and interests. The President and the power brokers can hide that truth behind a verbal smokescreen, using phrases like "protect America," "keep our nation safe," and "defend our homeland against foreign enemies." It's an easy rhetorical trick. Once you start talking the language of "protecting and defending," though, you're on your way into the land of self-fulfilling prophecies. To make the smokescreen work, the administration then has to turn everyone who disagrees into "the enemy." It's a natural next step to set out to destroy them, which, of course, turns them into genuine enemies. But suppose the U.S. had spent the last six decades letting other people decide what "a better world" means to them and then helping them achieve their own goals. That's so far from the pattern of our foreign policy that it takes a wrenching effort just to imagine. Try to make that effort; then ask what kind of "terrorist threat" we would have. There's no way to know for sure. But it seems a reasonable bet that we'd be a lot safer than we are today. It makes sense to join the liberal chorus of "end the war in Iraq so we can protect ourselves against terrorists" as long as it's just a first step, as long as we go on to say things like: "Instead of draining our national treasury for endless war, we demand that our tax dollars be used to repair the damage done to Iraq and to fund services in our communities." Those words, from the United for Peace and Justice website, echo the sentiment of hundreds of groups that are imagining a better future. Many demand that our tax dollars be used to fund services and repair damage all over the world. After all, that's actually the best way to begin to protect ourselves from danger. But even that won't work if we do it simply because we are scared. We'll never be safe if we make safety our ultimate goal. We'll be safe only if we let safety be a by-product of a society working together to improve life for everyone. The best way to be secure is to imagine a genuine politics of hope. Imagine. Unfortunately, when John Lennon said, "It's easy if you try," he was quite wrong. After six decades of our national insecurity state, it's incredibly hard. But it's an effort that anti-Bush forces ought to make. The alternative is, however inadvertently, to reinforce the politics of fear that Bush and his kind thrive on. The belief that danger is everywhere -- that we must have leaders whose great task is to keep us safe -- is the one great danger we really do need to protect ourselves against. ****************************************** Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He is the author of American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea, and is currently working on "Monsters to Destroy", a book about religion and the neoconservative war on terror. He can be reached at chernus@colorado.edu. Copyright 2005 Ira Chernus ***************************************************************** 12 Interfax: Belarus could not use strategic nuclear weapons in 1990s - expert Oct 9 2005 11:13AM MINSK. Oct 9 (Interfax) - In the 1990s, Belarus was incapable of using its strategic nuclear arsenal inherited from the former Soviet Union, a Belarussian military expert told Interfax on condition of anonymity. "The top military-political leadership was split in the 1990s over whether or not strategic nuclear weapons should be removed from Belarus. The final decision was to remove them to Russia," the expert said. But if strategic nuclear weapons had remained in Belarus, the Russian military-political leadership would have had the sole right to issue the order to use them, he said. Moscow alone exercised control over all Belarsusian forces equipped with nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons was not only under administrative limitations, but also under technical restriction with a high level of protection and reliability," the expert said. Former Belarussian Defense Minister Pyotr Chaus said the Belarussian leadership's decision to remove strategic nuclear weapons to Russia had been made in haste. "I and other military officials wanted to keep the Topol land-based strategic missile systems in Belarus. The Topol's were modern mobile complexes with a long service life. Ideal conditions had been created in Belarus for storing them," Chaus told Interfax. © 1991-2005 Interfax All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Nations Hail Project to Destroy Nuke Fuel From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday October 8, 2005 9:16 PM AP Photo MOSB113 By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA Associated Press Writer UST-KAMENOGORSK, Kazakhstan (AP) - Kazakh officials and U.S. nonproliferation experts on Saturday praised a $2 million joint project to eliminate tons of weapons-grade nuclear fuel that could be used to make dozens of atomic bombs. The project, being conducted at a once-top secret Soviet military facility, is considered a moderate victory for efforts to keep nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists - in a region where Islamic extremism is on the rise. ``Today, the most devastating threat is a terrorist attack with the use of nuclear weapons,'' said former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, a former Armed Services chairman who toured the Ulba Metal Plant on Saturday along with U.S. media mogul Ted Turner. Turner, who co-founded the Nuclear Threat Initiative with Nunn, decried the fact that the United States and Russia retain thousands of nuclear warheads and vast infrastructure for building, testing and maintaining the weaponry. The organization is a Washington-based nonprofit dedicated to reducing the threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. ``Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, it's crazy,'' Turner said. The nonprofit organization joined with the Kazakh nuclear industry to share the costs of the project in Ust-Kamenogorsk, about 560 miles east of the capital, Astana, amid growing fears that terror groups could use materials smuggled from poorly secured institutions to build a bomb. Those fears are heightened in former Soviet Central Asia, which borders Afghanistan and Iran and has seen the spread of Islamic radicalism since the 1991 Soviet collapse. By year's end, about 6,400 pounds of nuclear fuel containing highly enriched uranium - shipped to the Ulba plant last year from a mothballed Soviet-built nuclear reactor in western Kazakhstan - will be blended down so that it cannot be used to make bombs. The uranium, less than 5 percent enriched, will be used for fuel for civilian reactors. After donning protective white robes and masks, the U.S. delegation and journalists toured the plant, which used to make nuclear fuel for military purposes and was once one of the most secret Soviet facilities. Cameras from the International Atomic Energy Agency are monitoring the work, which began in 2002 and is now in its last stages. The facility, which includes two other production plants, is surrounded by a 2.5-meter (8 feet) concrete wall and security checkpoints. Security concerns prevented authorities from publicizing the project before now. The United States has been involved in projects to reduce the threat of having weapons material leak out of Kazakhstan and the rest of the former Soviet Union since the early 1990s. Kazakhstan had been a major production and test site for the Soviet military's nuclear program. It housed the world's fourth largest nuclear arsenal, including 1,410 nuclear warheads. Production stopped after 1991 and the entire arsenal was moved to Russia in 1995, but the country was left with tons of weapons-grade nuclear material, millions of tons of radioactive waste and large contaminated areas - all guarded poorly or not at all. The presence of unemployed, highly trained weapons scientists, along with lax border controls and economic decline further raised fears that nuclear material could end up in terrorists' hands. President Nursultan Nazarbayev praised the project, but also criticized the United States and Russia for not doing more to reduce their own nuclear arsenals. ``Some countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and modernize them. Other countries are banned from having them, even to do research,'' Nazarbayev said. ``It's wrong, disproportionate and unfair.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: MoD papers reveal Falklands nuclear fear Rob Evans and Richard Norton-Taylor Monday October 10, 2005 British commanders sailed into the Falklands war deeply concerned that the Argentinians could capture their nuclear weapons, previously secret official papers reveal. The documents also include a graphic description by Christopher Wreford-Brown, commander of the submarine Conqueror, of the controversial sinking of the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano with the loss of 321 lives. They show the naval taskforce was dispatched in such haste that there was no time to remove nuclear depth charges carried on seven Royal Navy ships. Two of the ships, Hermes and Invincible, carried 75% of the navy's entire stockpile of nuclear depth charges, the papers reveal. Article continues Offloading the weapons would have given the Argentinians more time to tighten their grip on the islands. But keeping them on board the ships was also dangerous. The papers show the extent of the concern. They say: "It was also conceivable that weapons might fall into the hands of the Argentines, by salvage, if one of the [Royal Navy] ships had been sunk, stranded or captured." They add: "However unlikely, the consequences of this would be most serious and the acquisition of UK nuclear weapon technology in this way by a state which had no such weapon would have damaging consequences." The papers include extracts from Cdr Wreford-Brown's personal log. "Orange fireball seen just aft of the centre of the target," he wrote after he torpedoed the Belgrano on May 2 1982. "Third explosion heard but not seen - I was not looking!" The previous day he recorded: "A good day - in contact with the Enemy at last!" The papers have been posted on the Ministry of Defence website, after the MoD earlier refused to release them to the Guardian and other newspapers under the Freedom of Information Act. The war cabinet agreed to change the rules of engagement to allow the sinking of the Belgrano, even though the cruiser was outside the total exclusion zone Britain imposed around the Falklands. Cdr Wreford-Brown sent a signal to London four hours before firing his torpedoes, saying that the cruiser had changed course, away from the islands. The signal was received by Vice-Admiral Peter Herbert, flag officer submarines, but it was not passed on to the MoD or to Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward, commander of the Falklands taskforce. Sir Lawrence Freedman, who has written an official history of the conflict, says Admiral Herbert believed the task force "had to take its chances when it could". [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 15 [NYTr] Robertson, VoA Play Up the Venezuela Nuke Reactor Story Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:30:35 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Voice of Amerikkka - Oct 9, 2005 http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-10-09-voa34.cfm Pat Robertson Says Chavez Poses a "Nuclear Threat" to US An American Christian minister who recently called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says the Venezuelan leader poses a nuclear threat to the United States. In August, television evangelist Pat Robertson made headlines when he suggested the United States assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez rather than watch the South American leader spread Marxist ideology throughout the region. Days later, Mr. Robertson apologized for the remarks. But appearing on CNN's Late Edition program, Mr. Robertson, a one-time Republican presidential aspirant, made new charges against President Chavez. "This man is setting up a Marxist-type dictatorship in Venezuela. He is trying to spread Marxism throughout South America. He is negotiating with the Iranians to get nuclear material, and he also sent $1.2 million in cash to Osama bin Laden right after [the terrorist attacks of] 9-11," said Mr. Robertson. Mr. Robertson declined to say how he had learned of the accusations he was making, saying only that he was passing along information he had received. But while repeating that he does not believe Mr. Chavez should be killed, he characterized the Venezuelan leader as a problem that should be dealt with. "One day we are going to be staring at nuclear weapons, and it will not be [Hurricane] Katrina facing New Orleans, it is going to be a Venezuelan nuke [weapon]. So my suggestion was, is it not a lot cheaper, sometimes, to deal with these problems before you have to have a big war?" he added. The Bush administration has denied any plan to remove President Chavez from power, and says that Mr. Robertson's comments in no way reflect U.S. policy. Venezuelan officials have described Mr. Robertson's August remarks as criminal and a form of terrorism. Venezuelan political analysts say Mr. Robertson's comments have played into the hands of Mr. Chavez, a self-avowed socialist who for years has accused the United States of plotting against him. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 16 GL: Nuclear power PR campaign debunked No Solution to Climate Change, nuclear power, Friends of the Earth, Jim Green, Alan Roberts, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, MAPW, Tilmin Ruff, greenhouse gas emissions, report, waste storage, energy production, renewable energy, radiation, nuclear war, global warming, nuclear reactors, BHP, superannuation funds, uranium mining, Martin Ferguson, Nuclear Free Australia, Anti-uranium Collective, Michaela Stubbs, Dimity Hawkins, Iran"> www.greenleft.org.au Takver, Melbourne Anti-nuclear activists have replied to advocates of nuclear power with a comprehensively damning report, “Nuclear power - no solution to climate change”. Fifty people attended the launch of the report at Northcote Town Hall on October 6, organised by Friends of the Earth. Speakers included the report’s author, Dr Jim Green; physicist Dr Alan Roberts; and the president of the Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW), Dr Tilmin Ruff. Green gave a comprehensive summary of the report and debunked the current marketing that nuclear power is a necessary method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report says that a doubling of nuclear power output by 2050 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by just 5%, while increasing the hazards of potential nuclear accidents, terrorism, nuclear proliferation and the still unsolved problem of waste storage. The report outlines that the solutions to greenhouse gas emissions from energy production lie in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, such as in wind, bio-energy, solar and tidal power. Green made the point that only one-third of greenhouse gas emissions come from power generation, with the majority caused by the burning of oil as petrol in automobiles. Roberts stated up front that he can’t see the nuclear energy campaign succeeding. He outlined the background to the nuclear industry public relations campaign, which started with background briefings to the media in Britain in May 2004. The campaign has several prominent public relations firms involved, and a former British minister for energy. The campaign has stressed that nuclear energy is needed for diversification of energy supply, and that nuclear power generation does not contribute any greenhouse gases. Roberts said this ignored the fact that substantial greenhouse gas emissions are caused in the total nuclear cycle - mining, extraction an d transportation of uranium, building reactors, transport of waste and decommissioning nuclear reactors. The nuclear industry does not want an open debate on nuclear power, according to Roberts. He told an anecdote of a chance meeting with a Uranium Information Bureau official several years ago, who told him: “We decided we would not engage in any debates. We found it counterproductive.” Ruff outlined the dangers of radiation, in the threat of nuclear terrorism and nuclear war, and said, “this is not a solution to global warming ... it delays us getting on with real solutions.” During discussion it was revealed that up to half the existing nuclear power reactors need decommissioning in the next 10 years. No foolproof solution has been found to the waste storage problem. Most high-level waste is currently stored on site with the nuclear reactors. With BHP now making up 7% of the Australian stock exchange, several ethical investment schemes have been reassessing their opposition to investment in companies involved with uranium mining, a member of the audience said. The questioner suggested that most people, as members of superannuation funds, should pressure their funds not to invest in companies involved in uranium mining, or to choose ethical funds explicitly opposed to uranium mining. The meeting was held in Northcote because the federal member for Batman, Labor’s Martin Ferguson, has been pushing very strongly for the expansion of uranium mining and export of uranium to China. Members of the audience called on Ferguson to publically debate uranium mining and nuclear power with his electors. It was announced that Nuclear Free Australia is having an anti-nuclear tour of the city on October 11, meeting at 12.30pm at the GPO in the Bourke Street Mall. The meeting wound up with a Friends of the Earth Anti-uranium Collective spokesperson Michaela Stubbs outlining some activities that people could do. The Anti-uranium Collective holds meetings at 312 Smith Street each Wednesday at 6.30pm. The meeting chair, Dimity Hawkins from MAPW, described an intriguing invitation from the US Consulate to MAPW to attend a briefing on how Iran is breaching non-proliferation conditions in their nuclear program. Something to ponder about in regard to preparing public relations for a possible US attack on Iran? “Nuclear power - no solution to climate change” is available at Http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm. For detailed information on nuclear waste, visit http://radwaste.org. Abridged from http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/96729.php. From Green Left Weekly, October 12, 2005. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW ***************************************************************** 17 Rockford Register Star: Byron nuclear plant assessment due October 8, 2005 Local News: Ogle County Exelon and county officials talk and wait for the new tax figure on the Ogle facility. By MELISSA WESTPHAL, Rockford Register Star BYRON -- Pricing a three-bedroom home in Ogle County is one thing. Assessing the value of a multimillion dollar nuclear plant -- one of only six in the state -- is a bit more involved. That's the challenge facing Jim Harrison, Ogle County's supervisor of assessments, this month as he calculates a value for the Exelon-owned plant south of Byron. Harrison's number-crunching is far from academic. Leaders of 11 taxing districts that rely on property taxes generated by the plant -- $25 million last year -- anxiously wait to see Harrison's figure. A seven-year agreement freezing the plant's assessment at $472 million expired this year. County officials want to negotiate another long-term deal with Exelon to avoid the haggling and lengthy court battle that preceded the last settlement. Members of the Ogle County Intergovernmental Agency met Friday to work on a game plan as they continue negotiations. If Harrison's new number is close to the current assessment, those 11 taxing districts will have ammunition in negotiations. If it's a lot lower, they'll be looking at bigger budget cuts. "If they don't come up with (a settlement) real soon, I'll send out my notice. It could be the same, it could be less, it could be higher. Somebody's not gonna like it," Harrison said. His assessment could be done as early as next week. But that doesn't mean it's final. Exelon and the taxing bodies can appeal the figure. At one point, the plant was worth nearly $1 billion. Harrison compares a number of factors for his assessment. For instance, he breaks down the assessment into dollars per kilovolts that other nuclear power plants produce. The Quad Cities Generating Station is $550 per kilovolt. In LaSalle County, it's $600 per kilovolt. Byron's is currently $1,200 per kilovolt. Comparisons are limited because some of the plants are older and have different equipment. Harrison said Byron's plant is considered the flagship of Exelon's fleet. He also looks at sales of other plants and the cost of building a new plant. Harrison added that Ogle County has had a particularly tough time with the Byron plant's reassessment because there's not a lot of other commercial or industrial property to boost the tax base. Residential real estate generally increases in value while industrial property typically depreciates. "So when the governments take a big hit, it's a big deal," Harrison said. "It's a double-edged sword. It's nice to have a big, stable property in the tax base like the plant, but on the other hand, when something happens, it's big." All officials will say about the proposal is that it lowers the plant's assessment. The dollar amount is being negotiated with Exelon. Former Byron Fire Chief Steve Walters said it's difficult to compare this round of negotiations to the ones that took place seven years ago. He said officials are working in a more deregulated market, and the task of figuring the plant's assessment is based on fair-market value rather than cost-less appreciation. "There's no correlating what's going to happen with what happened before," Walters said. "Every district has to weigh their options. There's a lot more dollars at stake at Exelon with this plant. "We need the predictability, because there are so many dollars at stake." Walters retired as fire chief last week and was replaced Friday on the intergovernmental agency by acting Chief Mike Lewis. New Byron Superintendent Margaret Fostiak became the group's new chairwoman, and Ogle County Treasurer John Coffman joined the group. Contact: mwestpha@registerstartower.com; 815-987-1352 Exelon nuclear plants Braidwood Generating Station + Site: Braceville, Will County + Commercial service: Units 1 and 2 started in 1988 + Power generation: Each unit can produce 1,200 net megawatts + Local real estate taxes: $ 18 million a year Byron Generating Station + Site: Byron, Ogle County + Commercial service: Unit 1 started in 1985; Unit 2 in 1987 + Power generation: Each unit can produce 1,200 net megawatts + Local real estate taxes: $25 million a year Clinton Power Station + Site: Clinton, DeWitt County + Commercial service: Started in 1987 + Power generation: 1,017 net megawatts + Local real estate taxes: $9.2 million a year Dresden Generating Station + Site: Morris, Grundy County + Commercial service: Unit 1 started in 1960, retired 19 years later; Unit 2 in 1970 and Unit 3 in 1971 + Power generation: Units 2 and 3 each have a 912 net megawatt capacity + Local real estate taxes: $10 million a year LaSalle County Generating Station + Site: Brookfield Township, LaSalle County + Commercial service: Unit 1 started in 1982; Unit 2 in 1984 + Power generation: Each unit can generate 1,140 net megawatts + Local real estate taxes: $15 million a year Quad Cities Generating Station + Site: Cordova, Whiteside County + Commercial service: Units 1 and 2 started in 1973 + Power generation: Each unit can generate 912 net megawatts + Local real estate taxes: $4 million a year Source: Exelon corporate Web site Copyright © 2005 Rockford Register Star. ***************************************************************** 18 thedesertsun.com: Is there a role for nuclear power? Morris R. Beschloss Special to The Desert Sun October 9, 2005 In the context of increasing concern over energy availability, many observers are confused about the role that nuclear power can play in resolving ongoing shortages. With the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear malfunction still weighing heavily on the collective memories of American consumers, the nuclear option has not engendered public confidence. In fact it creates fear, in spite of the fact that leading industrial nations gain much of their electrical power from nuclear-powered generators. A major misconception lies in the fact that nuclear energy is strictly a powering element for electric generation, and has nothing to do with America's widening gap of supply/demand in our mammoth automotive industry. Nuclear power has been a veritable godsend for such natural resource-poor nations as France, which would otherwise have to delve into their short supplies of oil, natural gas and imported coal to power their domestic electrical industry. Three-fourths of France's electric power today is supplied by nuclear energy. Even China, which sits on one of the world's largest coal repositories, is aggressively expanding its nuclear power base as its consumer sector grows exponentially. Although the recently signed U.S. energy bill boasts about facilitating the re-emergence of America's domestic nuclear sector, it will barely do so, or lessen our nation's dependence on fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal derivatives). Since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 traumatized the U.S. against further nuclear transmission generator startups, there has, however, been no slackening in the powering elements needed to drive the nation's electrical generating infrastructure. In the 26 years since 1979, the nuclear void was originally filled by oil, natural gas and coal. Since oil has become out of reach price-wise, as has natural gas, the slack has been taken up almost exclusively by coal. The emergence of coal as the overabundant powering element in America's electric generation industry is enabled by three salient factors: The U.S., along with China, harbors the largest coal reserves in the world. At the present rate of usage, it would take 300 years to exhaust available supplies. The increasingly environment-friendly conversion that coal has undergone in the last 25 years. This "cleanup" is still in the process of evolution. The competitive cost factor that coal brings to the table. It currently exceeds natural gas costs by a mile and is replacing fossil fuels as fast as possible. Even so, nuclear power continues to remain a significant part of the overall power generating mix. Although building of new nuclear generators came to a halt in the early '80s, most of those in service have continued to operate. With minimal publicity, many of them were upgraded, repaired and made more efficient. Despite the continued opposition by environmentalists and the near melt-down of the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe in the Soviet Union, it is expected that a more environmentally acceptable and cost effective unit should be on line by 2015, with construction targeted to begin by 2010. It is estimated that the cost of today's units are many times those of 25 years ago. Construction time is five years at best. The energy bill's relaxed insurance provisions will facilitate the inevitable risk taking by the new project's investors. But like the badly needed oil refining capacity, nuclear utilization will also have to stand the test of profitability. Unlike every other one of the world's nations utilizing nuclear power, American nuclear power stations are not subsidized by the government and must be able to function profitably in the private business sector. ***************************************************************** 19 WP: The Debate: Global Warming: Is Nuclear Energy the Answer? Every March 28, I celebrate day. I was in Baltimore on that day in 1979, less than 100 miles from the nuclear power plant as it teetered on the edge of catastrophic failure, and the anniversary of that day always reminds me of just how close we came to our very own Chernobyl. In truth, nuclear power fascinates me, even given the risks involved. Could nuclear power be the way -- at least partly -- to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? And, consequently, could it help in the fight against climate change? Mark Hertsgaard, author of Nuclear Inc., argues that no, nuclear energy . "The truth is that nuclear power is a weakling in combatting global warming," he says. And that's not because of the safety concerns, but rather the economic ones. Construction of plants is subsidized heavily by the government, as it would have to be given the astronomical cost and the decade or so it takes to get each plant running. Another problem, he says, is that nuclear power plants produce only electricity, which is just a third of our energy usage. It doesn't make a dent in bigger pollution problems like automobile exhaust. Energy efficiency, he argues, is far more cost effective and makes a bigger impact in less time. Aussie blogger also takes note of the high cost of nuclear -- it might be cleaner emissions-wise, but it's still much more expensive than coal or gas. Glen of the points out that nuclear power production "does release carbon dioxide -- albeit at lower levels than other energy sources." Beyond that, he's surprised nuclear energy is being discussed as a viable option when the waste disposal question has not been adequately resolved. In The Commons blog quotes a letter published in the Financial Times that reads, in part, "Contrary to popular misconceptions, nuclear power is safe, environmentally benign and sustainable for many thousands of years." Nuclear power is safe if done correctly and with the utmost care, and sure, it's definitely sustainable. But environmentally benign? How is burying highly toxic, radioactive nuclear waste that takes 50 to 1000 years to degrade just by half environmentally benign? published on the City University of New York's Web site explains that "one has to plan storage and protection for the public on a time-scale of thousands of years. We cannot be very confidant [sic] about guaranteeing this protection reliably. ...Isotopes with intermediate half-lives (say from 10 to 100 years), need only be secured on a time-scale of a few hundred years, although they are likely to be more intense." This in National Geographic offers a glimpse of the scale of the nuclear waste storage problem. (Sorry, a subscription is required to read the whole thing.) For more information on nuclear waste, the and the are good starting points. So what's the solution? Australian columnist invites the world to dump it's nuclear waste in his backyard. "Australia could easily store nuclear waste from the rest of the world because it has the space to safely warehouse such material in a stable geological surrounding," he writes, summarizing the argument made by former prime minister Bob Hawke. Furthermore, he says, "As Australia is home to about 40 percent of the world's uranium reserves it even makes some moral sense for Australia to have a role in the safe disposal of nuclear waste." (Memo to my Australian mother-in-law: Sorry! I promise we'll still come visit you even if your country is turned into one giant site.) Alex Scoble, posting in the blog back in June, went off topic to wax eloquent about the necessity of nuclear power. His solution to both high oil prices and global warming from the combustion of fossil fuels is to build more nuclear power plants. In A Musing Environment, blogs about a recent poll suggesting that such support for increasing the use of nuclear energy is on the rise. She's dismayed, though, that "2/3 believe that conservation is not as important as developing new energy sources, a misunderstanding that all of us need to confront." By Emily Messner | October 4, 2005; 10:37 AM ET | Why don't I ever see anyone examine the French solution to the energy mix? I believe they have over three-quarters of their energy generation in nuclear. And they have avoided Chernobyl-like problems. Doesn't it suggest that there are correct ways to do it? Posted by: benwells0@yahoo.com | Oct 4, 2005 4:52:26 PM Nuclear energy....SIGH. I live in the area where the last nuclear reactor in the US was built. Back in the late 1990's a water testing site picked up radioactive material in the well water it was monitoring -- from MILES away. Then last year of a potential crisis with the fuel rods. >:( Compound that with personel problems (like what was cited locally of a supervisor in HIRING was caught being a drug abuser), and how shoddy the construction was (it wasn't so uncommon that contractors, to extend their contracts, to sabotage gauges and more to keep their coffers full), I can't see the appeal of nuclear energy. It's just not the radioactive waste folks have to worry about, it's the whole package. On top of it all is, all that money spent by local taxpayers and power customers goes to fund/fuel out of state energy buyers. This reactor here fuels TEXAS, even though we in GA paid for it. >:( No, you don't need blog reports or Think Tank analysis about the pros and cons of nuclear power, you just need to read the day-to-day reports of a local nuclear plant to understand the headaches such reactors brings. Here's some various news reports about the mishaps and problems of having a nuclear power plant... First keep tabs on the whole industry's safety report card... Thought Three Island was bad? Ever heard of this (I doubt it!)... "In 1990, as a result of diesel generator failures, Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia was within hours of a meltdown. On March 20, 1990, a truck accident at the plant caused a loss of offsite power.39 (APPENDIX E) Each reactor is required to have two emergency diesel generators that restore power in case of such an emergency. However, there was only one functional diesel generator at the reactor, the second generator was being fixed at the time of the accident. The functioning generator failed to perform its intended safety function for thirty-six minutes after the plant lost offsite power. During the time that Vogtle Unit 1 was without power, the temperature of the reactor coolant system rose significantly (46 degrees Farenheit in 36 minutes) and was on its way toward meltdown.40" And the treatment of whistleblowers by the same company that seeks 2 more reactors at Vogtle today ("Silkwood" wasn't just a movie ya know?)... "These violations are of very significant regulatory concern because they involved acts of discrimination by senior corporate management. The NRC places a high value on the freedom provided to nuclear industry employees to raise potential safety concerns to licensee management or to the NRC. Section 210 (now 211) of the Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.7 establish strict requirements for the protection of employees against discrimination for raising nuclear safety issues and the NRC Enforcement Policy calls for significant enforcement action in cases where senior corporate management violate these requirements. Therefore, these violations have been categorized in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, at Severity Level I." Is the MSM asleep at the wheel again? SandyK Posted by: SandyK | Oct 4, 2005 5:52:55 PM Benwells0, Some folks already dissected why the French love nuclear power (which ironically the technology came from the US, the French threw up their hands at building their own -- extremely ironic for such a "French First" society)... And a little bit about why they are so loving to nuclear energy... "For example, while French citizens cannot control nuclear technology anymore than Americans, the fact that they trust the technocrats that do control it makes them feel more secure. Then there is need. Most French people know that life would be very difficult without nuclear energy. Because they need nuclear power more than us, they fear it less." Americans are too free spirited to take any group's POV as gospel, be that they're physicists or hold a degree in medicine. Since we also distrust the government (even far left Liberals don't trust their government) we look at nuclear energy with great suspicion (especially when we read of safety violations and the same level of red tape that goes with nuclear regulation -- French love red tape). So no, the energy answer isn't with nuclear energy (at least not in it's current form). What IS an answer is to gather background radiation and use it instead (abundant and it's everywhere). :) Posted by: SandyK | Oct 5, 2005 12:14:45 AM There is no clean answer to our energy-pollution problem, save for the holy grail of fusion. Nevertheless, the only viable argument against nuclear fission power is the waste/contamination issue. Hertsgaard's high cost for nuclear is limited to the capital building cost, but how many years do we average this over? He tellingly doesn't say. And conservation isn't mutually exclusive with fission power. In fact, the high cost he ascribes to nuclear would be the very thing to motivate conservation expense. Then you would, in fact, seriously dent the carbon problem, because those nuclear plants could then enable electric or fuel cell vehicles. In any case, conservation isn't a source of energy; it's worthwhile, but it just postpones fossil fuel exhaustion. Equally, the uranium supply problems mentioned in some of the other citations aren't real either. It can be captured from the ocean, and there are reactor designs capable of using U-238 or thorium. But the waste problem presents us with a true dilemma, if we are certain of catastrophic global warming effects. Ackerman's offer of dumping everything in Australia is well received: better to heavily pollute one, infertile area than less heavily pollute so many fertile ones. And that still assumes everyone behaves responsibly at the plants, as SandyK points out. Posted by: Eric | Oct 5, 2005 12:49:58 AM What is needed is a multi-pronged approach. For electricity, nuclear is not the full answer, not only are there safey concerns, but it is still natural resource based. Some day we will fight wars over plutonium and uranium. As for fuel for cars, biofuels seem to make the most transitional sense. They can be grown on our soil, refined on our soil, generate few environmentally damaging by products (if any), they are carbon neutral (the plants consume any CO2 produced by combustion), and they can be used in almost every car on the road today with few modifications. Biodfuels are certainly an alternative that with some tweakage of refining capacity would be an enormous dent to oil consumption. More here: Posted by: media in trouble | Oct 5, 2005 11:33:49 AM uuuuhhhhhh....... Posted by: george | Oct 5, 2005 8:12:37 PM Mark Hertsgaard says that nuclear power plants produce only electricity, which is just a third of our energy usage. It doesn't make a dent in bigger pollution problems like automobile exhaust. Without making a statement pro or con Nuclear Energy, I would say that of all the forms of Energy, Electricity is the easiest to convert to other forms. The electricity produced by NPower can be used to charge batteries, which can be used to run our automobiles, especially for inner city use, where most of the pollution usually occurs. Posted by: Krishna | Oct 7, 2005 11:30:36 AM The Frence are simply pragmatic. No coal, no oil, no choice. Works great for them! Posted by: Larry Harmon | Oct 8, 2005 10:03:59 AM + © 2005 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 20 York Daily Record: Nuclear energy: ‘The other white meat’ - [ydr.com] [York Daily Record/Sunday News] ERIC J. EPSTEIN Sunday, October 9, 2005 Federal legislation recently passed by Congress spells the demise of the free enterprise system as a means to address our energy problems. Remember when Republicans were welded to the notion that entrepreneurs should decide what constitutes the most prudent investment? Wasn’t it yesterday that conservatives proclaimed that the market is best suited to determine what technology should move America forward? Turns out that politicians know what’s best after all. Welcome to this century’s version of corporate socialism. The “new energy policy” failed to increase mileage standards, did nothing to decrease fossil emissions, and gambled the nation’s energy security on rusted technologies. The legislation provided massive subsidies and tax-credits to energy companies, but eased export restrictions on bomb-grade uranium. The energy bill was the right bill for the wrong century. The legislation revisits failed solutions from the 20th century with financial giveaways not seen since the great railroad plunders of the 19th century. Tom DeLay was able to squirrel away $1.5 billion for an energy center in his home district without public debate. In short, Congress has made nuclear power the “other white meat.” The energy industry is enjoying record profits, yet nuclear companies will be guaranteed $2 billion in federal insurance to cover construction delays caused by court challenges or anything outside “normal business risks.” “Incentives” in the energy bill include $1.6 billion for research and development of nuclear power. Since the establishment of the Department of Energy in 1978, more than $20 billion of taxpayer money has been spent on nuclear power research and development. The legislation commits up to $5.7 billion in tax credits for the first six nuclear reactors to be built. But wait, it gets better. Exelon, Entergy, Constellation and Florida Power &Light are entitled to unlimited loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of new reactors. There is considerable exposure for Joe Q. Taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office considers the risk of default on government nuclear plant loan guarantees “to be very high — well above 50 percent.” In a report issued on May 7, the CBO concluded the risk of default by private companies comes from the expectation that a new nuclear plant “would be uneconomic to operate because of high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources.” Federal welfare is separate from the state windfalls Pennsylvania nuclear plants received after deregulation. Exelon and PPL gobbled up over $9.5 billion in stranded costs primarily associated with the construction of nuclear power plants at Limerick and Berwick. “While homeowners are paying an average of 30 percent more than they did in 1997, Exelon, Pennsylvania Power &Light, and the other major electric utility companies in the state are paying 85 percent less in taxes on their plants, down from about $120 million annually to about $20 million (Philadelphia Inquirer, July 13, 2003). Does the nuclear industry really need additional subsidies? Perhaps the answer lies in an essay penned by the Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren on May 18, 2001, the day after president Bush unveiled his energy plan. “Aren’t conservatives supposed to be skeptical about having the federal government pick winners and losers in the marketplace?” In the final analysis, the nuclear industry is purely a creature of government. The administration needs to practice the free-market rhetoric that it preaches and put away its nuclear pompoms. Eric J. Epstein is Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert Inc., a safe-energy organization based in Harrisburg and founded in 1977. TMIA monitors Peach Bottom, Susquehanna and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations. Copyright © York Daily Record 2005 122 S. George St., P.O. Box 15122 York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000 ***************************************************************** 21 St. Petersburg Times: Nuclear plant idea has support As Progress Energy considers putting a second plant in Crystal River, local officials warm up the welcome mat. By CATHERINE E. SHOICHET Published October 9, 2005 CRYSTAL RIVER - When describing the benefits of nuclear energy, Progress Energy officials point to the company's Crystal River complex with pride. The nuclear reactor there has been pumping power into Florida homes since 1977. Last year, it generated more electricity than it had ever generated in a single year - 7.303-billion kilowatt hours, with the lowest fuel cost of any plant in the Progress Energy Florida system. Now, as Progress Energy officials look to support the state's burgeoning population and combat rising fuel prices, they are considering constructing another nuclear power plant in Florida. And they say the Crystal River complex is on a list of possible sites for a new plant. Progress Energy plans to pick a site by the end of the year. Construction could start in five years, with the plant beginning operation as early as 2015. Most major national environmental groups strongly oppose nuclear power. But county and city officials, who first heard that another nuclear plant may be on the way at a briefing with Progress Energy brass last month, responded happily to the news. They say they plan to do whatever they can to let Progress Energy officials know that Citrus County is an ideal location to build. "We have the access to the water, which you need for a nuclear plant. We also are situated in an area where there appears to be ample land there for it. I'm hoping that some of those things work to Citrus County's advantage," County Commission Chairwoman Vicki Phillips said. "We would be delighted to have another nuclear plant here." Crystal River City Council member Susan Kirk said city officials will likely discuss ways to formally show their support of Progress Energy's possible expansion at an upcoming meeting. Inverness City Council members discussed the benefits of another nuclear power plant at a meeting last week. County Commissioner Joyce Valentino said the thought of another plant is not only a delight, but also a relief. For the past five or six years, she said, rumors have flown around about Progress Energy pulling out of Citrus. "With them seriously thinking about expanding in Citrus County, that puts us at ease," she said. At the briefing, Progress Energy officials also said they intended to renew the current Crystal River nuclear plant's license, which expires in 2016, at least until 2036. The company is the county's largest taxpayer and its largest private sector employer. A new plant would bring something Citrus County's economy desperately needs: more high-wage jobs. "Their wage levels are very good, because they have such technically skilled people," Economic Development Council director Brett Wattles said. * * * Progress Energy, then known as Florida Power Corp., began operations at the Crystal River nuclear plant on March 13, 1977. At that time, Citrus County's population was about 38,500, according to the 1978 Florida Statistical Abstract. And construction of the plant - which took 10 years, 110,000 cubic yards of concrete and 13,800 tons of steel - met with little protest outside of environmental objections at public hearings. Since then, Citrus' population has more than tripled. The Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida estimates that about 132,600 people live here. Land once covered by orange groves and cow pastures is giving way to shopping centers and gated communities. But still, local opposition to nuclear power remains faint at best. "The county and the city look at it as, oh, there will be all this big construction and lots of jobs. And we already have one here so it's not going to drive people away who don't want to live near nuke plants," said Helen Spivey, a former Crystal River City Council member who previously opposed Progress Energy's construction of two coal-fired plants at the Crystal River complex. "But I just have no desire to glow in the dark." Spivey said she is particularly worried that spent radioactive fuel cells from the plant are housed on-site. "It's like the universal solvent. If you haven't got anything you can put it in, why generate more?" Frank Jackalone, senior regional representative for the Sierra Club, said storing nuclear waste on-site is dangerous. "The reason they built that plant at Crystal River as opposed to on Tampa Bay is because that area had been sparsely populated," he said. "Now that a lot of people are moving into Hernando and Citrus counties, the threats to the growing community in those areas are real." County officials, he said, should be less concerned about economic development and more concerned about protecting the environment. "Do they want to follow the road of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties and be completely built out, destroying the environment in the process?" Jackalone said. But Progress Energy officials say the spent cells stored on-site pose no safety risks. Furthermore, the plant is amply protected against meltdown, hurricanes and terrorist attacks, they say. And local government officials - many of whom went on a bus tour of the plant after the briefing last month - agree. "It's protected as if it were Fort Knox," Inverness City Council member Sophia Diaz-Fonseca said. "If they do get another plant, I'm very assured that they would take as good or better care of it as the one they're taking care of now. I think they're doing a real good job." Local officials say they're also not worried about the environmental impact of building a new plant. "They've already been through all the environmental issues," Crystal River Mayor Ron Kitchen said. * * * In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times last week, Progress Florida president and chief executive Bill Habermeyer said that although the Crystal River site is an attractive possibility, it also has some disadvantages. The complex already includes four large coal-fired generating units producing more than 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Adding a second nuclear reactor to the site, he said, would be "putting a lot of generation at one location." But at the briefing, Progress Energy senior vice president and chief nuclear officer C.S. "Scotty" Hinnant said that "existing nuclear plant sites do have some desirable features," noting that Progress Energy already has a good relationship with the communities surrounding its existing plants. "It would be perfectly logical to me if they did go forward at a site where they already have plants," said Brendan Hoffman, campaign organizer for Public Citizen's energy program. "People don't see it as breaking new ground. Everybody is already used to living near a nuclear plant . . . but that's not to say there are not other options that would be more beneficial." Hoffman said energy company and government officials should focus on cheaper, more environmentally friendly sources of energy, like solar or wind power. But Jim Bierly, president of the Citrus County Audubon Society, said nuclear power is a cheap and safe solution. "I think the whole country ought to go with nuclear power rather than with fossil fuels," he said. "Most people just don't understand it really." Catherine E. Shoichet can be reached at or 860-7309. Times researcher Mary Mellstrom and Times staff writers Louis Hau, Abbie VanSickle and Lucy Morgan contributed to this report. [Last modified October 9, 2005, 01:08:18] © 2005 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 | | ***************************************************************** 22 Las Vegas SUN: Terrorism on track? Photo: Train Today: October 09, 2005 at 10:38:31 PDT Las Vegas urged to ban hazardous materials on rail cars By Benjamin Grove Sun Washington Bureau Chief WASHINGTON -- Las Vegas and a handful of other "target cities" are sitting on a terrorist threat -- hazardous material shipments -- that could be a far more immediate risk than nuclear waste transports, a leading environmental consultant says. Fred Millar said Las Vegas, as an entertainment capital, should pursue a "hazmat" transport ban similar to one in Washington, D.C., which is in the middle of a ground-breaking legal fight to prohibit the shipping of certain materials within 2.2 miles of the U.S. Capitol. "The point is to find out how you reduce the terrorist risk," said Millar, who consults for the District of Columbia on the issue. "Getting these materials out of town is a no-brainer." Millar was in Las Vegas last week meeting with local officials to urge them to join the fight. Four other cities -- Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland and Chicago -- have introduced ordinances banning some hazardous waste shipments, but the District of Columbia is the first to pass one. In Las Vegas, Union Pacific's rail line runs parallel to the Strip, about a half mile west, and the concern about rail cars with hazardous waste isn't new. On Dec. 31, 2003, a Federal Railroad Administration inspector came to Nevada because of what was then a "credible terrorist threat" and found six unattended tank cars intended for chlorine gas 13 miles southwest of McCarran International Airport and four unattended tank cars at Union Pacific's Henderson rail yard north of Interstate 215 and west of Stephanie Street. Las Vegas officials have fought to keep nuclear waste out of the valley -- the city has an ordinance and Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman has pledged to stand in front of any truck carrying waste -- but Millar said hazardous material is as much a threat. "My position to them is: You have city officials saying they are going to stop nuclear waste, but you won't stop chlorine?" said Millar, who was paid by the Clark County Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee to brief its government, university and citizen members. Millar advised them to act now as a show of political mettle and to build credibility for potential future fights over nuclear waste shipments. He is pushing the city to pass an ordinance modeled on the ordinances in the other cities that ban from certain urban areas four classes of hazardous shipments: toxic gases; toxic liquids and solids; and the highest classes of both explosives and flammables. That would include chlorine, nearly all of which is shipped by rail because it is safer than highways. Millar said the explosion of one chlorine tanker could kill thousands and create a deadly cloud that would stretch for miles. Millar told city officials that Las Vegas was not "safe enough." Goodman said he wasn't shrinking from any fight. He said he was interested in expanding the city ordinance that bars high-level nuclear waste from traveling through the city to include other forms of highly hazardous material. The question is if such a law would be enforceable or even legal. Las Vegas City Manager Doug Selby said an ordinance like the one Millar was pitching might be similar to one torpedoed about 20 years ago. He said he wants to investigate that and then bring the matter to the City Council. In 1985 or 1986, the Council adopted an ordinance that required special city permits be obtained by those transporting hazardous materials through the city, said Val Steed, a chief deputy city attorney. That ordinance was challenged in federal court by Union Pacific, and in 1989 a federal judge issued an injunction in the railroad company's favor, Steed said. Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury said that while the commission is always looking for strategies to keep the public safe, local officials likely would have to prove there were viable alternative routes in order for any new ordinance to hold up in court. Rail industry officials have argued that nearly two centuries ago the nation set out to construct railroads that linked cities -- and now critics are impossibly suggesting they go around them. Rail officials say that re-routing shipments would create massive new costs and logistical problems. They also argue that it would increase safety risks by increasing handling and lengthening transportation times and distances. Rail officials also are quick to note that local ordinances banning local shipments are not constitutional. The Constitution's commerce clause gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce and local shipping restrictions are prohibited, rail officials argue. The nation relies on its current safe, efficient shipments of hazmats like chlorine, Association of American Railroads spokesman Tom White said. Hazardous material shipping bans in the nation's most populous cities would effectively grind the nation to a halt, White said. "The net result would be to make it impossible to ship these products," White said. Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis said there has not been any recent study of the potential cost and logistical challenges that would be involved in either shipping material on alternate Western routes to avoid Las Vegas, or in constructing a bypass track around the city. Those costs likely would be paid by local or state governments, he said. Millar acknowledges that it would not be easy to ship certain materials around Las Vegas. Still, rail companies routinely re-route certain materials for various reasons, he said. Millar said there are at least three alternate rail routes and four major highway routes that would keep hazardous materials out of Las Vegas. That would route them near other cities, but not cities with such a high value to terrorists, he said. "This is hardly a radical idea," he said. Editor's note: Sun reporter Dan Kulin contributed to this story. Benjamin Grove is the Sun's Washington bureau chief. He can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or by e-mail at grove@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 Guardian Unlimited: New Project Aims to Eliminate Nuclear Fuel From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday October 8, 2005 11:01 AM By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA Associated Press Writer UST-KAMENOGORSK, Kazakhstan (AP) - A U.S.-based nonproliferation group and Kazakh officials on Saturday unveiled a project to eliminate about tons of weapons-grade nuclear fuel which could be used to make some two dozen atomic bombs. The $2 million project is part of nonproliferation efforts have taken on added urgency in Central Asia, which has seen the spread of Islamic radicalism since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. It was initiated by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing the threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The U.S. group and the Kazakh nuclear industry shared the costs. NTI co-founder and media mogul Ted Turner used the announcement ceremony to urge the United States and Russia ``to reduce their nuclear weapons as much as possible.'' ``Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, it's crazy,'' he said. Under the project, about 6,400 pounds of nuclear fuel containing highly enriched uranium from a mothballed Soviet-built nuclear reactor in western Kazakhstan will be blended down so that it cannot be used to make bombs. The uranium, less than 5 percent enriched, will be used for fuel for civilian reactors. The fuel was transported from the Mangyshlak nuclear power plant to the Ulba Metal Plant in the eastern Kazakh city of Ust-Kamenogorsk last year and is expected to be blended down here by the end of the year, according to NTI. The project, which was launched in 2002, has been monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday won this year's Nobel Peace Prize. ElBaradei said in a message that the project could serve as a model for other countries. President Bush called the project a sign of ``Kazakhstan's continued success in converting nuclear material to peaceful and productive uses,'' according to a message read by Robert Joseph, U.S. undersecretary of state for international security. The United States has been involved in projects to reduce the threat of weapons material leaks out of Kazakhstan and the rest of the former Soviet Union since the early 1990s. Kazakhstan had been a major production and test site for the Soviet military's nuclear program. Activity related to weapons of mass destruction was stopped after 1991, but the nation of 15 million was left with tons of weapons-grade nuclear material, millions of tons of radioactive waste and large contaminated areas - all guarded poorly or not at all. That and the weapons expertise existing in the region, given its lax border controls and economic decline, have raised fears that some of the nuclear material here could end up in terrorists' hands. Among the former Soviet region's neighbors are Afghanistan, Iran and China. Kazakhstan used to house the world's fourth largest nuclear arsenal in Soviet times, which included 1,410 nuclear warheads. The entire nuclear arsenal was moved to Russia by 1995. President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who attended the ceremony, called the project Kazakhstan's contribution to global security. He criticized nuclear powers such as the United States and Russia for not doing enough to reduce their nuclear arsenals. ``Some countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and modernize them. Other countries are banned from having them, even to do research. It's wrong, disproportionate and unfair,'' Nazarbayev said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 24 Deseret News: Learning what makes us sick [deseretnews.com] Saturday, October 8, 2005 Deseret Morning News editorial Imagine the potential of a long-term national study that tracks the health of 100,000 children from before their births to age 21. Medical research could pinpoint the root causes of many childhood and adult diseases and develop prevention strategies — even new treatments and cures for diseases that have vexed medical science for decades. Imagine such a study taking place in our own back yard. It's here. The University of Utah is one of six "vanguard centers" that will embark on the National Children's Study, which is intended to better understand how children's genes and environments affect their health and development. For purposes of the federal study, environment will include air, water and house dust as well as what children eat, how they are cared for, the relative safety of their neighborhoods and how often they see a doctor. The other "vanguard centers" include the University of California-Irvine; University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York; Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; and University of Wisconsin-Madison. Utah's selection as a vanguard site was aided by a number of factors including the genealogical database of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, experience with the human genome mapping project and a large number of children in the state. Other factors that weighed in Utah's favor were the state's vast language capabilities and its experience with long-term study such as the downwinders nuclear fallout research that has spanned 40 years. The children's study, said to be the largest ever undertaken, should provide invaluable information about the causes of many childhood diseases and disorders. Are they caused by nature or nurture? Particularly helpful will be the data gleaned about environmental factors that impact health positively and negatively. Our only reservation is the length of the study and whether ongoing funding will be available for such a large-scale project. Our concern stems from a recent decision by the Centers for Disease Control to pull the plug on ongoing research at the University of Utah on Washington County residents who have thyroid tumors at 3.4 percent times the expected rates. The subjects are students who attended Washington County School in the 1960s, not long after the open-air atomic testing at the Nevada Test Site. The National Children's Study is obviously larger in scope and takes a more comprehensive look at health. There are compelling reasons for Congress to fund it through its completion. The expected cost of the research for the first 25 years is $2.7 billion, which is at once a huge sum but a pittance when compared to the $758 billion spent each year on care and treatment of injuries, obesity, asthma and neurobehavioral disorders. Still, members of Congress who represent the states where the vanguard centers have been established need to make funding for this project a priority considering its tremendous potential for generations of children to come. © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 25 Philadelphia Times: Critics say Ohio EPA response less than adequate This page was created October 9, 2005 By PAUL E. KOSTYU, Copley Columbus Bureau chief In June, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ordered the collection of $46,280 in fines for three violations of water runoff rules dating to September 2004. The violator: The Ohio Department of Transportation at a construction site near Columbus. “The EPA’s rules, laws, requirements are not worth a hill of beans without strong enforcement,” said state Sen. Kirk Schuring, R-Jackson Township. The lack of oversight by the Ohio EPA, said Marilyn Wall, of the Ohio Chapter of the Sierra Club, “has been its history for some time.” Examples critics cite of EPA problems include: n In July, radioactive waste was dumped at Countywide Recycling and Disposal landfill in Stark County. Local and state officials were notified only after the citizens watchdog group, Club 3000, found a sign marking the material while inspecting the dump. n American Landfill in Sandy Township, which is not allowed to accept hazardous material, took in wastewater sludge from a Cleveland electroplating plant. The sludge contained nickel, which the U.S. EPA considers hazardous. A spokesman for the landfill said in August that so much time had passed since the sludge was dumped that it is impossible to find and remove it. n The Ohio EPA trusted the air and water tests by DuPont for C8 contamination even as the federal EPA accused the company of withholding evidence of health risks. Scientists with the U.S. EPA have said C8 – used to make Teflon – should be considered a likely cancer risk for humans. Ohio EPA officials said the C8 released into the air by a DuPont plant in Circleville, south of Columbus, posed no health risk. Within the past year, DuPont settled class-action lawsuits by residents of West Virginia and Ohio for $343 million because as many as 80,000 people may have drank C8-contaminated water. The company also is expected to reach a financial settlement in the millions of dollars with the federal EPA. n Since 1979, Inland Products, a Columbus company that recycles grease, cooking oils and animal carcasses, has thumbed its nose at efforts by the Ohio EPA to force it to repair its facility and reduce odors. In June, state inspectors found spilled fuel and maggots among other problems, some of which were reported in a 2002 inspection. No state action resulted. The company was ordered to submit a cleanup plan. n In Belmont County, a 3,500-foot stretch of Captina Creek became a dead zone for aquatic life after 30,000 gallons of coal slurry spilled from a 3-mile pipeline built three years earlier without the permission or knowledge of the Ohio EPA and Ohio Department of Natural Resources, as required by law. The slurry was collected, the pipeline was fixed and is operating again, still with no Ohio EPA permit. Ohio EPA spokesman James Leach said other companies could be “doing something they shouldn’t or not following the terms of their permits or not having a permit in the first place,” but it would be difficult for EPA to catch them unless there’s an accident. “That’s the simple reality of it,” he said. “We’re not in the business to put someone out of business.” Copyright ©2005 The Times Reporter E-mail the webmaster at: opinions@timesreporter.com ***************************************************************** 26 Bradenton Herald: Further testing needed, EPA says 10/08/2005 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agrees with Florida environmental regulators that Lockheed Martin Corp. must do more testing to accurately define the size and direction of the Tallevast plume of underground contamination. The EPA outlined some of the same areas of concern that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection identified in its review released Wednesday, as reported by The Herald. The EPA comment-letter, dated Sept. 8, is now included in the state's report. The source of the contamination in Tallevast has been traced to the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant at 1600 Tallevast Road. Lockheed purchased the facility in a corporate buyout of Loral in 1996. The defense giant later sold the property to interests connected to WPI Inc., which now operates a cable manufacturing business out of the facility. Because the contamination was discovered during Lockheed's period of ownership, the defense giant has assumed responsibility for its cleanup. Lockheed claimed in June that it had determined the extent of the plume, which is covers more than 131 acres. But both state and federal regulatory environmental officials have found gaps in Lockheed's test data that lead them to believe some of the toxins and solvents identified in the contamination may have spread farther and deeper than Lockheed claims. Both agencies reviewed Lockheed's Aug. 5 progress report. William N. O'Steen, an EPA environmental scientist, wrote in the Sept. 8 letter that Lockheed needs to investigate whether trichloroethylene, or TCE, has spread beyond 19th Street East. O'Steen questioned whether Lockheed had accurately determined the extent of TCE contamination in the plume area already defined in the northeastern quadrant of the community. O'Steen also raised questions about Lockheed's conclusions on the direction of groundwater flow in Tallevast. Lockheed's reports describe the flow extending only to the south of the contamination source area, referring to the beryllium plant. But O'Steen said Lockheed's data raises the possibility that an undocumented ground-water flow to the northeast may be carrying the plume into areas that Lockheed claims are not significantly affected by the plume. O'Steen's concerns match those raised by Wilma Subra, a New Iberia, La., chemist working with the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, who reviewed Lockheed's data for The Herald in August. Subra, as well as the DEP and the EPA, believes the plume could be larger and deeper than Lockheed's current data shows. Lockheed has 60 days to respond to the DEP review released this week. ***************************************************************** 27 Deseret News: Safety stressed at nuclear waste forum [deseretnews.com] Sunday, October 9, 2005 By Josh Loftin Deseret Morning News If nuclear waste is stored in Skull Valley, the storage company, state and local officials and tribal elders need to go beyond the required emergency preparations. Many of those needed preparations involve training for possible accidents involving the waste, hiring enough officers to handle an emergency and having the necessary equipment, said Connie Nakahara of the state Department of Environmental Quality during a Friday roundtable discussion at the University of Utah's Olpin Union. The discussion was part of the two-day Utah Conference on Safety and Industrial Hygiene. The problem is that the law does not require and funding does not provide for much of the training and equipment that would probably be needed in the case of an emergency at the proposed storage facility on the Goshute reservation in Tooele County, Nakahara said. And the private company seeking to bring the waste to the reservation, Private Fuel Storage, is not bound to provide any additional assistance to the impacted agencies. "PFS should provide training and equipment before any shipment" comes to Skull Valley, Nakahara said. "But none of it is required." The forum included three speakers, all of whom oppose nuclear waste coming to Utah. Margene Bullcreek, a Goshute who is a member of the Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia Awareness, a grassroots group opposing the proposed nuclear waste dump, said that she has fought the dump for one simple reason: safety. Because of the tribe's sovereignty, the state has little control over what happens on tribal lands, she said, which leaves it up to tribal members to stop the dump. But that sovereignty makes stopping the waste shipments difficult. "Utility companies have taken advantage of the indigenous people," she said. "They use our sovereignty to avoid accountability." Jason Groenwold, executive director of HEAL Utah, an anti-nuclear waste group, told the crowd of approximately 100 people that one of the biggest problems with the Skull Valley waste dump is that it is not an answer to the problem of how to handle the nation's nuclear waste. "We're not solving any problems with the movement of this waste into Utah," he said. "It just allow them to produce more waste." © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 28 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: News flash: More Yucca blunders Oct. 09, 2005 DOE paid bonuses to contractor for shoddy or late work To the old adage about nothing being certain in life but death and taxes, perhaps it's now time to add "bungling by Department of Energy bureaucrats." Ongoing problems with the DOE's Yucca Mountain project have been well-documented for years. And now a government audit has added another log to the raging fire. The audit found that the DOE paid millions in incentive bonuses to Yucca management contractor Bechtel SAIC for work that was either late or unacceptable. From February 2001 through September 2004, the DOE paid $43.4 million in incentives. The audit challenged $3.99 million of that as being awarded "even though Bechtel delivered poor quality work and missed deadlines." Among the dubious payments cited was $2 million for work Bechtel did on a license application for the nuclear repository. The waste could even be more significant the audit found, concluding that "total costs of inappropriate incentive fees cannot be determined." Bechtel officials, of course, may have a different perspective. They said they "take the report seriously and will review it carefully." Good. But the fact that DOE officials accepted the findings lends credence to criticism that the agency is rife with mismanagement. For instance, the audit found DOE managers failed to identify acceptable performance levels or even how to measure the quality of the contractor's work. There were also no procedures to adjust the awards for late or poor work. Who needs standards, after all, when millions of taxpayer dollars and the safety of a potential nuclear waste dumping ground are at stake? Paul Golan, the principal deputy director of the Yucca Mountain report, didn't dispute the audit's conclusions. "I will use this report to develop a comprehensive corrective action plan that will provide clearer and more objective standards," he said in a letter responding to the audit. Mr. Golan ought to do much more than that. First, some of those involved in the problems documented should be terminated. The failure of DOE managers to implement even basic safeguards would never be tolerated in a private-sector project of this magnitude. Second, the DOE should demand that Bechtel reimburse taxpayers for any inappropriate financial awards the company received. Third, the DOE should reconsider the entire incentive program, given that it doesn't seem to have had any affect on the quality or timeliness of the work produced. Yucca Mountain is years behind schedule, for goodness sake. On the bright side, however, the constant DOE bumbling offers more and more hope to Nevadans that this dubious project will never ever come to fruition. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement ***************************************************************** 29 Las Vegas SUN: Billy V. Photo: Vassiliadis Today: October 09, 2005 at 13:9:43 PDT The kingmaker By Steve Kanigher <> LAS VEGAS SUN One of the 10 most powerful individuals in Nevada is also one of its most anonymous. In fact, if average Nevadans know Billy Vassiliadis at all, they know him for his deeds, not his name. His R Partners Inc. of Las Vegas, the state's largest advertising agency, promotes the city's tourism industry worldwide. In so doing, it devised a popular slogan -- "What happens here, stays here" -- that has become a national catch phrase. He represents gaming, the state's most powerful industry, as a lobbyist before the Nevada Legislature, and also is a pitchman for utilities, liquor suppliers, transportation systems, health care providers, homebuilders, mining companies and Clark County. Consistently ranked in media polls as one of the state's 10 most powerful leaders, he has been a key figure in numerous high-profile political campaigns and ballot measures, including the last four winning gubernatorial contests and the last four successful school bond issues. And he has been an adviser to governors, a player in the recruitment and financing of political candidates and a middleman in disputes over growth, taxation, race relations, medical malpractice reform and other issues involving competing special-interest groups. So while Billy V, as he is often called, flies under the radar as far as public recognition is concerned, his clout is so pervasive and so widely recognized within the state's corridors of power that he has been called Nevada's "shadow governor." One of the few to question the extent of his clout is Billy V himself. "It's absurd to think I'm that powerful," Vassiliadis said in an interview. "If I have influence, it's all derived. It's not direct. If I have any influence, it's because I represent a certain industry, an industry that is very strong, that is very important to this community. But what do I do to have power? "I didn't run for office. I'm not a governor. I don't have institutional power. I don't run a large company. I don't have economic power. I don't have people power. I don't employ tens of thousands of people. "I'm not trying to be obtuse. I can see where perceptions get built because I do have good relationships with people who do have real power." Vassiliadis presides over one of the broadest networks of political and business contacts in the state, something he built through smarts, hustle and being in the right places at the right times. "He's got one of the strongest strategic minds of anyone I have ever worked with," Scott Craigie, a former R executive, said. "He finds real solutions to complex problems. With the kinds of egos and personalities involved in these complex situations, you can't push these people away from their goals ... He's able to find common ground among people so that everyone comes out with a win." Vassiliadis has detractors as well, although most fear speaking out because of his clout. One of the few high-profile individuals in Nevada to challenge Vassiliadis and other lobbyists publicly is former Sen. Joe Neal, D-North Las Vegas, who once stood on the Senate floor and argued that the gaming lobby was corrupting the state's political process. "He gets his power by being able to manipulate public opinion through his advertising agency," Neal said. "He can get people elected or put other people down. He kind of has a shield at the ad agency that he can hide behind. He can act like a good guy or come around and kick you in the butt." That Vassiliadis can wield so much clout without holding an elected office owes much to several factors: * Nevada's Republican and Democratic parties lack influence when it comes to candidate selection. Many political observers commonly refer to the state as being run by the "gaming party" because casinos are Nevada's largest campaign donors and most candidates must support the industry to succeed. * The Legislature relies heavily on lobbyists such as Vassiliadis for information and help with drafting bills because the lawmakers serve part time and have limited staff assistance. * In Nevada, it is not unusual for political consultants such as Vassiliadis, a lifelong Democrat, to cross party lines to support a candidate. Such was the case when he helped Republican Kenny Guinn win gubernatorial contests in 1998 and 2002. In many other states, consultants usually align with only one party. * Nevada advertising agencies such as R Partners have engaged both in political campaigns and in lobbying -- a practice uncommon elsewhere, according to Eric Herzik, a political science professor at UNR. "Here in Nevada, the political process is largely conducted through individual power brokers," Herzik said. Paul Brown, Southern Nevada director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, which represents organized labor and minority groups, also said Vassiliadis is able to retain clout because Las Vegas -- despite being one of the nation's most rapidly growing major cities -- is still a small town in many respects. "There are relatively few movers and shakers, a small group of people who make the decisions," Brown said. Vassiliadis and R have not been paid for any political campaigns since the 1994 election, but he has remained a nonpaid consultant to many politicians he considers friends. He is such a respected political guru that when President Bush's top adviser, Karl Rove, came to a private luncheon in Las Vegas in May to discuss Nevada affairs, Vassiliadis was among the guests. NO RETIREMENT YET Although he can afford to retire, the 49-year-old Vassiliadis figures he has five to seven years of work left in him and still logs more than 50 hours a week. That is down, friends say, from the 70- to 80-hour workweeks that used to be his norm. "He's a demon for work," said Don Williams, a veteran Las Vegas political consultant. "He knows what everybody in town is thinking and doing. He spends so much time amongst them." And by mixing with the board members of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, R's biggest advertising client, Vassiliadis "knows what all the wealthy people are up to," Williams said. "He's one of the best political networkers that I've ever seen," Williams said. "Billy can talk directly to the money people." As for his own politics, Vassiliadis is left of center. He strongly backs public education -- he is a past recipient of the Clark County Public Education Foundation Hero Award and has run the ad campaigns for all county school bond issues since 1988. He is an ardent foe of efforts to ship the nation's high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. And he has been outspoken in support of hospital visitations and other rights for gay couples. A well-dressed but rarely flashy man with collar-length gray hair and a dark moustache, Vassiliadis has a Mediterranean complexion befitting his Greek heritage -- and a middle-age bulge. He can be prickly and deliver blunt one-liners when confronted with questions he doesn't like. But his humor is self-deprecating, he is modest and he is generally mild-mannered -- at least as mild-mannered as a die-hard fan of baseball's Chicago Cubs and football's Chicago Bears can be. He and his wife, Rosemary, deputy aviation director at McCarran International Airport, have two teenage children. They live in a five-bedroom, $1.4 million Summerlin home and own a Lake Tahoe retreat. Boating on the lake is one of his passions. So is golf -- he shoots in the low 90s -- and reading. Studies early American history His favorite period of American history is the early 20th century "because it was a tremendous period of evolution, everything from automobiles to manufacturing to the telephone to television to air travel." He also is quite charitable: A Vassiliadis Family Scholarship is awarded to county high school graduates interested in pursuing degrees in communications, public relations or advertising. He also has lent his name to causes such as the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, Opportunity Village and National Kidney Foundation of Nevada. Born in Athens, Greece, Vassiliadis grew up on Chicago's North Side as an only child amid modest circumstances, typified by the fact that he spent his first 14 years sleeping in the dining room. His father, who passed away 15 years ago, was a church caretaker and Greek teacher in an after-school program. His mother, who now lives in Las Vegas, sold jewelry. His parents were fervent anti-Communists. After World War II, Vassiliadis' father met his mother in Romania and then smuggled her out of that Soviet-occupied country using false passports. "I would say my passion for and my interest in politics came primarily from my parents," Vassiliadis said. "My mother to this day could probably name 30 prime ministers from around the world." A teenaged Vassiliadis ended up in Las Vegas after his father introduced his son to an old Greek friend, then-UNLV professor Ernest Searles, who convinced the youngster in 1974 to attend college here. At UNLV, Vassiliadis rose rapidly through the ranks of the Young Democrats club and developed an insider's knack for Nevada politics. His instructor was professor Dina Titus, now the state Senate minority leader and a 2006 Democratic gubernatorial candidate. "He came out of Chicago, so he had a natural bent for politics," Titus said. "He was brash and bold. He was energetic and wanted to get involved. I'm not surprised where he is today." While pursuing a bachelor's degree in political science, Vassiliadis set up campaign signs for 1978 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bob Rose -- a future Nevada Supreme Court justice. Many of Vassiliadis' most important political contacts -- including Williams, Craigie, Kent Oram and the late Jim Joyce -- were made during that race. Vassiliadis insists he is not "conscious" of his considerable networking abilities. "There's not a skill to it," he said. "It's more: I don't lie, I don't cheat, I'm loyal, I do what I say I'm going to do and I work hard." John Moran first victory His first major political victory occurred in 1982 when he guided the late John Moran to the Clark County sheriff's post despite the fact that Moran started as a 30-percentage point underdog. It was that race that brought him to the attention of Nevada power broker and R Advertising founder Sig Rogich, who hired him to work at the agency shortly after that election. "I always told him that it is not difficult to get business," Rogich said. "The real key was keeping it, and he understood that." As Rogich increased his role in national Republican politics, Vassiliadis quickly moved up at R, becoming its president in the late 1980s. Vassiliadis' emergence as a power broker began when he ran the ad campaign for Bob Miller's successful 1990 gubernatorial election and became a salaried member of Miller's Kitchen Cabinet over the next eight years. "If there was a political question, I would ask what he thought of it, who would be opposed or supportive, and what their arguments would be," Miller said. "I can't think of an instance when I thought he was wrong." Vassiliadis was recruited by Rogich in 1998 to serve as a nonpaid consultant to Miller's successor, Gov. Kenny Guinn. Vassiliadis accepted because he was a longtime friend of Guinn's, who had been the chairman of successful school bond issue drives that R promoted and also was the chief executive officer of PriMerit Bank, an R client. "He will always tell you how it is, and he won't sugar coat it," Guinn said of Vassiliadis. "He will be blunt and to the point. He will tell you when you are going wrong and when you are doing right." Vassiliadis says of his consulting skills: "One of my strengths is I've kind of got a blue-collar feeling. I'm not detached from what people are probably thinking and that goes back to my Chicago roots and what really matters. Jim Joyce's mantle "I also think that they feel like I'm giving them my most honest possible read. I'm not blowing smoke up their butts. I don't tell them what they want to hear." As a megalobbyist, Vassiliadis has risen to the top of the ladder of the nonelected movers and shakers in the hallways of the Legislature, inheriting a mantle once worn by Joyce. "The most important lesson Jim Joyce taught me: You better know the last issue of your career," Vassiliadis said. "You better know the one that's worth burning the house down for. What he meant by that is you don't have your friends walk the plank. You don't treat every bill as if it's your last one and go and stomp and storm over it. "You approach the legislative process as a long-term effort. And you build relationships by taking people off the hook." His most powerful client is the Nevada Resort Association, an affiliation that has led Vassiliadis to fight for a broader state tax base that does not lean too heavily on gaming. He has bristled at proposals that Nevada's tax on gross gaming receipts -- by far the lowest in the nation -- should be increased to help pay for growth. And while he has fought successfully for bills limiting casinos' liability for wrongdoing on their property and for drunken driving accidents caused by their customers, he doesn't always get his way on gaming legislation. That was the case earlier this year when he advocated unsuccessfully on behalf of Station Casinos, Boyd Gaming and developer Focus Property Group for legislation that would have made it harder for residents to prevent casinos from encroaching into neighborhoods. More often than not, though, he comes through for his clients. Vassiliadis is considered such a vital cog in Nevada's political process that he is frequently asked by elected officials to mediate disputes among warring special interests. "People trust him, and they recognize he's a great facilitator so they use him in that capacity," Nevada Resort Association President Bill Bible said. A noteworthy example occurred in 1998 when Vassiliadis hosted a meeting of organized labor, gaming and Rogich to reaffirm then-gubernatorial candidate Guinn's opposition to a Republican initiative that would have banned unions from making campaign donations without membership approval. Vassiliadis helped to convince the Republicans to drop their proposed ballot initiative while convincing the unions to drop a competing petition drive. "Probably the most overstated thing about me, other than my being a 'juice man,' is how many problems I've resolved because I really don't," Vassiliadis said. "I hope I bring some calm to it. I hope I bring some focus. I hope I'm good at reminding everybody what needs to happen, what the deadline is and what the end game is and what the goal is and that there's enough in common here to keep going." Growing R's business Since agreeing to purchase R from Rogich in 1992, Vassiliadis, as partner and chief executive officer, has more than tripled its staff -- to 250 employees from 80 -- and nearly tripled its annual billings -- to $225 million from $80 million. And he changed its name to R Partners. Last year, R was the nation's 61st largest ad agency, with estimated revenue of $27.2 million, according to Adweek magazine. It has grown from a Las Vegas-centric ad shop under Rogich to a regional shop under Vassiliadis, who believes R will become one of the nation's top 50 ad agencies within three years based on annual revenue. While it is best known as the ad agency for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, a partnership that began in 1980, R also represents numerous casinos. Adweek in recent years has graded R in the B minus, C plus range, praising the firm for its tourism ads while downgrading it for generating a low amount of revenue per employee compared to other agencies. And the LVCVA board is considering major revisions to its trademark policies and internal operations after the Las Vegas Sun reported earlier this year on a secret agreement in which the authority transferred the rights to the "What happens here" slogan to R. A law firm hired by the authority has recommended that the LVCVA retain its own trademark rights. But Vassiliadis has been lavishly praised for R's promotion of Las Vegas and its ability to measure the nation's pulse, as was evident after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when the agency devised an ad campaign focused on Las Vegas as a good escape. As he looks to the future, Vassiliadis has given himself -- through his four-for-four run in recent gubernatorial races and the enormously successful Las Vegas tourism ad campaign -- a high standard against which he inevitably will be measured. North Las Vegas Mayor and LVCVA board member Mike Montandon said that the campaign has another year or two to go. "But that next campaign has to be better," he said. "That's the way marketing is." Steve Kanigher can be reached at 259-4075 or at steve@lasvegassun.com. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Return to the referring page. Photo: Vassiliadis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Questions or problems? Click here. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 30 Las Vegas SUN: Hearing the truth about Yucca Today: October 09, 2005 at 10:38:31 PDT By Matt Huffman and Launce Rake LAS VEGAS SUN If you want to know the truth about Yucca Mountain, the truth -- as any alien-hunting "X-Files" fan knows -- is out there. Call a public hearing on Yucca Mountain, and you'll find the "truth" is sometimes way, way out there. In a series of Environmental Protection Agency public hearings this week on radiation standards at Yucca Mountain, speakers invoked science, the law and even God in their arguments. Sometimes they even spoke on topic. Public hearings are not created by intelligent design; they often evolve. Given that humans are involved, that can mean many things. The EPA set out to gather comment on a technical, serious issue. And early in the four days of hearings there were technical, serious comments. But hold a Yucca Mountain meeting and your agenda doesn't mean a thing. People will be there to debate the issue of nuclear waste, Yucca Mountain and why the Red Sox lost in three straight. (There are bonus points if you can connect the three.) Mickey Jay, a Las Vegas resident who said she represented the Tule Springs Preservation Committee, the Nevada Equestrian Safety Coalition and "future generations who are not here to speak for themselves," told the EPA that the dump was not a good idea. "A single repository makes no sense," Jay said. She reiterated the points made by many before her, that transportation of the waste would be unsafe and that the nuclear waste generated by the country's reactors should stay where it is now. "This can have untold effects on everybody, not just the West, the whole world," Jay said. But not everyone lives in that world. Fred Toomey, an 80-year-old ironworker who worked at the Nevada Test Site for three decades, called for more nuclear reactors to solve the energy crisis and scoffed at the alleged dangers of radiation. "They're living, there's a big city right now where they blowed the atomic bomb up," he said, referring to the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only places, so far, bombed with nuclear weapons in wartime. Richard DeKlever, a quality assurance engineer at the Nevada Test Site for most of the last 20 years, said he had no problems with the EPA's proposed standards. Radiation, he said, has been good for him. "Nuclear science enhances life," he said. And it's the gift that keeps on giving. DeKlever said the country needs not just one, but nine -- yes, nine -- nuclear waste dumps over the next century to hold the anticipated waste. And don't tell anyone this, but John Snyder, an Ohio native, said he was on a secret mission to Nevada. In front of God, man and -- perhaps more importantly -- the federal government, he said that people will soon have the technology to make radioactive waste safe. Really? "God has shown me this in visions," he said. Snyder added that there has never been "a nuclear accident that killed hundreds or thousands of people." He's technically right on that point -- the United Nations says 56 people were "directly" killed by the 1986 Chernobyl reactor meltdown, although over time it is expected to take 4,000 lives. EPA officials politely said they were accustomed to comments that are not as, well, narrowly defined as the subjects of their hearings. "There are issues that people bring up that we don't have a role in," said the Environmental Protection Agency's Betsy Forinash. "But that doesn't mean the comments don't count. "Every comment gets considered." And that's the truth. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 Green Left: Yellowcake fever running high in NT Jon Lamb, Darwin Record world prices for uranium and the federal government’s green light for new uranium mines has spurred exploration for uranium deposits across the Northern Territory. Since March, the number of companies searching for viable deposits has doubled to at least 25. The frenzy follows Australian government trade talks with China in August and September, with the supply of coal and uranium to meet China’s growing energy needs a central focus of negotiations. Nuclear energy production in China is expected to increase fourfold by 2020, with China’s largest nuclear power company, China National Nuclear Corporation, projecting to invest US$50 billion in nuclear power plants over the next 15 years. NT Minerals Council chief Kezia Purick believes that a new mine will be operational in the NT in two to five years, followed by a second mine five to 10 years after that. Exploration is taking place in several environmentally significant locations, including Aboriginal land near Alice Springs and across Arnhem Land. Other possible locations include deposits that have been mined before, such as the infamous Rum Jungle, where operations severely contaminated the surrounding Finnis River flood plains that adjoin Litchfield National Park. In related developments, the declaration by former prime minister Bob Hawke that Australia should become an international centre for collecting nuclear waste has angered environmental organisations and strengthened the resolve of newly formed anti-nuclear waste dump groups in the NT. Traditional owners near Alice Springs have also become more vocal in their opposition to the nuclear waste dump, especially the proposed sites at Mount Everard (one of three sites being considered by the federal government). Kathleen Martin Williams from the Athenge Lhere people told ABC Radio on October 4: “I’d like Johnny Howard and his sidekicks, especially that [education minister] Brendan Nelson, to come here, take off their shoes and walk in the red sand with us ... Maybe they will appreciate our country. Maybe.” Since July, campaign groups to stop the nuclear waste dump have formed in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. The Darwin-based No Radioactive Waste Alliance is organising a protest on October 24 outside a hearing of the House of Representatives Industry and Resources Committee inquiry into the development of the non-fossil fuel energy industry in Australia. The committee is heavily stacked with supporters of the uranium mining industry. For further details email or phone (08) 8948 3339. From Green Left Weekly, October 12, 2005. Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW ***************************************************************** 32 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah's elected elite Opinion Article Last Updated: 10/08/2005 01:16:28 PM I don't know about you, but I find it interesting that Envirocare takes in radioactive waste from all over the country, and evidently radioactive waste from Japan is making its way to Utah. Yet, when the Goshutes come up with a plan to store radioactive waste, Utah's elected elite cry and scream and yell and jump up and down and pound their fists Khrushchev-style on the podium. I suppose it probably comes down to political contributions made by Envirocare and others. If the Goshutes want a storage facility, I suppose they'll just have to start making those contributions, just like Envirocare. Ronald Rood Magna © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. y ***************************************************************** 33 The Boston Globe: Utah firm begins Starmet cleanup - By Davis Bushnell, Globe Correspondent | October 9, 2005 The Starmet Corp. cleanup in West Concord took a major step forward last week, when a Utah company began removing 3,800 barrels of depleted uranium, along with 317 tons of depleted uranium metal, from the 46-acre property off Route 62. This material is being taken by truck to Utah for disposal, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection, which expects the removal of the uranium products to be completed in six months. After this phase of the work is finished, another contractor will assess the extent of contamination at the site. According to a draft proposal by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the complete cleanup of the site could last for another four years. Two months ago, the Department of Environmental Protection awarded an $8.3 million contract to Envirocare of Utah Inc., based in Salt Lake City. The Army has agreed to pick up the tab. From 1970 to 1999, Starmet's predecessor company, Nuclear Metals Inc., produced uranium-tipped bullets for the Army. The uranium removal was to have begun last March, and had been scheduled to be completed seven months later, but negotiations with the Army over costs delayed the work and the timetable. Concord officials and leaders of a local activist group hailed last Wednesday's start of the process. ''DEP has been very open about what's going to occur, and this looks like it will be a good, safe project," said Pam Rockwell, a member of the 2229 Main Street Oversight Committee, made up of town officials and residents. Starmet is located at 2229 Main St. Rick Oleson, president of the Citizens Research and Environmental Watch group, said in a written statement, ''It took four years, but through the cooperation of local, state, and federal agencies, this unlicensed storage of tons of uranium was resolved in favor of the public safety." Oleson said. ''Now we can move on to clean up the entire place." The group has a $50,000 technical assistance grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency. In June 2001, the Starmet site was placed on the Superfund list of the most contaminated properties. After the Utah company removes containers of low-level radioactive material from Starmet buildings, another contractor, de maximis inc. of Windsor, Conn., will examine those buildings. Bruce Thompson, project manager for de maximis, said that the extent of the contamination can be determined only after all the barrels have been removed. His firm is evaluating air, soil, and ground water for the Army and four other parties cited by the EPA in 2003 for contaminating the property. The others are the US Department of Energy, Whittaker Corp. of Simi Valley, Calif., Textron Inc. of Providence, and MONY Life Insurance Co. of New York City.[ /] © Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. More: ***************************************************************** 34 London Times: Plans to bury nuclear waste under the sea - Sunday Times - Radioactive waste specialists Nirex claim the plan is feasible and points to similar schemes being used in Sweden and Finland. Both countries used repositories under the seabed close to their coasts. Japan is also considering the option. In its submission to the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM), the expert group set up by the government to identify the best way to dispose of long-term nuclear waste, Nirex claims that an “engineered repository” is “a viable option” that would be acceptable under international law. Nirex has also advised the government to offer sweeteners, such as new schools and swimming pools, to communities affected by the new dumps. Gordon MacKerron, chair of the CORWM, said an undersea repository would be acceptable provided it was accessible from the land. “It is not impossible that it might go somewhere under the sea in the same way as coal mines of the north-east of England start from land but actually end up somewhere under the North Sea,” he said. The plan, which has angered environmentalists, could pave the way for a new generation of nuclear plants, which have been put on hold until a long-term repository for existing radioactive waste is found. The prime minister has signalled that he is keen to press ahead with new nuclear power stations as part of Britain’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with Kyoto targets. Jack McConnell, the first minister, has been less bullish about the idea of new nuclear plants in Scotland, but could be won round provided the waste issue can be resolved. However, his Liberal Democrat coalition partners are opposed to any new nuclear power stations. Nicol Stephen, the Scottish Lib Dem leader and deputy first minister, used his speech at yesterday’s party conference in Glenrothes to reiterate his opposition to new nuclear plants. Anti-nuclear campaigners want waste from existing atomic power stations to be stored above ground so that it can be retrieved easily. Greenpeace claims that dumping under the sea could lead to hazardous material leaking into the environment. “If that happens under the sea then it is going to get access into the wider environment more quickly than if you have it in rock under land,” said Jean McSorley, a Greenpeace spokesman. Britain’s high-level nuclear waste is currently stored in facilities at Sellafield in Cumbria and lower level waste is held at sites across the country, including Dounreay in Caithness. Dounreay and Altnabreac in Caithness and the uninhabited west-coast islands of Sandray and Fuday were among sites earmarked as potential deep repositories for radioactive waste. Meanwhile, a row has broken out between McConnell’s environmental advisers and anti- nuclear campaigners over plans to inject radioactive waste from oil production back into oil fields in the North Sea. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency says the option must be explored because of restrictions at a repository in Cumbria. Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 35 Guardian Unlimited: Energy Dept. May Miss Hanford Deadline From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday October 8, 2005 4:31 AM By SHANNON DININNY Associated Press Writer YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - The federal government says it likely will miss the deadline to open a multi-billion-dollar nuclear waste treatment plant, delaying cleanup of highly radioactive materials leftover from a site that made Cold War weapons. The Energy Department, which already has delayed the project three times at the Hanford nuclear reservation, halted construction on major portions of the plant last month amid skyrocketing costs stemming from a seismic study. The study found the government had underestimated the impact a severe earthquake could have on the treatment plant, which is the federal government's largest construction project. A department spokesman said the study's findings mean the project will probably miss a deadline in 2011, when the plant was to be fully operational. ``Based on our review to date, there are a number of technical issues that have made it clear we likely will not be able to meet the 2011 milestone,'' Energy Department spokesman Mike Waldron said. On Thursday, the agency notified state officials that a new cost estimate and schedule for completing construction on the plant will not be ready before June. The treatment plant has long been considered the cornerstone of cleanup at Hanford, which was created in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project. Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. The greatest risk is posed by 53 million gallons of decades-old radioactive waste in 177 underground tanks. Retrieval of the waste is a priority because some of the tanks are known to have leaked, threatening the aquifer and the Columbia River less than 10 miles away. Federal officials refused to release a new cost estimate for the plant - currently tagged at more than $5.8 billion. Congress has estimated the latest problems could push the cost as high as $10 billion and delay the start by four years. ``We continue to be frustrated by this update, but at the same time agree that USDOE and the contractors should do the job right and not make promises they cannot keep,'' Sandy Howard, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Ecology, said Friday. Cleanup of the entire 586-square-mile Hanford site is expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion, with completion by 2035. ^--- On the Net: www.hanford.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 36 lamonitor.com: Anastasio names deputy The Online News Source for Los Alamos CAROL A. CLARK, lanews@lamonitor.com, Monitor Staff Writer Michael Anastasio announced Wednesday that John Mitchell, who has served Bechtel as president and general manager at three DOE sites, will become deputy laboratory director should their team win the Los Alamos National Laboratory management contract. During an interview in a conference room at Los Alamos National Bank, Anastasio and Mitchell displayed good-natured confidence that their team, Los Alamos National Security (LANS), will place first when the competition concludes on Dec. 1. If that happens, Anastasio, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and president of the LANS team, will become LANL director. Anastasio has some 25 years experience working with people at LANL. He has a brother living in Albuquerque and he knows New Mexico overall quite well. He said the Los Alamos community and the lab are important to each other's success and promotes each supporting the other. "It's important to get the lab on the footing of thinking of the future again and of all the great things we are doing and can do, the outstanding science and the contributions we are making to our national security," Anastasio said. The LANS team includes the University of California, Bechtel, BWX Technologies and Washington Group International. The LANS Board of Governors includes very high-level experts from a number of different fields applicable to operating and managing the lab, said LANS external affairs and communication manager Jeff Berger. The LANS board chair is Gerald Parsky who also is chair of the UC Board of Regents. LANS board vice chair is Tom Nash who is president of Bechtel National. Among the dozen board members is New Mexico Sen. Nick Salazar. LANS professes to support a strong community plan centered on economic development, education and giving. They have already demonstrated their seriousness by supporting Los Alamos National Laboratory Foundation's ninth annual conference on Education, contributing $25,000 to the United Way of Northern New Mexico and the United Way of Santa Fe County in September, and sponsoring the Los Alamos Harvest Festival set for Nov. 5-6. During the interview, Anastasio praised Mitchell for the breadth and depth of his experience and expertise. "John and I have worked together for over 10 years in various roles," Anastasio said. "His experience combines defense programs weapons expertise, research and testing support, nuclear facilities operations and nuclear weapons components manufacturing." Anastasio also praised Mitchell's performance over the last nine years in managing three multibillion dollar DOE contracts for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee and the Nevada Test Site. Mitchell successfully managed culture change while improving overall operations, safety, security and cost performance, he said. Anastasio and Mitchell support the lab in its mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important problems of current times, they said. Mitchell served for 30 years in the U.S. Navy as Strategic Systems Programs director, Navy Theater Missile Defense general manager and Strategic Systems Programs technical director. Mitchell holds a bachelor of science in electrical engineering from Rice University and a master of science in physics from the Naval Postgraduate School. Anastasio spoke of his own background with open candor. He was born and raised in Washington, D.C., where his father worked for the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice in finance and accounting. Anastasio's grandfather on his mother's side farmed wheat in Kansas. His father's father was an entrepreneur in Connecticut. "My parents met in Washington during the Roosevelt Administration and WWII," Anastasio said. "My father Julian served in the Army. My mother (Roberta) was a homemaker." Anastasio said his wife Ann is an avid quilter and also teaches quilting. The couple has been married 35 years and have two daughters. Alison is the oldest and just graduated from the University of Chicago with a degree in biology. Alexandra is earning her master's degree in education and plans to become a teacher. The Anastasios are a musical family. His favorite style of music is classical and he has played the cello since he was about 10. Ann plays the viola. Anastasio's daughters play the violin. Anastasio said he enjoys reading non-fiction, especially history. He is currently reading a book about climate change throughout the ages and its impact on humankind. Anastasio joked that his favorite types of movies are "good movies". "I enjoy any sport I can still play," he said laughing. "I've been playing racketball but have stopped while my knees heal from recent surgery." Anastasio earned his bachelor's degree in physics from Johns Hopkins University and his M.A. and Ph.D. in theoretical nuclear physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Anastasio is the recipient of the 1990 DOE Weapons Recognition of Excellence Award for technical leadership in nuclear design. The award acknowledged his outstanding theoretical and experimental contributions to understanding boost physics. Anastasio is also a member of Sigma Pi Sigma, the national physics honor society. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 Rocky Mountain News: Rocky Flats wraps up radioactive cleanup Last of 62,000 shipments signals 'closure of an era' By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News October 8, 2005 The end of an era arrived Friday when the last load of radioactive waste left Rocky Flats, departing aboard a semi-truck headed for a hazardous waste dump in Utah. The last load, a few boxes filled with lightly contaminated survey and demolition equipment, rolled away from the defunct nuclear weapons plant about 2 p.m., the last of some 62,000 waste shipments that have departed the facility since 2000. "It's just the closure of an era," said Bobby Leonard, the facility's traffic and transportation manager, one of about 20 titles he said he's held during his 24 years at the plant. It was good to be part of the weapons program, Leonard said. "Now, I'm proud to be part of the last cleanup efforts. It's a good thing to do; it's the right thing to do for the Denver area." The last bit of radioactive material leaving the 54-year-old site nearly coincides with the completion of work at Rocky Flats by Kaiser-Hill Co., the main contractor for the $7 billion demolition, cleanup and closure project for the U.S. Department of Energy. Remaining work, including grading and reseeding the last of the land once covered with 800 buildings over 385 acres, should be completed within the next two weeks, said John Corsi, a spokesman for Kaiser-Hill. "It's the first nuclear weapons site to be cleaned up and closed anywhere in the world," said Corsi, who also describes it as the "most complex environmental cleanup in U.S. history." When complete, Kaiser-Hill will have compressed what the DOE once described as a 70-year, $36 billion job into a decade, at less than one-fourth the initial price projection. The company did it, in part, by finding speedier and safer ways to secure and dispose of contaminated material, Corsi said. Some regulatory changes also helped, including one that allowed the company to leave some contaminated building foundations in place, deep below the ground where officials say they pose no danger to the public. After the DOE gives final approval of the cleanup work in the coming months, most of Rocky Flats' 6,200 acres will be transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which will manage the site as a wildlife refuge. Eventually, public access will be permitted on much of the site. On Friday, crews were down to the last vestiges of the cleanup, erasing the last traces of Rocky Flats by tearing up railroad track that once carried boxcars filled with various waste away from the site. Indeed, the last rail shipment of radioactive waste left the site on Wednesday. It was a staggering sight as the final scraps of what was once a complex the size of a town, with streets, a fire department and sprawling buildings, have all but disappeared as the site reverts to the prairie it was when ground was broken in 1951. For Leonard, 47, the day was bittersweet. "I've been in everything from building weapons to nuclear operations to security" at Rocky Flats, he said. He isn't sure what he will do next, but he may move out of state for the opportunity to work at another DOE facility - though with some regrets. "There's no nicer place in the DOE" than Colorado, he said. A big haul • 62,000: Number of waste shipments from Rocky Flats since 2000 • 600,000: Cubic meters of radioactive waste hauled away from the site, enough to fill a string of railcars 90 miles long • 11: Number of states, including Colorado, where waste was shipped to either landfills or other DOE facilities hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5048 © Rocky Mountain News ***************************************************************** 38 Colorado Daily News: Opportunity and animosity coloradodaily.com Copyright TownNews.com(C) By MATT WILLIAMS Colorado Daily Staff Writer Sunday, October 9, 2005 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is synonymous for many with decades of frenzied bomb making and mushroom clouds But CU-Boulder physics professor Jerry Peterson has a more pressing scientific inquiry these days at the world-renowned lab in New Mexico: He's part of an advisory committee studying how cosmic rays annihilate streams of digital information - the nearly infinite series of zeros and ones th at speed across wireless networks. LANL has a facility that simulates cosmic ray degradation at an accelerated pace. The problem is becoming a "very big deal" for computer companies, Peterson says, and without access to the facility, scientists would not be able to study the phenomenon. According to Peterson, LANL offers equipment like supercomputers, particle accelerators and superconducting magnets, the kinds of "very large facilities beyond the reach of individual universities that are attractive for basic research studi es for folks such as me." The 35-year veteran of CU is one among many University faculty members who support a proposal that would unite the CU system with a consortium of 20 major research universities in an "academic network" supporting a bid from the University of Texas system and defense contractor Lockheed-Martin Corp. to manage the lab. According to faculty leaders, faculty members who are in favor of the bid are, in some respect, the silen t majority. "The bal ance of faculty seem to favor the proposal, but I don't have any firm data one way or the other," says CU-Boulder communications professor Jerry Hauser, the chair of the Boulder Faculty Assembly. LANL was established in 1943 as the hub of the Manhattan Project, the United States' secret effort to develop the world's first nuclear bomb. The U.S. Department of Energy will award a management contract for the lab Dec. 1 worth $79 million annually that can be exten ded for as many as 20 years. The University of Texas consortium faces competition from a bid submitted by the University of California and its corporate partner, Bechtel. The University of California system has managed LANL since its inception. Some analysts speculate the University of Texas might have the upper hand in the competition as the lab tries to recover from a series of embarrassing security lapses. CU administrators say the University would not be involved in any weapons-related research or weapons development at LANL. Collaborative research and peer review in other fields is the priority. Watchdog organizations estimate about one-quarter of LANL's $2.2 billion annual budget is dedicated to research outside of nuclear weapons, in fields like earthquake engineering and aerospace studies to groundwater modeling. CU-Boulder vice chancellor for research and engineering professor Stein Sture has used a LANL supercomputer in a joint venture with NASA to make a tomographic (3-D) map of rock masses for earthquake studies. While LANL's resources help faculty members like him, he said, the lab bid also is promising for CU's students. Graduate students and post-docs often spend weeks and months researching at the lab, and some even have staff jobs there. About 50 graduates from the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences have gone on to careers at LANL, Sture estimates. "And that, I think , is the big change. That rather than rediscover a lot of wheels over time, we might have some overriding master blueprints about how to work together," Peterson says about the value of the academic network. Sture served on a committee a year ago that looked at the benefits a partnership with LANL might bring. "We figured that there would be an opportunity to support several hundred graduate students . . .. I think in sum total, the greatest benefit that we could get here is graduat e student scholarships," Sture said. Those scholarships could be worth between $2 million and $5 million per year for CU, he says. The LANL academic network of universities would also likely build a "consortium campus" outside of the LANL fence to makes research collaboration easier, Sture says. The proposed campus would also be another way to separate the work being done by the academic network from the lab's nuclear weapons functi ons. CU has a strict policy on classified research that makes weapons research a "non-worry," Peterson says. "That means it's going to be just about impossible, by our own procedures and policies, for University collaboration for nuclear weapons," Peterson says. "We don't know how to do it. We don't know how to run the security." But that assurance from CU isn't consoling for a few faculty members who spoke at public forums the CU Bo ard of Regents ordered two weeks ago. CU-Boulder biology professor Harvey Nichols told an audience at an open forum in Boulder that he is concerned about pollution at Los Alamos. "Our Rocky Flats operation and this new lab will produce a certain amount of effluent, airborne effluent including tiny plutonium particles that will [wreak havoc] on the general populace," Nichols said. Rocky Flats, a weapons plant 12 miles south of Boulder, made plutonium triggers for n uclear weapons. The complex was shut down in 1989. LANL started making the same "plutonium pits" two years ago. Others are questioning CU's motives for joining the bid. Teaming with LANL is immoral and it sends the wrong message to students, CU-Boulder sociology professor Tom Mayer wrote in a letter to CU administrators. "It would tell (students) that moral considerations are of no consequence in relation to financial incentives," Mayer wrote. "They would infer that money is the measure of all things and that declarations of high principle by university officials are just so much hot air." Jeff Cheek, CU assistant vice president for research and learning innovations, says the University's exact role in the consortium won't be defined until the University of Texas wins the bid. And even then, the University of Colorado will wait and see how much money it receives, he says. Both Peterson and Sture say they think there exists the potential to generate more grant funding if CU can take its scientific investigations to a higher level using LANL's infrastructure. The Los Alamos project might also help the University's Technology Transfer Office, they say. The office generated $22 million in revenue during 2004-2005 managing intellectual property coming from CU-Boulder inventors. The office helped create nine start-up companies based on CU-licensed technologi es last year. Cheek said CU's lawyers are still trying to figure out who must sign off on CU's participation in the bid CU President Hank Brown or the CU Board of Regents for it to become official. In the meantime, faculty members have time to dream up how they will take advantage of the partnership, whether for studies measuring sea ice thickness or the observation of deep-space supernovae. Rod Muth, the chair of the University Faculty Council, says there is some prestige attached to the bid. "The project will give us further reach in the sciences and it will enhance our ability to recruit top-notch students and top-notch faculty," says Muth, who is an education professor at CU-Denver. And faculty who work in social sciences and humanities will also benefit from the "immeasurable opportunities" of the UT Network because it will tear down traditional boundaries to collaborative research, he says. Peterson agrees: "Los Alamos is a scientific and technical laboratory. We know that is an incomplete coverage of the human experience. The broader sides of the University here could have great influence, impact and strategic direction on their thinking down there." Contact Matt Williams about this story at 303-443-6272 ext. 111 or 2610 Pearl St. Boulder, CO 80302 303.443.6272 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************