***************************************************************** 10/10/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.235 ***************************************************************** 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 Japan Times: New Delhi gives U.S. the nod over Iran 2 AU ABC: Iran denies nuclear weapon plan 3 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: KEDO to be shut down, Japan newspaper says 4 Korea Times: [Times Forum] From Russia With Help 5 ITAR-TASS: N Korea right to have peace nuke program very important-o 6 Minjok-Tongshin: Often-gloomy North Korea shows a sunnier side 7 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Views on Seoul's role 8 Korea Herald: South willing to allow mutual nuclear inspection with 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korea, U.S., Japan Discuss Ending KEDO 10 WP: Korea's Agreements 11 US: [NYTr] US demands American owner for Westinghouse 12 US: Support Our Disarmament Agenda in Washington 13 Nobel Peace Prize IAEA Statement by GRACE]] NUCLEAR REACTORS 14 US: California Energy Commission finds questions for future of 15 [Updater] Free Trade Agreements, Nuclear Energy, China, 16 [NYTr] Venezuela wants Argentine nuclear reactor 17 Xinhua: Iran seeks Russian co-op for more nuclear plants 18 TheStar.com: New reactors vital for hydro system 19 Buenos Aires Herald: Hot potato reaction to Chávez reactor 20 Haaretz: State told to pay for cancer-linked death of nuclear reacto 21 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Alliant defends push to sell Iowa nuclear NUCLEAR SECURITY 22 Korea Times: [Times Forum] Network in Nuke Trafficking 23 Korea Times: US Admits Making Mistake on Missing Uranium NUCLEAR SAFETY 24 Scoop: Depleted Uranium, George Bush & Tony Blair NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 25 Vancouver Sun: A solution for N-waste CLEANUP 26 CNIC: New nuclear research agency inherits predecessor's radioactive PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 27 [NukeNet] SEAB does NOT endorse RRW; does endorse 28 LongmontFYI: Online exhibit recounts dangerous day at Rocky Flats 29 lamonitor.com: Wells fail IG's inspection 30 Rocky Mountain News: Flats case heads to trial ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Japan Times: New Delhi gives U.S. the nod over Iran Monday, October 10, 2005 By B. GAUTAM Special to The Japan Times MADRAS, India -- India needs natural gas from Iran and nuclear technology from America. New Delhi chose to give priority to the latter, and went along with the European resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency asking Tehran to comply with its nuclear obligations. Iran has been asked to sort out its nuclear problems with the IAEA, so for the time being, the issue will not be raised in the United Nations Security Council. But India's decision has been lambasted by some in the media. The Hindu editorialized: The decision to vote against Iran at the crucial meeting of the Board of Governors of the IAEA is evidence of the Singh government's shameful willingness to abandon the independence of Indian foreign policy for the sake of strengthening its strategic partnership with the United States. The Bush administration had agreed to cooperate with India on its civilian nuclear needs. Bharatiya Janata Party, one of India's major parties and now in the opposition, has asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh the reason for this turnabout in foreign policy. For decades, New Delhi had been supportive of Islamic nations, primarily because of its own very large Muslim population. With India's energy needs expanding rapidly, Iranian gas and oil is of vital importance. For New Delhi, however, nuclear cooperation with the U.S. appears to have taken a greater priority, at least for the time being. But analysts say that New Delhi's ambiguity over Iran's nuclear proliferation could have a devastating effect on the U.S. congressional debate about nuclear cooperation with India. Top U.S. officials, however, were careful not to link these two issues. U.S. Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said, "India has its own interests, and they do not always intersect with ours. But an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is in no one's interest." Tehran, of course, feels differently. It has been blowing hot and cold. Although it called the resolution illegal, with international pressure mounting, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said his country was willing to resume negotiations. Later, however, he declared, "In no way will Iran give up its right to nuclear technology, including the fuel cycle for peaceful purposes, as it is enshrined in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)." For some time now, Iran has been accused of using its nuclear energy program to facilitate the development of nuclear weapons. International pressure is mounting for it to halt its fuel-cycle work, which can be diverted for military purposes. The U.S. and the European Union want Iran to totally abandon all work related to uranium enrichment, arguing that it cannot be trusted with such sensitive technology. They are offering Iran incentives to give up its program. Fears are growing that allowing Iran to continue its present course will send a strong signal to North Korea, which dropped out of the NPT in 2003 and now claims to have the bomb. Iran has not made such a claim, and says it does not need nuclear weapons, but the world is not ready to believe it. The world has seen two decades of nuclear-related deceit: coverups of experiments to enrich uranium and make plutonium, and lies about nuclear equipment and materials bought on the black market. Libya and North Korea benefited from such clandestine deals. There have also been reports of Pakistan getting nuclear supplies from Libya. Where then is the guarantee that Iran will not do the same? Ultimately, diplomacy may not work, and harsher measures might have to be taken to reign in Iran. A nuclear Iran may not be in India's interest, and New Delhi also knows that Tehran may not so easily call off the gas project because it needs the money -- if for no other reason than to keep its so-called civilian nuclear program going. The Japan Times: Oct. 10, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 2 AU ABC: Iran denies nuclear weapon plan AM - Monday, 10 October , 2005 08:24:00 Reporter: Mark Willacy PETER CAVE: Iran has denied accusations by the United States that it's designing a nuclear warhead capable of triggering a massive blast. A spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry in Tehran says the allegation is a lie, stressing the country's nuclear program is solely aimed at generating electricity. But the British intelligence agency MI-5 has compiled a list of Middle East and Asian groups trying to obtain parts for nuclear weapons, and that includes more than 110 Iranian organisations and companies. A former chief of the Israeli spy agency Mossad has told AM that he believes the Iranians are just a couple of years from developing a nuclear arsenal. Middle East Correspondent Mark Willacy reports from Tel Aviv. MARK WILLACY: As the chief of Mossad in the late 1990s, Danny Yatom ran the Middle East's most extensive network of spies. Nicknamed "the Prussian", Yatom ordered assassinations, set up sleeper cells in enemy states, and ran covert surveillance operations throughout the region. Based on his intelligence background, the former Mossad spymaster believes Israel's greatest threat now comes from Iran. DANNY YATOM: It is for Israel an existential threat. MARK WILLACY: Danny Yatom scoffs at Tehran's claim that its nuclear program is designed solely for the generation of electricity. Like the Bush administration, he believes the Islamic Republic is trying to build an atomic bomb. DANNY YATOM: If there will be no intervention, and we will sit idle, then the Iranians will be able to achieve their nuclear capability in a time of a few years, very short period of time, as a matter of fact, because we have to take into consideration that once the Iranians will have in their possession a nuclear bomb or a nuclear attacking capability, they will, might think or to consider to use it against Israel. MARK WILLACY: It's now been revealed that last month US officials briefed a number of countries on intelligence they say proves that the Iranians are trying to develop nuclear weapons. The officials told their audience that they believe the Iranians are conducting research on building a missile warhead which can explode at an altitude of 600 metres – the same height at which the Hiroshima atomic bomb was detonated. Now a Labour Party member of Israel's Parliament, Danny Yatom warns that the Iranians are likely to ignore international pressure and to continue work on their nuclear program. DANNY YATOM: And taking into account the threat that might be possessed by the Iranians, I think that the democratic world should not ignore and should not exclude also a military option, but I think that it should be the last resort. MARK WILLACY: Twenty-four years ago Israeli warplanes bombed a nuclear reactor being built by Saddam Hussein near Baghdad. But Danny Yatom says a similar operation against the Iranians would be complicated and very risky. DANNY YATOM: Due to the fact that the Iranians spread their sites, nuclear sites, all over Iran, many of which are dug very deep in the ground, and it should call for a relatively huge orchestrated military operation in order to hit the majority of the sites and to cause such damage that it will be effective. MARK WILLACY: But at least for now this is merely a diplomatic battle. Over the weekend a secret document prepared by the British intelligence agency MI-5 was leaked to the press. It listed more than 110 Iranian organisations which have allegedly acquired nuclear, biological, chemical or missile technology. This is Mark Willacy in Tel Aviv for AM. ***************************************************************** 3 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: KEDO to be shut down, Japan newspaper says Octorber 11, 2005 KST 14:24 (GMT+9 October 11, 2005 ¤Ñ A Japanese newspaper, citing government sources there, said there is a consensus at a North Korean nuclear power project organization to shut the body down. Asahi Shimbun said yesterday that at a meeting of the board of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization last month, Japan and the United States agreed to close the organization's doors; South Korea reportedly raised no objections. The newspaper did not comment on the views of the fourth member of KEDO's board, the European Union. The organization, formed to implement a 1994 agreement that ended the previous North Korean nuclear crisis, suspended work on the two reactors at the site on North Korea's east coast two years ago after tensions over North Korean nuclear weapons began to escalate again. The second one-year suspension agreed to by the four governments expires next month. A skeleton crew of about 120 KEDO officials and contractor employees is maintaining the construction site; the organization has spent over $1.5 billion on the project so far, including $1.12 billion provided by Seoul. A government official in Seoul denied the report, saying discussions have not yet reached a conclusion. The organization's board is slated to meet again next month, when it will be forced to decide whether to end the project or extend its suspension. by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr> Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 4 Korea Times: [Times Forum] From Russia With Help Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion By Georgy Bulychev Why would North Korea insist on a light-water reactor (LWR), and not agree to a less controversial and easier-to-implement option, such as a gas-powered thermal power station or a supply of electricity from South Korea or China? Is it just another tactical maneuver to raise the stakes and prolong the discussion so that the time for real ``actions for actions¡¯¡¯ would be indefinitely postponed? Anyway, as the talks linger on, North Korea feels immune from pressure to discard nuclear programs serving as a shield. Or may Pyongyang have no intention whatsoever of giving up the status of a self-declared nuclear power and is just procrastinating in the expectation of a future, more forthcoming U.S. administration, or a sudden international development, such as a crisis in U.S.-China relations that could make their military capabilities very relevant? It is conceivable that some hawks in Pyongyang may secretly harbor such ideas, but I am inclined to believe in Kim Jong Il¡¯s intention to strike a deal. For the first time since the Korean War he has the real possibility of negotiating an agreement with the ``archenemy¡¯¡¯ to significantly enhance the security of his country. That would also constitute a moral victory, important to all Koreans, North and South, and it might make his name go down in Korean history as a wise and visionary national leader. Then how should we interpret North Korea¡¯s fierce demand? Having LWR may be a strategic matter for Kim Jong Il. What is sometimes missed is the nature of North Korean mentality and identity, in particular the Juche idea, which is usually dismissed as sheer propaganda. Juche requires that the supreme motivation for any policy be independence and self-reliance. That is what has kept the regime in power for so long. To that end, an independent power-generation capability is indispensable, and nuclear power is the only means to achieve it. When Pyongyang started to press the USSR to provide the DPRK with a nuclear power plant, Moscow was at first amazed and expressed financial and safety concerns. But Kim Il Sung explained that having a source of power independent of external supply and using local raw materials is a core strategic choice for the survival of the country. As a brainchild of his father, the idea of possessing such a nuclear-power generating capacity has become a sacred behest, which his son cannot but respect. The strong possibility of a gridlock in the next round of 6-party talks prompts us not to exclude any ideas as a priori. What if we presume the LWR construction issue is really on the agenda? Neither American nor French, let alone Canadian, British or Japanese models are viable, mostly because of the strong opposition in the U.S. to the very idea of transferring sensitive technology to North Korea. South Korea does not exclude the possibility of the eventual construction of a South Korean-type LWR in the North, but that would need U.S. approval in the remote future, after the dismantling of all nuclear programs in the DPRK becomes a fact. That does not help with the questions we face today, as North Koreans remember well what happened with KEDO. The solution may be either a Chinese or Russian LWR. I tend to believe North Koreans would not prefer a Chinese one. They are not particularly eager to become even more strongly tied to China than they are now. This is not what Juche teaches. What about a Russian LWR, such as has been constructed in several countries, including China? The USSR-DPRK 1985 agreement on construction of two VVER-1000-type LWRs has never been rescinded and is still binding. Russian specialists carried out a geological survey of the DPRK singling out the Shinpo area, although they were never repaid. All preparatory legal, administrative and design work has already been done. All that is needed is to restart the project. That means a much shorter construction time period than any alternative, and a quicker way to demand from North Koreans their implementation of the deal. Can Russia be a part of the financial arrangements? Not in the event that its model is rejected. But should the Russian model be chosen, Moscow could consider future-oriented investment in the LWR on government credit terms. Especially if other countries, including perhaps a resurrected KEDO framework enabling the U.S. to retain political control, were also to bear their share of financing, and if the return of the credit were to be cross-guaranteed by an international framework. A Russian LWR would cost much less than any alternative, even if the companies of all participating countries were to be awarded a share of contracts. That would be good news for taxpayers and politicians who help make it happen. The technical hurdle of the inadequate North Korean power grid could be easily solved by hooking the LWR to the Russian and then to the South Korean grid. Negotiations to this effect are already underway. What if we employ some radical thinking? In the event of the U.S. not yielding to the demand to build a LWR on North Korean soil, why not construct it across the Korean-Russian border? It would legally be North Korean property, managed by North Koreans (with Russian technical assistance), and automatically connected to the Russian grid and maybe to the Chinese one, with the DPRK able to export the energy. All the issues of technical maintenance, IAEA safeguards, verification, spent fuel disposal, can be solved without any problem by reason of the LWR being on Russian territory, as Russia is a legal nuclear power. And with the U.S. being part of the deal, North Koreans should not be excessively worried about confidence building with them. What about the South Korean reactor that Southerners find it proper to build ``in their own backyard?¡¯¡¯ Such a facility could be constructed later in Shinpo, in line with the development of inter-Korean cooperation and in order to satisfy the rising power needs of the South Korea¡¯s fast growing economy. The ROK is short of places to construct new reactors anyway. But this could happen independent of the framework of the 6-party talks and on a more solid economic and financial basis. Georgy Bulychev is Research Director of the Center for Contemporary Korean Studies, Russian Institute of Global Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) in Moscow, Russia Federation. 10-10-2005 16:51 ***************************************************************** 5 ITAR-TASS: N Korea right to have peace nuke program very important-official. 10.10.2005, 09.45 PYONGYANG, October 10 (Itar-Tass) - Plenipotentiary representative of the Russian president in the Far Eastern federal district Konstantin Pulikovsky has positively assessed the results of the fourth round of the six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear programme. Pulikovsky is on an official visit here. The presidential representative's press secretary Yevgeny Anoshin told Itar-Tass on Monday Pulikovsty made this statement at a meeting with North Korean leader Kim John Il on Sunday. “We positively assess the results of the fourth round of the six-sided talks,” Pulikovsky stressed. “Another important step towards the achievement of the Korean Peninsula’s nuclear-free status has been made. It is important that the right of North Korea to pursue a nuclear programme for peaceful purposes has been confirmed,” the presidential representative said. At the talks the sides also discussed issues of bilateral relations and economic cooperation. Pulikovsky handed to Kim John Il the diploma, gown and medal of the honorarry doctor of Far East State University. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 6 Minjok-Tongshin: Often-gloomy North Korea shows a sunnier side 2005.10.10 10:05:43 By Choe Sang-Hun, International Herald Tribune 2005-10-09 - PYONGYANG, North Korea Here in the North Korean capital, where ubiquitous slogans posted on deserted boulevards and carved into mammoth towers give the city the look of an off-season theme park dedicated to a bygone ideology, one message is conspicuously absent these days. There is no mural showing muscular North Korean soldiers stabbing American troops with bayonets, as there once was. No longer is there a billboard depicting a North Korean missile slamming into Capitol Hill in Washington. And there are no shrill slogans exhorting North Koreans to prepare for "a final battle with American imperialist aggressors," as they did in the past. "It is true that we have removed anti-American slogans," said Hong Sung Chul, one of the North Korean officials who recently escorted a group of South Koreans on a tour of the North. "We hope the Americans reciprocate our good will." Hong said the removal of anti-American slogans was part of North Korea's effort to cultivate a favorable atmosphere amid six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program. A new round of negotiations is scheduled for November. But it is still a toss-up as to whether the banished imagery was part of an official campaign to recast the most enduring feature of North Korean psyche, the fear and loathing of Americans, or just a publicity effort for visitors. Either way, the revamping of propaganda in North Korea's showpiece capital was as much a sign of change here as the busloads of foreign tourists rushing through the once-forbidden city. These modest indicators offer a glimpse into a country that is gradually regaining confidence after years of famine and after tentatively increasing its contacts with the outside world. Pyongyang is not a mirror of the rest of the country. The government stocks the city with politically reliable citizens and keeps its living standard much higher than elsewhere. But in the sales pitches and bargaining of store clerks and the relaxed manner of Communist minders escorting visitors, eager to polish their government's image, a new measure of optimism was palpable among the country's elite. The government minders, part tour guides and part public relations officers for the regime, talked about the importance of rebuilding the North Korean economy and attracting foreign investment with the same rehearsed spontaneity that North Koreans once recited anti-American diatribes. As North Korea prepared to celebrate Monday the 60th anniversary of the ruling Workers' Party, throngs of students and citizens have been mobilized daily to rehearse for a massive outdoor rally. Streets were festooned with red-and-yellow party flags emblazoned with the images of a hammer, sickle and calligrapher's brush. For almost two months, the authorities have also brought thousands of people into Pyongyang in North Korea's version of a pilgrimage to Mecca. Here, the faithful were treated with an "Arirang" extravaganza, the closest thing to an Olympic opening ceremony in North Korea, but one with a decidedly totalitarian flavor. In an unusual gesture of openness, the North Koreans this year opened the show to outsiders, accepting hundreds of them daily, mostly from South Korea, in a scheme driven not simply by a desire to educate outsiders on North Korean socialism, but also by commercialism. For these outsiders, the trip was an occasion to witness the country's cautious and clumsy steps into the outside world even as the North is still burdened with the ideas of an outmoded era. Unwittingly or not, North Korea, by opening itself to well-fed South Koreans wielding digital cameras and bursting with U.S. dollars, was casting itself as one of the world's weirdest tourist destinations. In between visits to Communist monuments, tourists were ushered into souvenir shops where smiling beauties sold everything from mushrooms to "adder liquor," a leaky bottle of fiery alcohol with a dead snake in it. The women extolled the concoction's purported effectiveness as an aphrodisiac and only accepted euros and U.S. dollars. The South Korean tourists spent profusely, buying goods whose main attraction was neither quality nor prices, but rather the flimsy packaging and outdated design: perfect I-have-been-there mementos from the world's last remaining "socialist paradise." North Korea demands that all visitors start their trip to Pyongyang by bowing before the 23-meter-tall, or 75-foot-high, brass statue of Kim Il Sung, the first ruler of North Korea. On a recent trip, however, South Korean tourists stood upright before the statue, some with hands in pockets, some clicking digital cameras, as an official solemnly bid them to bow. If North Korean minders were enraged, they did not show it. But questioning revealed the minders' unique take on their country's problems with the outside world. "People in South Korea and the rest of the world don't understand us," complained Hong. "We know some countries ridicule us for our economic difficulties. We want to rebuild our economy fast. How good will it be if we can use the money spent for our nuclear weapons to buy rice for our people. But we can't. "We saw what the Americans did to Iraq," Hong continued. "What option would a small country like us have but to build nuclear weapons when a big bully is determined to strangle us and gang up on us?" Park Man Gil, a North Korean official, stressed his country's desire for greater contact with its neighbor. "We want more economic cooperation with South Korea," he said. The North's desire to make connection to the outside world was confirmed - vigorously, in fact - by a South Korean executive. "You always hear two voices here. On one hand, they lash out at the United States; on the other hand, they are conciliatory," said Park Sang Kwon, president of Pyeonghwa Motors of South Korea, which runs an auto-assembly factory in North Korea. "As a person who has dealt with the North Koreans more often than any other from the outside, I can say with certainty that the North Koreans really want to be accepted by, and live with, the Americans." Kim meets Chinese officials Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, met a high-ranking Chinese delegation and received a message from President Hu Jintao of China, the North's state media said Sunday, according to an Associated Press report from Seoul. The delegation, led by the Chinese deputy prime minister, Wu Yi, and including Beijing's main nuclear negotiator, Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, was expected to discuss issues surrounding Pyongyang's nuclear program. But the subject wasn't mentioned in the report on the visit from the North's official press agency. China's official Xinhua press agency said Wu also met with the North Korean prime minister, Pak Pong Ju. PYONGYANG, North Korea Here in the North Korean capital, where ubiquitous slogans posted on deserted boulevards and carved into mammoth towers give the city the look of an off-season theme park dedicated to a bygone ideology, one message is conspicuously absent these days. There is no mural showing muscular North Korean soldiers stabbing American troops with bayonets, as there once was. No longer is there a billboard depicting a North Korean missile slamming into Capitol Hill in Washington. And there are no shrill slogans exhorting North Koreans to prepare for "a final battle with American imperialist aggressors," as they did in the past. "It is true that we have removed anti-American slogans," said Hong Sung Chul, one of the North Korean officials who recently escorted a group of South Koreans on a tour of the North. "We hope the Americans reciprocate our good will." Hong said the removal of anti-American slogans was part of North Korea's effort to cultivate a favorable atmosphere amid six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program. A new round of negotiations is scheduled for November. But it is still a toss-up as to whether the banished imagery was part of an official campaign to recast the most enduring feature of North Korean psyche, the fear and loathing of Americans, or just a publicity effort for visitors. Either way, the revamping of propaganda in North Korea's showpiece capital was as much a sign of change here as the busloads of foreign tourists rushing through the once-forbidden city. These modest indicators offer a glimpse into a country that is gradually regaining confidence after years of famine and after tentatively increasing its contacts with the outside world. Pyongyang is not a mirror of the rest of the country. The government stocks the city with politically reliable citizens and keeps its living standard much higher than elsewhere. But in the sales pitches and bargaining of store clerks and the relaxed manner of Communist minders escorting visitors, eager to polish their government's image, a new measure of optimism was palpable among the country's elite. The government minders, part tour guides and part public relations officers for the regime, talked about the importance of rebuilding the North Korean economy and attracting foreign investment with the same rehearsed spontaneity that North Koreans once recited anti-American diatribes. As North Korea prepared to celebrate Monday the 60th anniversary of the ruling Workers' Party, throngs of students and citizens have been mobilized daily to rehearse for a massive outdoor rally. Streets were festooned with red-and-yellow party flags emblazoned with the images of a hammer, sickle and calligrapher's brush. For almost two months, the authorities have also brought thousands of people into Pyongyang in North Korea's version of a pilgrimage to Mecca. Here, the faithful were treated with an "Arirang" extravaganza, the closest thing to an Olympic opening ceremony in North Korea, but one with a decidedly totalitarian flavor. In an unusual gesture of openness, the North Koreans this year opened the show to outsiders, accepting hundreds of them daily, mostly from South Korea, in a scheme driven not simply by a desire to educate outsiders on North Korean socialism, but also by commercialism. For these outsiders, the trip was an occasion to witness the country's cautious and clumsy steps into the outside world even as the North is still burdened with the ideas of an outmoded era. Unwittingly or not, North Korea, by opening itself to well-fed South Koreans wielding digital cameras and bursting with U.S. dollars, was casting itself as one of the world's weirdest tourist destinations. In between visits to Communist monuments, tourists were ushered into souvenir shops where smiling beauties sold everything from mushrooms to "adder liquor," a leaky bottle of fiery alcohol with a dead snake in it. The women extolled the concoction's purported effectiveness as an aphrodisiac and only accepted euros and U.S. dollars. The South Korean tourists spent profusely, buying goods whose main attraction was neither quality nor prices, but rather the flimsy packaging and outdated design: perfect I-have-been-there mementos from the world's last remaining "socialist paradise." North Korea demands that all visitors start their trip to Pyongyang by bowing before the 23-meter-tall, or 75-foot-high, brass statue of Kim Il Sung, the first ruler of North Korea. On a recent trip, however, South Korean tourists stood upright before the statue, some with hands in pockets, some clicking digital cameras, as an official solemnly bid them to bow. If North Korean minders were enraged, they did not show it. But questioning revealed the minders' unique take on their country's problems with the outside world. "People in South Korea and the rest of the world don't understand us," complained Hong. "We know some countries ridicule us for our economic difficulties. We want to rebuild our economy fast. How good will it be if we can use the money spent for our nuclear weapons to buy rice for our people. But we can't. "We saw what the Americans did to Iraq," Hong continued. "What option would a small country like us have but to build nuclear weapons when a big bully is determined to strangle us and gang up on us?" Park Man Gil, a North Korean official, stressed his country's desire for greater contact with its neighbor. "We want more economic cooperation with South Korea," he said. The North's desire to make connection to the outside world was confirmed - vigorously, in fact - by a South Korean executive. "You always hear two voices here. On one hand, they lash out at the United States; on the other hand, they are conciliatory," said Park Sang Kwon, president of Pyeonghwa Motors of South Korea, which runs an auto-assembly factory in North Korea. "As a person who has dealt with the North Koreans more often than any other from the outside, I can say with certainty that the North Koreans really want to be accepted by, and live with, the Americans." Copyright © 1999-2005 Minjok Tongshin mailto:minjok@minjok.com ***************************************************************** 7 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Views on Seoul's role 2005.10.11 Of late, there have been recurring reports on an alleged rift between Seoul and Washington on the assessment of South Korea's role in the multi-party process to resolve the North Korean nuclear weapons program. Key officials involved in the six-way talks, now in recess after issuing a joint statement on principles in dealing with the question on Sept. 19, were busy rectifying reports from Washington, Tokyo and Seoul conveying signs of discord. Sankei Shimbun, the staunchly conservative Japanese daily which has consistently followed an anti-North Korean editorial line, set off the media debate with a story on an off-the-record briefing by chief U.S. delegate Christopher Hill during a recent academic seminar in Washington. He reportedly expressed general displeasure with what South Korea did during and after the latest round of the Beijing talks, which are to resume in November. Hill complained that Seoul's announcement of massive aid to the North hampers the future of the six-way talks, and about South Korea's invitation of North Korea to the forthcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in Busan, according to the Japanese daily. Hill also blamed Seoul for a "leak" of his intention to visit Pyongyang. Conservative newspapers here picked up the Sankei story, some splashing it on the front page. The Japanese report offered them ground to counter the government's claim that its delegation played an important and essential role in the six-way talks in producing the joint statement which Seoul officials touted as having produced the framework for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the establishment of regional security. In Washington, Hill promptly denied the Sankei report and emphasized that Seoul actively supported Washington throughout the talks. In Seoul, ruling Uri Party chairman Moon Hee-sang asserted "a certain scheming media force" deliberately inflates any news about discord involving the two allies only to widen the rift and deepen distrust between them without editorial scrutiny of their accuracy. Moon must be representing the general opinion of the presidential office and security officials regarding the media skepticism. Yet, whether the negative news reports were intentional distortions or not, any incongruity in the assessment of Korea's role in the six-way talks and in the two allies' overall North Korea diplomacy stems from the difference in their basic stance toward the North. Seoul believes an improvement in inter-Korean relations, with increased exchanges and economic cooperation between the two divided halves, is good for resolving the North's nuclear development question and security problems on the peninsula. On the other hand, the present Washington administration believes that material support from the South only emboldens the North and results in further delays in Pyongyang's eventual abandonment of its nuclear program, as it would make it difficult to produce a concession from North Korea. As long as this fundamental difference exists, the media will be able to pick up disturbing noises from the two capitals no matter how assiduously President Roh Moo-hyun and his aides stress that the alliance is strong and durable. Rep. Moon's allegation of "news recycling" may contain some truth and the media need to pay heed to his concerns. Still, the administration authorities should make further efforts to reach a consensus with the United States as their usual tactic of blaming hostile media will not help much. ***************************************************************** 8 Korea Herald: South willing to allow mutual nuclear inspection with North 2005.10.11 South Korea is willing to conduct a mutual inspection of nuclear facilities with North Korea as part of efforts to facilitate a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said yesterday. "If necessary in the course toward the North's abandonment of its nuclear arsenal, a mutual nuclear inspection between South and North could be conducted," Chung said in a parliamentary inspection of his ministry. In the 1991 Joint Declaration, two Koreas agreed to conduct mutual inspection of places selected by the other side and agreed upon in accordance with procedures and methods to be determined by a joint South-North nuclear control commission, he noted. Pyongyang agreed to a statement of principles on abandoning its atomic weapons in return for energy and security guarantees during a six-nation negotiation in Beijing last month. But the North has since said it will not dismantle its nuclear programs until the United States delivers light-water reactors to allow it to generate power. The minister said the government will closely discuss the details and facilities with the United States when it pushes the joint inspection. National Security Adviser Kwon Chin-ho yesterday said Seoul will have talks on the provision of light-water reactors in North Korea only if the North rids all the nuclear weapons and related programs and rejoins nuclear arms control treaties. "That is the consensus made in the second phrase of the fourth round of the six-party talks among related parties," Kwon said in a parliamentary audit of the presidential National Security Council. "We will try our best to adopt the plans for implementation of the joint statement in the fifth round of six-party talks." North Korea's demand for a reactor for its civilian nuclear program has created doubts on a breakthrough agreement last month in which Pyongyang agreed to abandon all nuclear programs in exchange for security guarantees and energy aid. The six nations - the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia - agreed to discuss the reactor demand "at an appropriate time," which the North insists is now. (aibang@heraldm.com) By Annie I. Bang ***************************************************************** 9 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korea, U.S., Japan Discuss Ending KEDO Home> National/Politics Updated Oct.10,2005 19:49 KST Officials from South Korea, the United States and Japan are seeking to wind up the Korean Energy Development Organization. In the past decade, the KEDO consortium spearheaded the construction of light-water reactors for the North under the 1994 Geneva Accords. The chief U.S. delegate to six-party talks on North Korea¡¯s nuclear program Christopher Hill last week said KEDO had served its purpose and that a new arrangement was now needed to accommodate the latest developments in the region. The Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun reported Monday that South Korea, the U.S. and Japan discussed winding up KEDO at an informal meeting in New York last month. The three nations are believed to be working to put an end to KEDO's operations by the end of next month. Led by the three countries and the EU, KEDO was established under the 1994 accord between Washington and Pyongyang in which North Korea vowed to renounce its nuclear arms initiatives in return for two light-water nuclear reactors for power generation. It stopped construction when the North tore up the accord. Arirang News ***************************************************************** 10 WP: Korea's Agreements Monday, October 10, 2005; Page A18 The Sept. 25 Outlook article "You Say Okjeryok, I Say Deterrent" touched upon the fourth round of the six-party talks held Sept. 19. The joint statement of these talks was negotiated and adopted in English. Therefore, it is important to understand what was meant by use of the word "abandon." The writer focused on the word pogi hada , the Korean translation of "abandon," and claimed that it "could be interpreted to mean leaving the weapons in place rather than dismantling them." This is wrong. North Korea will not only dismantle its nuclear weapons and programs, it also will give up the intention of having those weapons and programs. Second, the writer argued that one goal of "the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" could be to allow the Pyongyang regime to link inspections in the North to demands that South Korea, as part of the Korean Peninsula, also be subject to verification. Although the Korean Peninsula includes both South and North Korea in a geographical sense, the clear understanding among the countries in the talks was that the subject was denuclearization of North Korea. Nevertheless, my government is well aware of how this phrase can be interpreted and has in mind appropriate measures to deal with it in case this becomes an issue. Third, while the writer seems to see the joint statement only as an agreement between the United States and North Korea, it was a common product of the six participating countries, including the Republic of Korea. SOCK-JOONG YOON Minister for Public Affairs Embassy of Korea Washington © 2005 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 11 [NYTr] US demands American owner for Westinghouse Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:44:52 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness ["National security" is cited by the US as reason not to allow neo-liberal globalisation to determine the ownership of certain private corporations with US operations but similar concerns expressed by third world countries are dismissed as a breach of free trade. Evidence of US imperialism? Expect increasing protectionism (whatever excuse they use) from the USA as the value of US corporations falls due to downward pressure on the dollar caused by Bush's unprecedented deficit.-SMcG] The Independent - 10 October 2005 http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article318425.ece US demands American owner for Westinghouse By Katherine Griffiths in New York Pressure is mounting on the UK government to sell Westinghouse, the profitable American arm of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), to one of its compatriots amid concerns about foreign companies threatening national security by buying US companies. While the UK's publicly-owned BNFL has managed Westinghouse since 1999, the prevailing view among politicians in Washington is that the major nuclear engineering company on its soil should be owned by an American firm. The position has serious implications for some of the bidders for the Pittsburgh-based group, a sale which could raise up to $2bn (#1.1bn). Among the heavyweight contenders that have made bids are Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, a long-time business partner of Westinghouse, and Toshiba. South Korea's Doosan Heavy Industries has entered the fray. All three are likely to lose out in the auction, making the most likely contenders to clinch the prize the US titan General Electric, which has teamed up with the New York-based hedge fund Cerberus, and the Louisiana-based Shaw. NM Rothschild, BNFL's banker, is considering the offers for Westinghouse, which the British government is keen to sell partly because nuclear assets are highly priced, and because it is keen to remove the risk of possible accidents from being a public responsibility. It is also selling British Nuclear Group, which is decommissioning spent nuclear fuel in the UK. Those stepping up the campaign to keep sensitive businesses in American hands include Richard Shelby, the chairman of the Senate banking committee. He is among a group of influential politicians who want a more robust investigation into potential national security threats when foreign companies bid for American ones. The move comes after China's Cnooc bid for Unocal, the California-based oil company, this summer, causing widespread anxiety on Capitol Hill. Such bids are vetted by the White House-controlled committee on foreign investments. The committee, CFIUS, did not have to rule on the Unocal situation in the end because Cnooc pulled out. A congressional watchdog said in a recent report that CFIUS, which comprises 12 government agencies, reviewed deals based on a definition of national security that was too narrow, and did not have adequate time to review transactions. Mr Shelby said last week: "The Treasury Department [which chairs CFIUS] may believe that the process is sufficiently transparent. We most certainly do not agree." As Westinghouse operates in the nuclear sector, with its associations with possible military use, its sale would almost certainly be reviewed by CFIUS, and any foreign buyer would find it difficult to overcome the national security concerns. In addition, America's powerful Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will review any deal. A spokesperson for the NRC said the body's jurisdiction would include ensuring any buyer had the financial and technical capabilities to take on Westinghouse. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 12 Support Our Disarmament Agenda in Washington Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:46:33 -0500 (CDT) Dear Friends and Supporters, I am pleased to inform you that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation opened an office in Washington, DC in April of this year. This office affords us the opportunity to respond more rapidly and effectively to national nuclear policy issues. The Foundation, with demonstrated successes as an effective and dynamic force for change, is situated to offer members of Congress and their staffs immediate information and analysis on nuclear policy matters. Our Washington, DC office provides opportunity and fertile ground for collaborations and partnerships with other non-governmental organizations working on the national level for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Carah Ong, the Foundation's Advocacy and Research Director, directs the DC office. Since opening the office, Carah has undertaken a number of activities aimed at strengthening our presence and credibility. Highlights of these activities include: * Providing research and analysis to members of Congress in an effort to bolster legislation for safer nuclear policy; * Working with other organizations to form more effective strategies for legislative change; * Sending Action Alerts on pending US nuclear policy as part of the Foundation's Turn the Tide Campaign. This year, well over 10,000 messages have been sent to members of Congress and the Administration; and * Coordinating Foundation events at the United Nations. The groundwork we are laying in Washington through Carah's steady and dedicated work will have lasting benefits for the Foundation. There are, of course, many things we hope to accomplish through our presence in DC. Looking ahead, some of our principal goals for the remainder of 2005 and through 2006 include: * Sponsoring policy briefings for members of Congress and their staffs; * Continuing to build relationships with Congressional allies and helping to support their legislative efforts by providing research and reports on pending policy and legislative matters; * Continuing to build relationships within the arms control and disarmament communities, identifying new partners and allies for shared advocacy campaigns as well as access to other collaborative efforts; and * Laying the groundwork for preparation of Foundation-initiated legislation on key aspects of US nuclear policy. We need your help in order to accomplish these goals . Only through your participation can we ensure a credible presence in Washington and effectively maintain the Foundation's disarmament agenda. Our effectiveness will be gauged by how legislators and their staffs respond to our efforts, either by supporting their policies or by working to overturn them. If we make our presence felt and provide a clear channel for citizens to voice their concerns to their elected representatives, we will be affecting real change and filling an important niche by bringing more democratic transparency to this critical policy area. Your support of this undertaking is critical to its success. We can provide the necessary message and policy agenda, but it is up to all of us to ensure that we can keep this presence alive and flourishing so that real change can be affected in the halls of power. We ask you to join us in making a commitment to keep the disarmament agenda alive and well in our nation's Capitol by supporting the Foundation's office in Washington, DC. Thank you for being a partner in the Foundation's expansion and increased national presence. Our work there is just beginning, but the potential is great and we look forward to being your representative in Washington for a nuclear weapons-free future. With best wishes. Sincerely, David Krieger President Support the Washington DC Office >> ***************************************************************** 13 Nobel Peace Prize IAEA Statement by GRACE]] Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:49:22 -0700 X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES nuclear X-Temp-Subjectphrase2: YES prize X-Spamprobe: ham-super * 0.0000956 OK Hi Roger, This appeared in Counterpunch as an editorial. Alice http://www.counterpunch.org/slater10092005.html GIVE PEACE A CHANCE! The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has given peace a black eye by awarding its annual honor to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its Director, Mohammed El Baradei, ironically, for working to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The IAEA has been the world's most effective agent for increasing the spread of nuclear weapons around the planet with its industry-dominated promotion of so-called "peaceful" nuclear technology. The nuclear crises we face today is a direct result of the export of peaceful nuclear technology to countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Indeed, every nuclear reactor enables a country to develop its own nuclear weapons, as we have seen in the case of India, Pakistan, and Israel, who never joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty and now have nuclear arsenals as a result of "peaceful" nuclear technology. Under the guise of "peace", other countries, such as South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, and Libya were also well on their way to developing nuclear bombs, which they later abandoned. The international community has already acknowledged that peaceful nuclear technology is a gateway to nuclear weapons proliferation when it required the signatures of 44 "nuclear-capable" nations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) before it could take effect. These are the 44 countries in possessi on of the 440 nuclear reactors around the world, spewing out their toxic radioactive waste which can be turned into bombs. The signers of the CTB were well aware that by having a nuclear reactor, a nation had been given the keys to a bomb factory and would need to be included in any effort to ban nuclear tests, regardless of whether they proclaimed any intention to develop weapons. The IAEA has been instrumental in covering up the disastrous health effects of the Chernobyl tragedy, understating the number of deaths by attributing only 50 deaths directly to the accident. This was a whitewash of health studies performed by Russia and the Ukraine which estimated thousands of deaths and thousands who suffered thyroid cancer and leukemia as a result of the accident. This cover-up was no doubt due to the collusive agreement between the IAEA and the World Health Organization, which provides that if either of the organizations initiates any program or activity in which the other "has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult with the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." Thus our scientists and researchers at the WHO are required to have their work vetted by the industry's champion for "peaceful" nuclear technology, the IAEA. For example, WHO abandoned its original 1961 agenda for research on the basic human health implications of food irradiation. It ceded to the IAEA, whose mission is preserving the nuclear industry not the health of people, the ultimate power of researching the safety of irradiated foods. The IAEA is leading a global campaign to further the legalization, commercialization and consumer acceptance of irradiated foods. "We must confer with experts in the various fields of advertising and psychology to put the public at ease," one IAEA report states, also recommending that the process "should not be required on the label." It is time for the IAEA to give up its dual mission in nuclear technology. While the Agency may play a useful role in inspecting and verifying compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements, it cannot continue to act with a manifest conflict of interest as a shill for the nuclear industry. Instead, the global community should establish an International Sustainable Energy Agency and give our peace prize to that more laudable effort. We need to give peace a chance. Alice Slater -- Voor Moeder Aarde vzw, lid van Friends of the Earth International K. Maria Hendrikaplein 5 9000 Gent - Belgium Tel +32-9-242 87 04 Mobile +32 495 28 02 59 Fax +32-9-242 87 51 pol@motherearth.org www.moederaarde.be ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> DonorsChoose.org helps at-risk students succeed. Fund a student project today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/O4u7KD/FpQLAA/E2hLAA/nJ9qlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ***************************************************************** 14 California Energy Commission finds questions for future of Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:31:28 -0700 X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES nuclear X-Spamprobe: ham-extreme * 0.0001191 OK lang="en-US"> 5e574.jpg Click to open in your Browser California Energy Commission finds questions for future of nuclear power in state unresolved! Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility's participation in the CEC conference results in recommendation for state to do a full cost/benefit/risk analysis of continuation of nuclear plants past current licenses. A Message from Rochelle Great strides have been made in the past two months towards our goal of addressing the future of nuclear power. Both the CEC and the state legislature are beginning to question whether it is in the best interest of Californians to continue down a nuclear path for future energy needs. Current licenses end in the 2020s and with determination, and armed with facts, our state will be the first to ban license renewal based on firm cost/benefit/risk analyses and the absence of a safe permanent waste facility. No other state has taken this step. It will be a hard political fight, but with your help we will accomplish our goal to end the production and limit the storage of high-level radioactive waste on our fragile coast. CEC's 2005 Report states: "The state should evaluate the long-term implications associated with the continuing accumulation of spent fuel at California's operating plants, including a case-by-case evaluation of public safety and ratepayer costs of on-site interim storage [and transport] of spent nuclear fuel vs transporting spent fuel offsite for interim storage." For a copy of the complete report CEC 2005 Draft Integrated Energy Report Rochelle Becker, Executive Director Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility www.a4nr.org (858) 337 2703 5e61b.jpg Launching our Supporters' Program This month we officially launch our Supporters' Program. We encourage individuals and organizations to make a contribution and receive a public acknowledgment on our site. Supporters receive a public recognition and a web page where they can explain their position on Nuclear Relicensing. If you, your organization, or people you know are candidates for supporting us, please read this. Upcoming Events Important events for the Alliance * O'merde Invitational will benefit the Alliance * The O'Merde Celebrity Charity Pro-Am Invitational (Known in the highest golf circles simply as "The O'Merde") Location: Boulder Creek Golf and Country Club 16901 Big Basin Highway Boulder Creek, California 95006 www.bouldercreekgolf.com Entry fee: $125. Includes green fees, a donation to the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, and not much else. Accommodations are available at the club Those wishing to be considered for a invitation ( it is an invitational, after all) should contact Bob Brandes at crashbrandes@sbcglobal.net or (415) 775-8430 to arrange an interview. After in depth analysis of you sense of humor, ability to deal with bent rules, and account balances, the competition committee will render its decision. Note - Bribes will be accepted in the form of checks made out to the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. For those of you who don't wish to be considered, you might want to send in a contribution anyway. We know who you are. Swing Hard, Swing Often, The Bobinator * Read more * Dangers of Nuclear Energy * Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility executive director, Rochelle Becker, will share the status of Alliance efforts to phase out the production and storage of high-level radioactive waste on California's fragile coast. Ms. Becker will also share action plans for next years 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl - the world's largest industrial disaster. * Read more * AN4R Meeting * This will be a very important meeting! With the price of natural gas going up what appears to be daily, we need to arm ourselves with why nukes are not the answer. Some of this will be countered in reports due out in December from Europe and U.S., so the timing will be helpful for us. Our next trip to Sac is Oct 27th for any who can attend. Looking forward to seeing many of you on Tuesday at 6pm * Read more Breaking News Here's the latest news * 20th Annivesary of Chernobyl * AN4R is part of an international coalition planning to commemorate 20th anniversary of the world's worst industrial accident at Chernobyl in April 2006. * Read more * NRC admits terrorism is not remote or speculative * At an NRC workshop in fall 2005 the NRC announces a host of security upgrades at U.S. nuclear plants, even though it had ruled chances of attack "remote and speculative" in legal cases. The NRC's invitation of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility to discuss adequacy of emergency planning and Hurricane Katrina results in renewed questions on adequacy of evacuation and sheltering in event of radioactive release at nuclear plants. * Read more * CEC Workshop Transcripts * Transcripts of August 15 & 16, 2005 Committee Workshop on Issues Concerning Nuclear Power, are available on line: * Read more * Nuclear power building 'must end' * Liberal Democrats have been urged to rule out the building of any more nuclear power plants. * Read more * Duck and cover * The nuclear power industry is coming back – even in California. And it's more frightening than it was the first time around. * Read more Recent Articles Recent articles of interest posted on the ANR website * CEC 2005 Draft Integrated Energy Report * This report was prepared by the California Energy Commission’s Integrated Energy Policy Report Committee as part of the Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, Docket 04-IEP-1. The report will be considered for adoption by the full Energy Commission at its Business Meeting on November 16, 2005. The views and recommendations contained in this document are not official policy of the Energy Commission until the report is adopted. * Read more * Nuclear Power in California: 2005 Status Report * This consultant report provides background and factual information on California’s nuclear power plants and key nuclear power issues such as nuclear waste storage,disposal, and transportation. The report reviews the federal and state regulatory framework for nuclear power and the various agencies that oversee nuclear power plants and related issues. The report examines the costs and benefits of continuing to operate California’s aging nuclear power plants. Financial, safety, and security issues are key considerations in assessing the going-forward costs and benefits associated with nuclear power. Storing and disposing spent nuclear fuel is a major challenge for nuclear power plant operators; thus, the report reviews the status of federal efforts to develop a federal geologic repository at Yucca Mountain as well as utilities’ interim nuclear storage options. In considering the future role of nuclear power in California, policymakers must consider certain trade-offs such as whether nuclear power can be part of the solution to curbing greenhouse gas emissions despite potential safety or security risks. Finally, the report offers some preliminary findings for policymakers to consider. * Read more What you can do to help: * How To Become a Supporter * Quick, easy, effective, impressive. A contribution to the alliance will be a lasting and visible benefit to all. And it's simple to do. * Read more * 10 Things You Can Do To Help * Read more * How To Help * To help the Alliance, come to a4nr.org and make a donation, join our mailing lists, or become a Supporter. * Read more ---------- You subscribed to this newsletter or were added from a list of our friends. You may change your preferences at... http://a4nr.org/newsletters/a4nrMonthly/subscribers/subscriber.2005-02-21.0014529373/portal_form/Subscriber_editForm You may subscribe to our other newsletters in the panel on the left side of most of our pages at a4nr.org Attachment Converted: 5e574.jpg: 00000001,3dc4fd62,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 5e61b.jpg: 00000001,3dc4fd63,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 15 [Updater] Free Trade Agreements, Nuclear Energy, China, Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:16:54 -0500 (CDT) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CROSSBORDER UPDATER | September 19, 2005 Vol. 3, No. 12 New Content from the Americas Program: After NAFTACAFTA and AFTA | This Week in the Americas by Laura Carlsen Latin America Rethinks Nuclear Energy | Article by Eugenio Fernandez Vazquez and Juan Pablo Pardo Guerra Trinational Elites Map North American Future in Nafta Plus | Special Report by Miguel Pickard Chinas Entrance into Latin America: A Cause to Worry? | Investigative Article by Sam Logan and Ben Bain Immigration Advocates Face Challenges | Commentary by Tom Barry Distributed by the IRC's Americas Program "A New World of Ideas, Analysis, and Policy Options." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This Week in the Americas After NAFTACAFTA and AFTA By Laura Carlsen The following is the text version of presentations by the author at the Asian Regional Workshop on Bilateral Free Trade Agreements, held in Kuala Lumpur August 26-28 and organized by the Third World Network. We welcome your comments at laura@irc-online.org. The entire policy report is available at: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/654. Last year was the tenth anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and nearly all evaluations of the agreement conceded that the period showed negligible or negative results for Mexico. As the developing country partner of the agreement, Mexicos experience under NAFTA has major implications for other developing nations negotiating FTAs, particularly with the United States. A decade later, there is a huge gap between the promises and the reality of NAFTA. In the early nineties, NAFTA promoters asserted that the agreement would usher Mexico into the First World, leaving behind decades of intransigent poverty and underdevelopment. NAFTA was negotiated over a decade ago. Since then, many countries in Latin America have seen the growth of civil society movements in opposition to the NAFTA trade model. The governments of several nations, notably Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, and Uruguay, have criticized the model and urged modifications while emphasizing alternative forms of regional integration like Mercosur. The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) is at an impasse. In this new context, has the United States changed its negotiating style or stance? The answer, with few exceptions, is no. Instead of heeding this wave of opposition, the United States has dug into its trenches, and in economic policy those trenches are the bilateral trade agreements. From the FTAs, the U.S. government hopes to gain the strength to launch renewed trade offenses in broader multilateral organizations like the WTO and any eventual FTAA. Each NAFTA-style FTA signed not only locks the partner country into a series of pro-corporate measures but also sets a precedent for later negotiations. This summer the U.S. Congress ratified the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The time it took to negotiate and ratify this agreement was much longer than what the Bush administration had anticipated. Some of the problems are illustrative of whats in store for future negotiations. Popular protest broke out in most of the nations involved, led by farmers and labor organizations. The political costs for the governments involved are high. Just as the Bush administration was forced to delay ratification in the U.S. Congress due to lack of votes, Central American governments fear ratification will meet with major opposition in their legislatures and in the streets. In Guatemala, the CAFTA debate took a life when a demonstrator against ratification was killed by police. Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and Costa Rica still have not ratified, and the Costa Rican president is said to be waiting out his term to pass the hot potato on to his successor. Demonstrations against the incorporation of the telecommunications sector in that normally docile country nearly caused Costa Rica to pull out of the agreement. In the Andean countries, the situation is even worse. Bolivia is out of the picture because a showdown over the Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) could easily cause the fall of yet another government, caught between the dictums of the economic model and the anger of a people fed up with empty promises. Venezuela under the U.S. nemesis, Hugo Chavez, has denounced all prospects of an FTA with the United States. Both Ecuador and Peru face possible referendums on the issue in their countries and may be barred from participating anyway by the United States, whichacting openly as a corporate advocate rather than a governmenthas premised their participation on resolution of several cases of investor claims by major U.S. transnationals. In both CAFTA and AFTA, rather than take a conciliatory stance faced with the probable negative and destabilizing impacts of the agreements, U.S. negotiators have played hardball. First, they threatened to withdraw or not renew the current trade preferences these countries enjoyunder the Andean pact for Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication in the Andean case and the Caribbean Basin Initiative and others in Central America. Since many industries had already oriented production toward markets assured under these measures, the threat had real weight. Even government officials have complained that in effect the FTA process means that these nations are forced to concede in non-trade areas such as intellectual property and investor protection only to assure the market access they already have. Negotiating teams in several countries have complained that the United States gives little and asks a lot. Rice has been particularly sticky. The Central American agreement allows ten years for tariff free entry but farmers argue that time is not the problem U.S. subsidies make it impossible to compete, ever. Andean countries are being pressured to increase their quotas for U.S. rice although a study by the Latin American Economic commission recommends the total exclusion of rice from the agreement be considered due to the pivotal role of rice as a source of food and employment. Laura Carlsen directs the Americas Program of the International Relations Center, online at www.irc-online.org. Latin America Rethinks Nuclear Energy By Eugenio Fernandez Vazquez and Juan Pablo Pardo Guerra The nuclear power option once again is appealing to some opinion leaders in the hemisphere as an alternative to fossil fuels and looming energy crisis. After three decades of projects in the field, however, the problems and risks of nuclear energy in Latin America demand we think twice before venturing down this slippery road. Here we present a synthesis of the history of nuclear energy in the region and of the dangers that it entails. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez announced on May 21 that his government will start to work on the research and construction of nuclear reactors for energy production. It is, he said, one of the ways to diversify energy sources and a possible solution to global warming and to the necessity to find alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels. Around the time of Chavez declarations, U.S. environmentalist Stewart Brand declared, after years of opposing the nuclear option, that he had changed his opinion. It is not that something new and important and good happened with nuclear, he explained, Its that something new and important and bad has happened with climate change. Everybody is aware that the current energy situation is unsustainable in the medium term. The solution proposed by Chavez and Brand is, nevertheless, like covering one hole while digging another one. The danger resides in the fact that the nuclear hole is especially big and difficult to close, due to its environmental, economic, and geopolitical implications. It is also a solution that was already applied in Latin America, and failed. Eugenio Fernandez-Vazquez is a collaborator of the Americas Program at the International Relations Center (IRC, online at http://www.irc-online.org). Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra collaborates with the Science, Technology and Development Program of El Colegio de Mexico. Both are members of International Student-Young Pugwash. See full article online at: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/558 Trinational Elites Map North American Future in Nafta Plus By Miguel Pickard NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has been in effect almost 12 years and a new stage, NAFTA plus, is in the works. The elites of the three NAFTA countries (Canada, the US and Mexico) have been aggressively moving forward to build a new political and economic entity. A trinational merger is underway that leaps beyond the single market that NAFTA envisioned and, in many ways, would constitute a single state, called simply, North America. Contrary to NAFTA, whose tenets were laid out in a single negotiated treaty subjected to at least cursory review by the legislatures of the participating countries, NAFTA plus is being implemented through the signing of regulations, not subject to citizens review. The initial steps for the creation of a new North American space have already been taken. The primary objective, a trinational security perimeter, is being already consolidated. Future steps include the construction of a new economic space, beginning with a customs union, then a common market (further liberalizing labor mobility between Canada and the U.S., but restricted from Mexico), and finally, a monetary and economic union. Costs would be enormous in terms of sovereignty and identity for the lesser partners. Deep integration would mean foregoing an independent future. For Mexico it would forever cancel the Bolivarist dream of a united Latin America, with Mexico spurning its historic relationship with the rest of Latin America. Advantages for the U.S. will include the right to decide on crucial matters such as pushing out its borders in response to regional security concerns, and access to strategic natural resources, particularly oil, gas and fresh water. For the trade, manufacturing and financial elites of Mexico and Canada, NAFTA plus will likely mean a porous border for its products and services, and virtually unrestricted access to the United States, still the largest consumer market in the world. Miguel Pickard is an economist and researcher, co-founder of CIEPAC (Centro de Investigaciones Econsmicas y Polmticas de Accisn Comunitaria www.ciepac.org) in San Cristsbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico and an analyst with the IRC Americas Program (online at http://www.americaspolicy.org). See full article online at: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/386 Chinas Entrance into Latin America: A Cause to Worry? By Sam Logan and Ben Bain Last November Chinese President Hu Jintao swept through South American capitals with pledges of future investment and carrying a golden pen that he used to sign agreements along the way with Chile, Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela. Hu even gave a speech in front of the Brazilian Congress, vowing that China would invest up to $100 billion in the region over the next decade, and he made a good will offer of up to $20 billion in investment in Argentina alone. The trip emphasized Chinas increased desire to begin a long march toward economic and trade integration with the region. Chinese attention to the Western Hemisphere has sounded the red alarm in Washington, where many fear a Chinese economic invasion of South America. According to figures from a recent report published by fellows Tomoe Funakushi and Claudio Loser from the Inter-American Dialogue (IAD), Chinese trade with Latin America jumped from $200 million in 1975 to $40 billion in 2004. Trade with Brazil alone totaled $8 billion in 2003. However, those numbers pale considering Chinese trade still only accounts for 3.9% of total Latin American trade, while in 2003 the United States accounted for 48%. Sam Logan is a journalist in Rio de Janeiro and a frequent contributor to the IRCs Americas Program (http://www.americaspolicy.org). Ben Bain reports from Washington, D.C. See full article online at http://americas.irc-online.org/am/389 Immigration Advocates Face Challenges By Tom Barry If immigrant advocates and immigrants themselves are to move from the sidelines to the center of the intensifying immigration debate, and by doing so help staunch the growing influence of the retrograde restrictionist forces, they must meet five major challenges. The first challenge is to gain credibility as advocates for an immigration policy that considers the totality of U.S. national interestsnot just the needs and problems of immigrants or the demands of business for new foreign sources of cheap and skilled labor. A second closely related challenge is helping U.S. citizens realize that their communities are communities that include a wide variety of immigrants and that this mix is a healthy one. The third challenge that immigration advocates face is overcoming their hesitation to describe the immigration problem as a class problem. The fourth challenge relates to integrating legitimate concerns and demands into a new agenda for national economic development. The fifth main challenge is connecting the dots between immigration policy and foreign policy. Tom Barry is policy director of the International Relations Center, online at http://wwww.irc-online.org. See complete commentary online at: http://americas.irc-online.org/am/387 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SUBSCRIBE! The Crossborder UPDATER is a weekly bulletin announcing new reports, commentaries, and analysis from the IRC Americas Program of the International Relations Center (IRC, formerly Interhemispheric Resource Center). To manage your subscription to the CrossBorder UPDATER: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/. You can also subscribe to the Spanish/Portuguese Boletmn Transfronterizo by going to http://www.irc-online.org/lists/subscribe Support the IRC Americas Program Please consider supporting the IRC Americas Program. Although we make our information freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, we depend on you and other individual donors to sustain our work. Call (505) 388-0208 or visit http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php to support the IRC Americas Program today. For more information about the IRC Americas Program and the International Relations Center (IRC), visit http://www.americaspolicy.org/ and http://www.irc-online.org/. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***************************************************************** 16 [NYTr] Venezuela wants Argentine nuclear reactor Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:24:34 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Reuters via Yahoo - Oct 9, 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051009/wl_nm/argentina_venezuela_nuclear_dc Venezuela wants Argentine nuclear reactor BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - Venezuela has asked to buy a nuclear reactor from Argentina in a request being handled like a "hot potato" in Buenos Aires because of leftist President Hugo Chavez's clashes with Washington, a newspaper reported on Sunday. Venezuela's state-owned oil firm PDVSA requested a medium-strength reactor in a meeting with Argentine officials in Buenos Aires in late August, saying it wanted to develop alternative energy sources in its Orinoco oil region, the Clarin newspaper said. Officials were not immediately available to confirm the report on the request by Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and a key energy supplier to the United States. Despite President Nestor Kirchner's close ties to Chavez, officials in his government were divided over the wisdom of selling nuclear technology to the firebrand Venezuelan, who Washington sees as a destabilizing force in the region, Clarin reported, citing unnamed Foreign Ministry sources. Venezuela's proposal has been passed from one government office to another "like a hot potato," one diplomat was quoted as saying. Some officials are believed to fear Chavez, a self-proclaimed revolutionary socialist, could secretly aim to develop nuclear arms while others simply prefer not to irk Washington. Talks between the two countries are still in the preliminary stages. Chavez announced last May his intentions to use nuclear power, saying his government could start talks with Iran as well as with Argentina and Brazil. Chavez' anti-U.S. rhetoric and alliance with Communist Cuba's Fidel Castro has long riled Washington. His government also backed Iran, branded part of the "axis of evil" by U.S. President George W. Bush, in its dispute with the United States and Europe over its nuclear program. U.S. officials accuse Iran of secretly working to produce nuclear arms. Copyright ) 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 17 Xinhua: Iran seeks Russian co-op for more nuclear plants www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-11 05:07:30 TEHRAN, Oct. 10 (Xinhuanet) -- Tehran is seeking Russia's cooperation for construction of more nuclear power plants in Iran, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported on Monday. "Iran plans to sign contracts with Russia on the construction of more nuclear power plants after the Bushehr power plant projectis completed," Iran's Ambassador to Russia Gholamreza Ansari was quoted as saying. Ansari said that Tehran had assured Moscow it would start work on other nuclear power plants with Russia after the completion of the Bushehr plant, Iran's first nuclear power plant being built with Russia's aids in the southern coastal province of Bushehr. The ambassador also defined the nuclear cooperation between the two countries as "brief but promising", stressing that the cooperation could be expanded. Meanwhile, Ansari noted that both Iran and Russia were determined to develop and deepen the bilateral ties, saying "bilateral talks have always been based on mutual understanding of the countries' needs and priorities. Iran and Russia hold sameviews on major regional and international issues." Additionally, Deputy Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Mohammad Saeedi said on Sept. 10 that Iran had decided to offer an international tender for the planned construction of two new nuclear power plants in the near future. Apart from the aids on construction of the Bushehr plant, Russia also gave Iran support on the nuclear dispute by urging to resolve Iran's case within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency, namely opposing the attempt of Washington and Europe to refer the file to the UN Security Council. The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons secretly, but Iran has categorically rejected the charge and said that it will forge ahead with its nuclear program instead of giving up its legal rights on peaceful nuclear technology under the pressure. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 TheStar.com: New reactors vital for hydro system October 10, 2005Updated at Ontario residents used a record amount of hydro power this summer. In fact, they used far more than the province could actually produce. Even so, pressures on the province's electrical system are expected to grow rapidly in coming years. And that's despite a new emphasis on conservation. The reason for the continuing growth is the steady increase in population in the province, which is projected to rise by 3.1 million to 15.7 million by 2025, and an expanding economy. To meet that demand, Ontario must create additional generating capacity and more transmission lines. But that is not the province's main challenge. In the next 15 to 20 years, Ontario must also replace more than two-thirds of its existing generating capacity as our aging nuclear plants reach the end of their useful lives and the government acts on its promise to close dirty coal-fired plants. Thus the key question is: What kind of generators will the province choose to replace such a huge loss of power? To be sure, there will be greater reliance on wind, solar and other types of clean, renewable power. Queen's Park has already set a target for renewable energy to make up 5 per cent of the mix by 2007. It hopes for a 75-fold increase in wind capacity alone. While that sounds like a lot of power, wind turbines currently account for less than five-one-hundredths of 1 per cent of Ontario's total generating capacity. Against the need to replace more than 150,000 times that amount of capacity, renewables can be expected to make only a modest, albeit a rising, contribution to supply. Queen's Park is also looking to privately built gas-fired plants to help close the gap. Accounting for just 8 per cent of existing capacity, natural gas has the advantage of burning far cleaner than coal. Moreover, because gas-fired plants can operate efficiently on a wide range of scales, they can be situated close to the markets they will serve. The government has already contracted with suppliers to build five small- to medium-size plants ranging from 117 megawatts to 1,000 megawatts. But that size advantage is also one of their major drawbacks. As the Star's Peter Gorrie reported recently, there is widespread opposition in the affected communities to both the plants and transmission lines they would need. To the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) syndrome, add the very high cost of natural gas and gas-fired plants lose much of their appeal. As a result, natural gas can be counted on, at best, to replace only the 25 per cent of the province's generating capacity that now relies on coal. But even if that were to happen, Ontario would still have a huge gap to fill. That's because the largest single source of power in the generating mix comes from the province's three massive nuclear sites. Imports of clean hydropower from Manitoba and/or Quebec could close a part of the gap if Queen's Park struck a long-term deal with one or both of our neighbours. And a large federal contribution to the huge cost of building the transmission lines needed to carry the electricity over such long distances would make such an arrangement all the more feasible. But even if we do tap in to our power-rich neighbours, Ontario still won't have enough electricity to close the entire nuclear gap. Unless ways can be found to burn coal cleanly, like it or not, nuclear power will inevitably remain an essential part of the mix. It is clean, emissions free, and despite the breakdowns and recurring problems at the Pickering, Darlington and Bruce facilities, it has proven to be an affordable and, by and large, a reliable energy source. Even with their problems, nuclear plants generate about 50 per cent of all the province's electricity. Opponents of the nuclear option point with considerable justification to the still unresolved issues surrounding storage of nuclear waste; the decommissioning costs that remain to be addressed; and to the huge cost overruns during construction and repairs. At the same time, though, critics have failed to identify a suitable replacement for nuclear's big contribution that would preserve the essential balance that Ontarians need in terms of the costs, risks and reliability of the province's overall generating mix. That's why nuclear power will remain a part of the mix for the foreseeable future. The faster the Ontario government comes to that unavoidable conclusion, the more assured our future electricity supplies will be. Given the long lead times involved in planning and constructing new nuclear reactors, the province cannot afford any further delays. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 19 Buenos Aires Herald: Hot potato reaction to Chávez reactor Tuesday, October 11, 2005 Venezuela has asked to buy a nuclear reactor from Argentina, throwing officials in Buenos Aires into a fluster because of President Hugo Chávez’s frosty relationship with Washington, a newspaper reported yesterday. Venezuela’s request for a medium-strength reactor has been passed from one government office to another "like a hot potato," one diplomat was quoted as saying by the Clarín newspaper. Venezuela’s state-owned oil firm PDVSA made the proposal in a meeting with Argentine officials in Buenos Aires in late August, saying it wanted to develop alternative energy sources in its Orinoco oil region, the newspaper said. Officials were not immediately available to confirm the report on the request by Venezuela, the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter and a key energy supplier to the United States. Despite President Néstor Kirchner’s close ties to Chávez, officials in his government are divided over the wisdom of selling nuclear technology to the firebrand Venezuelan, who Washington sees as a destabilizing force in the region, Clarín reported, citing unnamed Foreign Ministry sources. Some officials are thought to fear that Chávez, a self-proclaimed revolutionary socialist, secretly aims to develop nuclear arms while others simply prefer not to irk Washington. Talks between the two countries are still in the preliminary stages. Chávez announced last May his intentions to use nuclear power, saying his government could start talks with Iran as well as Argentina and Brazil. Chávez’ anti-US rhetoric and alliance with Communist Cuba’s Fidel Castro has long riled Washington. His government also backed Iran, branded part of the "axis of evil" by US President George W. Bush, in its dispute with the US and Europe over its nuclear programme. (Herald staff with Reuters) © Copyright 2000 - 2005 © S.A. The Buenos Aires Herald Ltd. All rights reserved Política de Privacidad ***************************************************************** 20 Haaretz: State told to pay for cancer-linked death of nuclear reactor worker Mon., October 10, 2005 Tishrei 7, 5766| By Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondent The Be'er Sheva Labor Court on Monday classified the cancer-related death of an employee in the Dimona nuclear reactor as a work accident and instructed the state to pay his family compensation allowance. Yosef Fahima worked as a technician at the Negev Nuclear Research Center from 1964 until his death from lung cancer in 1992. His family claimed that his death was a direct result of his working at the reactor, and filed a lawsuit against the National Insurance Institute. Labor Court judge Ilan Sofer accepted the family's argument, despite the fact that Fahima used to smoke. A panel of doctors established that exposure to radiation and carcinogenic materials, such as nickel and chrome, had increased Fahima's chances of getting cancer. "In other words," the judge ruled, "the probability of having lung cancer when combining heavy smoking and exposure to carcinogenic and radioactive material is greater than when dealing with heavy smoking alone." Fahima's family did not have to prove a direct link between the job and the disease, Sofer said, adding that it was sufficient to know that working in the Dimona nuclear reactor has a "catalyzing" effect. © Copyright Haaretz. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 21 DesMoinesRegister.com: Alliant defends push to sell Iowa nuclear plant By REGISTER STAFF WRITER October 10, 2005 Alliant Energy today renewed its support for the sale of Iowa’s only nuclear power plant to a Florida company, claiming that proceeds from the sale would help lower customer rates. The comments come in a rebuttal Alliant filed this afternoon with the Iowa Utilities Board. Two weeks ago, the Office of Consumer Advocate, a state agency representing the public in utilities matters, formally declared its opposition to a sale of the Duane Arnold Energy Center. The office said selling the plant would lead to higher rates because Alliant would eventually be forced to find other sources of power. Alliant said it expects $23 million in lower anticipated customer rates over the next nine years if the plant is sold. Copyright © 2005, The Des Moines Register. ***************************************************************** 22 Korea Times: [Times Forum] Network in Nuke Trafficking Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion By Philip Dorsey Iglauer Korea Times Colomnist The six-party talks on denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula have been progressing, albeit at a snails pace, and a fifth round is in sight. However, what is largely unreported is that these talks have crawled toward a resolution within a disturbing context _ an explosion in the trafficking of nuke material. According to the U.N.¡¯s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there were 121 reported incidents of illicit trafficking involving nuclear and other radiological materials in 2004 alone. Newly released statistics from the Agency¡¯s Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB) show that one incident reported in 2003 involved fissile material _ highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium _ the stuff needed to make a nuclear weapon. It occurred in June 2003 when an individual was arrested in possession of 170 grams of HEU, attempting to illegally transport it across a country¡¯s border. Imagine the devastating consequences of failing to stop the trafficking of this destructive weapons resource. But such trafficking is increasing and becoming more difficult to interdict. What is more, nuke trafficking in Asia over the last decade-and-a-half has been fueling the proliferation of the building blocks of weapons of mass destruction. It is this deteriating situation that must have been on the minds of the Norwegian Nobel-awarding committee, after the failed NPT conference in New York in May and 60 years after an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when it recognized the IAEA and Director General Mohamed ElBaradei with the Peace Prize. Unfortunately, the ITDB announced that during 2003-2004, ``the number of incidents reported by States substantially increased compared with previous years, according to an IAEA report.¡¯¡¯ In fact, that is an underestimate. From 1993 to 2004, 220 incidents involved nuke raw matter. These cases include low-grade nuclear materials, reactor fuel pellets, natural uranium, depleted uranium and thorium. In that time span, 424 incidents of trafficking radiological materials were reported to the IAEA by member states. Radioactive sources are used worldwide in a host of legitimate applications. Thus, measures to protect and control their use, storage or disposal are much less strict than those applied toward nuclear materials. But in the hands of terrorists, these materials are lethal and could be used to build what experts call a radiological dispersal device, or a ``dirty bomb.¡¯¡¯ Indeed, radiological proliferation was also confirmed by Stanford University¡¯s Center for International Security and Cooperation. It reported that from 1992 to 2002, about 660 incidents of nuke-material trafficking were reported, confirming the IAEA report. Although much nuke trafficking begins out of the former Soviet Union, it cannot be localized there. It is an international scourge, depending on networks in Asia, particularly on transport lines along the ancient Silk Road and shipping lanes through the Indian Ocean and the Arabian and South China Seas. During the 1990s, British intelligence uncovered the trafficking operations of Pakistan¡¯s Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan. Pakistan, although a U.S. ally in the war on terror, was selling nuclear and radiological technology to such countries as Libya, Iran and North Korea. By early 2000, it became clear that South Asia, not former Soviet countries, had become home to nuclear trafficking networks. In April 2000, Britain¡¯s Joint Intelligence Committee had linked this hemorrhaging of WMD material to Libya, Iran and North Korea, among other countries. The Khan network would have been impossible to propagate had Pakistan and India been signatories to the NPT and members of the IAEA. So, it is likely because of their refusal to join the international community with regard to these nuke weapons that this trafficking network found fertile soil in Asia. This Asian network, not insecure Russian facilities, is what may have equipped North Korea with a range of centrifuge equipment, as well as nuclear material to produce enriched uranium. The intelligence collected after President Musharraf of Pakistan broke up Khan¡¯s operations is probably the evidence with which James Kelley confronted North Korean officials in October 2002. Southeast Asia, too, has seen illicit nuclear proliferation flourish over the past decade. Criminal groups traveling along Southeast Asian Sea routes between Pakistan and North Korea could have sent equipment to Pyongyang. Transports along these routes would have followed the Arabian Sea, around India, continuing through the Malacca Straits, and then headed northward into the South and East China Seas, conceivably passing through Chinese waters. Trans-shipment points in Singapore or Hong Kong could have also been used. And even if maritime interception by the U.S. Navy threatened the transportation of atomic goods from Pakistan to North Korea, they could employ other means, for example land or air routes. Therefore, the possibility of undetected nuclear trafficking in South and Southeast Asia cannot be underestimated, i.e. another Khan network could easily be operating right now. Although there is little evidence that organized criminal groups are involved in nuclear trafficking, the success with which these criminals have smuggled other contraband in South and Southeast Asia, such as narcotics and conventional arms, means that nuclear trafficking could be carried out with relative ease, along some of the same routes and by the same criminals. Southern Thailand¡¯s border with Malaysia is already rift with crime and piracy, not to mention a growing insurgency. Smuggling is rampant in the vast maritime expanse around the Straits of Malacca. Add to this, Islamic terrorists in Bangladesh or Indonesia and such groups as al-Qaida or Jemaah Islamiah, and a radioactive cocktail results. This brings us back to the IAEA and international regimes built to suppress the proliferation of nuclear materials. Well more than a half-century after the atomic age began and long after the Cold War ended, international institutions that restrain nations in Asia from making the decision to go nuclear are now woefully lacking credibility. But Asia, as elsewhere, depends on those very institutions, such as the IAEA, to extend legitimacy, facilitate cooperation and help the sharing of vital information so nations in the region can better police their borders and break up these nuke trafficking networks. ephilip2005@hotmail.com 10-10-2005 16:51 ***************************************************************** 23 Korea Times: US Admits Making Mistake on Missing Uranium Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said Monday it has confirmed that the U.S. Department of Commerce had wrongly listed a shipment of natural uranium fluoride to South Korea. ``We¡¯ve confirmed the U.S. Department of Commerce erroneously said on its Web site that it shipped 68,693 kilograms of natural uranium fluoride to South Korea,¡¯¡¯ a ministry spokesman said in a statement. The listing of the uranium sparked confusion in the local media after South Korean officials denied receiving the sensitive material. The U.S. side sent a letter last Thursday saying it will correct the figure to reflect that no shipments were made, according to the statement. ``We¡¯ve heard that the Department of Commerce mistakenly said the shipment was made to South Korea, although it was actually sent to San Francisco from Washington,¡¯¡¯ a ministry official said. ``We see it as a simple mistake.¡¯¡¯ It will take about one week for the Web site to be corrected, the statement said. 10-10-2005 19:48 ***************************************************************** 24 Scoop: Depleted Uranium, George Bush & Tony Blair Monday, 10 October 2005, 4:18 pm Opinion: Dr. Doug Rokke Ph.D. Depleted Uranium Situation Requires Action By President Bush and Prime Minister Blair While U.S. and British military personnel continue using uranium munitions- America's and England's own "dirty bombs" U.S. Army, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Department of Defense officials continue to deny that there are any adverse health and environmental effects as a consequence of the manufacture, testing, and/or use of uranium munitions to avoid liability for the willful and illegal dispersal of a radioactive toxic material - depleted uranium. They arrogantly refuse to comply with their own regulations, orders, and directives that require United States Department of Defense officials to provide prompt and effective medical care "all" exposed individuals [Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties, DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93, Medical Management of Army personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU) Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Command 29 April 2004), and section 2-5 of AR 70-48]. They also refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive Contamination as required by Army Regulation- AR 700-48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002) and U.S. Army Technical Bulletin- TB 9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage, And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., JULY 1996). Specifically section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation-AR 700-48 dated September 16, 2002 requires that: (1) "Military personnel "identify, segregate, isolate, secure, and label all RCE" (radiologically contaminated equipment). (2) "Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon as possible." (3) "Radioactive material and waste will not be locally disposed of through burial, submersion, incineration, destruction in place, or abandonment" (4) "All equipment, to include captured or combat RCE, will be surveyed, packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and released IAW Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48" (Note: Maximum exposure limits are specified in Appendix F). The past and current use of uranium weapons, the release of radioactive components in destroyed U.S. and foreign military equipment, and releases of industrial, medical, research facility radioactive materials have resulted in unacceptable exposures. Therefore, decontamination must be completed as required by U.S. Army Regulation 700-48 and should include releases of all radioactive materials resulting from military operations. The extent of adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons contamination is not limited to combat zones but includes facilities and sites where uranium weapons were manufactured or tested including Vieques, Puerto Rico, Colonie, New York, and Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana. Therefore medical care must be provided by the United States Department of Defense officials to all individuals affected by the manufacturing, testing, and/or use of uranium munitions. Thorough environmental remediation also must be completed without further delay. I am amazed that fourteen years after I was asked to clean up the initial DU mess from Gulf War 1 and almost ten years since I finished the depleted uranium project that United States Department of Defense officials and mauy others still attempt to justify uranium munitions use while ignoring mandatory requirements. But beyond the ignored mandatory actions that the willful dispersal of tons of solid radioactive and chemically toxic waste in the form of uranium munitions just does not even pass the common sense test. Finally continued compliance with the infamous March 1991 Los Alamos Memorandum ( http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/doc1.html) that was issued to ensure continued use of uranium munitions can not be justified. In conclusion: the President of the United States- George W. Bush and The Prime Minister of Great Britain-Tony Blair must acknowledge and accept responsibility for willful use of illegal uranium munitions- their own "dirty bombs"- resulting in adverse health and environmental effects. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair also should order: 1. medical care for all casualties, 2. thorough environmental remediation, 3. immediate cessation of retaliation against all of us who demand compliance with medical care and environmental remediation requirements, 4. and ban the future use of depleted uranium munitions. References - these references are copies the actual regulations and orders and other pertinent official documents: http://www.traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html http://www.traprockpeace.org/rokke_du_3_ques.html http://www.traprockpeace.org/du_dtic_wakayama_Aug2002.html ENDS ***************************************************************** 25 Vancouver Sun: A solution for N-waste CLEANUP Business BC | canada.com Financial News I Amec has a plan to turn the waste into glass Derrick Penner Vancouver Sun October 10, 2005 CREDIT: Associated Press files The Hanford nuclear reservation near Richland, Wash. A nasty legacy of the Cold War lurks beneath the arid plains of south central Washington state: millions of gallons of nuclear waste that the U.S. Department of Energy needs to clean up before it finds its way into the nearby Columbia River. The engineering firm Amec is proposing a method to help in the cleanup that sounds so simple it is elegant. Take the waste -- cake-like chunks of uranium- and plutonium-laced salts contained in underground tanks -- and turn it into blocks of glass using a technique the company calls GeoMelt. There are 177 of the tanks around the vast, 586-square-mile Hanford nuclear reservation that contain some 53-million gallons of the waste -- some of it dating back to the 1940s and the Manhattan Project that built the world's first atomic bombs. Leo Thompson, technology director for Amec's 50-person GeoMelt unit in nearby Richland, Wash., said the Columbia River meanders past the Hanford site, and the big fear is that the waste-filled tanks will leach their radioactive cargo through the soil, into the ground water and eventually the river. "You can't just leave [the waste] as it is," Thompson said. "It's in these tanks in the ground, and some of the tanks have leaked. So it has to be dealt with." Thompson said the waste was created in the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from spent fuel rods of nuclear reactors. As many as nine reactors operated on the Hanford site over its history. He added that plutonium and uranium were chemically separated out of the spent fuel, and the left over waste was neutralized using caustic sodium hydroxide, which was then stored in underground tanks. What is left over is cake-like sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite that is tainted with traces of plutonium, uranium, cesium, heavy metals and other toxic compounds. Some of the tanks were built in the 1950s with only single walls and were "designed with a limited lifespan. . . . Waste has been in them longer than it was designed to be," Thompson said. The U.S. Department of Energy has taken one step to reduce the risk of leaks by removing all liquid from the tanks. And the department is in the midst of a $2-billion US-per-year cleanup effort to remove all nuclear waste on the site by 2035. Thompson said the department has given itself until 2028 to treat all the waste in the storage tanks, but the treatment plant it has commissioned to handle the job is over budget, behind schedule and won't have the capacity to do the entire job by the deadline. So the department has embarked on a program to test supplementary treatment methods, including Amec's GeoMelt technology. The GeoMelt test was commissioned by the Department of Energy's Office of River Protection and its prime contractor at Hanford, CH2M-Hill Hanford Group Inc. Thompson said Amec has a $90-million US contract to test GeoMelt on the tank waste using a version of the technology called In Container Vitrification. It involves taking the waste from the tanks, mixing it with soil and oxide compounds that encourage the formation of glass and then putting it into an insulated metal container the size of a standard shipping container where it is superheated to temperatures of 2,000 degrees celsius using a 5,000-amp jolt of electricity delivered by a pair of electrodes that are poked into the mixture. The high temperature causes the soil, oxide and waste to melt, and the molten material cools into a 42-tonne block of glass that, while radioactive, won't leak or leach and will resist deterioration for thousands of years, Thompson said. He added that cesium is the most dangerous compound in the tank waste, which will leave the resulting glass blocks with dangerous levels of radiation for about 300 years. However, some of its other radioactive particles will remain hazardous for thousands of years. Amec is also testing GeoMelt on radioactive soil from Hanford that is buried in some 142 vertical shafts made from open-ended steel drums that were welded together. Thompson said they use the same process, but the radioactive soil cannot be dug out of the ground without the risk of spreading radioactive dust into the environment, and it cannot be safely removed using conventional methods. So electrodes are stuck into the ground "in situ" around the 24-inch-diametre shafts, and the resulting jolt of power creates a 15-foot pillar of glass that isolates the contaminated dirt and can be safely dug up for storage. To date, Thompson said Amec has conducted several tests of the In Container Vitrification process, including a full-scale demonstration on simulated, non-radioactive material, and smaller tests on actual waste. He added that engineers from the company's Vancouver and Trail offices have been involved in designing some elements of the project since about 2003, and Thompson anticipates they will remain involved as the firm builds a full-scale pilot plant to continue testing the method on waste material. Thompson said Amec has also run a successful test of the in-situ method on a simulated shaft, again using only non-radioactive material. "I think it's going well," Thompson said. "It's a challenging project, but what we're doing is trying to build a first-of-a-kind nuclear processing plant [by] taking GeoMelt and trying to adapt it to treat this particular waste stream." He added that the waste plant that the Department of Energy has already commissioned is using a different method of turning the waste into glass, but he believes Amec's method is simpler, cheaper and the leading candidate to become the alternative treatment plant. Thompson said Amec has already used GeoMelt in both its in-container and in-situ variations on radioactive waste elsewhere in the U.S. and Australia. It has also GeoMelt to isolate chemical waste at projects in Australia, Japan and in the U.S. "It's satisfying," Thompson said about the work. "It's nice to actually treat something that results in a permanent solution. A lot of times waste is dealt with by taking it and putting it in special landfills . . . and just storing it for the next generation." "With this process, it's a permanent treatment and that in itself is satisfying." depenner@png.canwest.com AMEC'S RECIPE FOR N-WASTE The GeoMelt process turns radioactive waste into stable, leak-proof blocks of glass. 1. Plutonium, uranium and cesium-tainted waste is liquefied into a slurry that is pumped into a dryer. 2. Plain dry soil and oxidizers, such as boron oxide and zirconium oxide, are mixed in to promote the formation of glass. 3. The mixture is pumped into a sand-lined, insulated container the size of a shipping container in which the process, called In Container Vitrification, will take place. Electrodes are inserted into the mixture. 4. The atomic-waste mixture is superheated using a 5,000-amp current of electricity that heats it to temperatures up to 2,000 degrees Celsius. 5. As the waste mixture melts and shrinks, more waste mixture is poured on top during the eight-stage process, which takes eight days to complete. 6.The melted material is allowed to cool into a 42-tonne glass brick that cannot leak or leach out of its metal container. 7. The electrodes are cut and the metal container is sealed so that it can be more safely stored for the thousands of years it will take for the material's radiation to dissipate. Ran with fact box "AMEC'S RECIPE FOR N-WASTE", which has been appended to the end of the story. c The Vancouver Sun 2005 ***************************************************************** 26 CNIC: New nuclear research agency inherits predecessor's radioactive waste problems (Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) Japanese radioactive soil shipped to the US Media Release 3 October2005 The newly formed Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) has inherited the radioactive waste problems of one of its predecessors, the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC). JAEA officially opened for business on October 1st, but its predecessor, JNC, still has 3,000 tons of unwanted radioactive soil to dispose of. A portion of the more radioactive soil (290 cubic meters of uranium-contaminated soil) was shipped to the US today, allegedly for refining, but really for disposal. JNC has denied requests to reveal the name of the US company that will receive the radioactive soil, but piecing together information obtained through freedom of information requests, it is now known that the soil will be sent to International Uranium Corporation's White Mesa uranium mill in Utah. In justifying its decision not to reveal the company's name, JNC said that it feared that the company would refuse to accept the soil if its name was released. Now that the US company's name has been made public, we will be interested to see if it does indeed reject the soil. The uranium was loaded onto the Panamanian ship Bright Stream and left Kobe Port today (see photo), though the location of the US port remains unclear. A further 2,710 cubic meters remains in the Katamo District of Yurihama Town in Tottori Prefecture. As a result of an October 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of Katamo District, it must be removed by May 2006, or compensation must be paid to the local citizens at the rate of 50,000 yen per day. (Compensation for the 290 cubic meters shipped today was paid from March 2005 at the rate of 750,000 per day.) No indication has been given of what will be done with the remaining soil, but we hope that a precedent hasn't been set with the first 290 cubic meters. We have no doubt that Japan's nuclear industry would love to solve its radioactive waste problems by exporting it all to other countries, but the truth is that countries which are unable to handle their own radioactive waste are not qualified to produce such waste. Within two days of its establishment, JAEA has already demonstrated that it is not a responsible agency. By dumping radioactive waste in another country, it has shown that it will prioritize expediency over integrity. Who will trust such an agency in future? Click here for basic background information by Teisuke Ishio Citizens' Nuclear Information Center Map TEL.03-5330-9520 FAX.03-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ Email Comments & Inquiries ***************************************************************** 27 [NukeNet] SEAB does NOT endorse RRW; does endorse Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:31:26 -0700 X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES nuclear X-Spamprobe: ham-super * 0.0000973 OK NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Dear colleagues -- IMPORTANT -- please read -- synopsis of Secretary of Energy Advisory Board meeting, followed by a news article on the same topic. Synopsis -- Bob Civiak, a physicist retired from OMB, was on the conference call meeting of the SEAB to discuss and finalize the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) report on the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Bob said the session was quite extraordinary. The head of SEAB made clear in his presentation that in order for the Secretary of Energy to USE the report, the SEAB needed to ENDORSE the report and its recommendations, not merely "accept" the report. The central recommendation of the SEAB report was to go full speed ahead with the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, a new nuclear weapon design enterprise. (There are many details and I commend the report to your reading, I won't try to list them all here.) The panel REFUSED to endorse the RRW program -- there was no consensus on the advisability of moving forward with the RRW program. The newspaper article, below, quotes the two Nobel Laureates on the SEAB and both of them voiced concerns about the RRW program's impact internationally -- and both refused to endorse the RRW program. Bob told me that there were a couple others who also had concerns and did not want to endorse it. The bottom line is that the SEAB voted on compromise language to recommend the "thrust" of the report to the Secretary of Energy -- but NOT endorse the RRW program. The other major recommendation in the report is that bomb usable quantities of nuclear material be taken from the sites that are least defensible security-wise and be stored at the sites that are more remote, defensible and have underground storage (read Nevada or Idaho although the report did NOT recommend a particular site). The nuclear material consolidation recommendation, in essence, did receive a general endorsement from the SEAB. That is the item that captured the headline, below, but the RRW program NOT getting a green light is part of the core of the article as well. Read on... --Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CAREs Advisers back plan to kill 'Superblock' Bush administration officials want new plant in Nevada desert to replace facility at Livermore lab By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Inside Bay Area (this version from Oakland Tribune web site) Led by two Nobel laureate physicists, advisers to the Bush administration criticized a proposal Tuesday to design replacements for the U.S. nuclear arsenal but backed a companion plan to shrink the number of factories and labs working with nuclear materials to a single, state-of-the-art bunker underground. The decrepitude of existing nuclear-weapons facilities and the rising costs to defend them against a terrorist attack - a 400 percent increase since 2001 - persuaded the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board to support a leaner, more modern weapons plant full of robotics and computer-guided machinery. That collection of labs and factories probably will be built under remote desert land held by the Energy Department in Nevada or Idaho, places with long lines of sight and defensive fire. By 2030 the new plant would take over work with bomb quantities of nuclear-weapons materials at Lawrence Livermore lab's plutonium facility, known as Superblock, as well as facilities at Los Alamos lab, the Y-12 site in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and others. Besides being "archaic," those places are surrounded by homes, putting civilians at risk of a terrorist nuclear detonation or the scattering of plutonium, said David Overskei, chairman of a committee that studied the future of the nuclear-weapons cmplex. "The current locations for our special nuclear materials in the complex are no longer remote," he told the secretary's advisory board Tuesday. The new plant "will reduce the threat to civilian communities." But several members of the board resisted a proposal for revamping U.S. nuclear-weapons work for the post-Cold War period: designing an entirely new, smaller arsenal of hardier warheads and bombs. Two scientists and two business executives said that is a huge decision with implications for international security beyond upgrading the U.S. weapons complex. "If we do this, it has worldwide consequences, and it's going to stir up some kind of a hornet's nest, and it's beyond the scope of a committee such as this one," said former Stanford Linear Accelerator Center director Burton Richter, a 1976 Nobel Prize winner. "The infrastructure is decaying. It is in bad shape, everybody knows that," Richter said. But "it can be modernized without changing existing weapons." Leon Lederman, former director of Fermilab and a 1988 Nobelist, said he backed the idea of exchanging a large nuclear arsenal for a smaller one. But new designs complicate the issue, he said. "What is the effect on non-nuclear nations or on our allies? What is the effect in China or Russia?" he asked. "What will the influence be on the true security of the nation?" Overskei's committee had urged immediate design of what has been called the "reliable replacement warhead," with secret, new safety and security features, more resistance to aging and lower manufacturing costs. The current U.S. nuclear arsenal is made up of bombs and warheads designed from the late 1960s to the 1980s in a three-way competition between two U.S. laboratories, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, and their counterparts in the former Soviet Union. What resulted are thousands of highly miniaturized, slimmed down warheads that allowed the military to pack as many as twelve on missiles capable of wreaking horrendous destruction anywhere on the globe. Rebuilding those weapons has proved expensive, however, and executives of the nuclear-weapons labs have chafed at caretaking bombs that are eating more of their budgets then they had planned. One scientist caught the ear of an influential appropriations chairman in Congress, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who convinced the Bush administration to press ahead with the reliable replacement warhead program. But many weapons scientists said the current arsenal was well tested and seems to be aging well. Every year for the last decade, directors of the nation's three weapons labs have certified that each bomb and warhead is reliable enough not to require a return to testing. The plutonium cores inside appear to last at least 50 years, with some scientists speculating that they could last longer still. Many scientists warn that it is risky to introduce any new bomb design during a moratorium on testing, that is, without ever exploding one. Overskei said weapons designers assured his panel that they could prove the weapons would work reliably without testing and that Defense Department officials seemed to accept those assurances. "They were willing to accept the weapons laboratories' confidence that they can certify without testing," he said. Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com ### Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 28 LongmontFYI: Online exhibit recounts dangerous day at Rocky Flats www.longmontfyi.com Publish Date: 10/10/2005 By Brad Turner The Daily Times-Call Rocky Flats, the former nuclear weapons plant south of Boulder, is likely just days away from being deemed remediated by the U.S. Department of Energy. But a virtual museum exhibit spearheaded by a University of Colorado professor who dedicated years to researching Rocky Flats’ history is reminding visitors how potentially dangerous the site was when it was operational. “The site will physically be gone soon,” said Len Ackland, head of CU’s Center for Environmental Journalism and author of “Making a Real Killing: Rocky Flats and the Nuclear West.” “A virtual visit is the only one people are going to be able to make.” Ackland’s site presents an account of the nearly catastrophic blaze on Mother’s Day 1969 that almost sent a plume of radioactive waste into the skies over the Denver metro area. “That was the most dramatic event at Rocky Flats,” Ackland said. “It really demonstrated the risk that Rocky Flats meant to the community.” The virtual exhibit includes photos of the damage caused by the fire and audio clips from interviews with former plant workers who fought the blaze. “It was tough in there — you could feel the heat from the outside,” former plant worker Willie Warling says in one taped segment. “They always said that nothing ever got to the atmosphere, but that’s a bunch of baloney. It had to.” Ackland spent years researching Rocky Flats’ history, from the political maneuvering that brought the plutonium-processing facility to the Denver area to the 1989 Environmental Protection Agency raid that shut down the plant. He published his book in 1999 and began working on the Web exhibit a year later with help from students and colleagues at CU. “To make a virtual museum work, you need people who are very well-versed in the virtual world,” he said. “It was hard to get Web designers who can make a whole lot of money to give their services for free.” Ackland said he is unsure if more exhibits are on the way. If the current site generates enough traffic — and Ackland can secure additional funding — a full-scale virtual museum may be forthcoming, he said. Kim Grant, a board member for the proposed Rocky Flats Cold War museum, said Ackland’s project presents a dark part of the plant’s history in an unusual way. “The virtual museum is an example of an exciting trend in the museum world where technology can be used in an exciting way,” Grant said. Most of the 6,500-acre Rocky Flats property will likely be converted to a wildlife refuge once the $7 billion cleanup by contractor Kaiser-Hill wraps up in coming weeks. Ackland, a former editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, said he hopes the virtual exhibit highlights the danger Rocky Flats posed to the Denver area and the world in general. “The vestige of Rocky Flats remains in every weapon in the U.S. arsenal,” he said. “That’s important for people to remember.” Brad Turner can be reached at 720-494-5420, or by e-mail at bturner@times-call.com. All contents Copyright © 2005 Daily Times-Call. All rights ***************************************************************** 29 lamonitor.com: Wells fail IG's inspection The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor Responding to technical information from a Los Alamos geologist, a federal auditor found that drilling techniques for deep-test wells at Los Alamos National Laboratory might have distorted some of the results of a water monitoring project. An inspection report released on Friday by the Inspector General of the Department of Energy concluded that LANL's methods may have been allowable under the guidelines, but did not meet the requirements of the applicable environmental law. Additives used in the drilling procedure may have masked the presence of radioactive contaminants and "compromised the reliability of the groundwater contamination data," according to the report. Bob Gilkeson, an expert in drilling methods for monitoring low-level contaminants, said Friday that he took the matter to the Inspector General because he believes that the laboratory, with the encouragement of the New Mexico Environment Department, has installed many wells that do not provide accurate information. "The contamination in the groundwater beneath the laboratory is a serious issue for the simple fact that it is not properly monitored," he said. LANL contests many of the IG's findings and the laboratory's technical rebuttal is included in the report. LANL spokesperson Kathy Delucas said the information in the report was not new and that the laboratory is working to correct any problems. "We have been reporting on these in the quarterly review meetings," she said. The nuclear weapons laboratory's impact on ground water has been detected in intermediate perch zones below the surface of the ground, but remains a concern because of historic releases of chemicals and radionuclides from outfalls and disposal pits, The regional aquifer which supplies water to Los Alamos County was long thought to be virtually impermeable to pollution from the laboratory because of its depth and geological protections, but new questions about fast pathways and monitoring quality continue to be raised. A hydrogeological work plan by the laboratory called for the installation of 32 regional wells meant to characterize the interplay of water flows and the geology of the Pajarito Plateau down to the regional aquifer. The drilling project and the test wells play a central role in the groundwater monitoring program required under LANL's consent agreement with the NMED. At issue in the IG report is the use of mud rotary drilling methods, which is identified as one of nine commonly used methods under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, that governs water quality, and is not prohibited under LANL's Consent Agreement with the state. But the mud rotary method uses drilling fluids, foams and a water-absorbing clay known as bentonite to seal off and stabilize the open hole during the drilling of wells. Delucas said that the drilling additive were required at thousand-foot depths where casing and drill bits were sticking to the rock. The IG cited the drilling guidelines, that caution "that mud rotary creates a high potential for affecting aquifer characteristics and groundwater quality." Elsewhere, the IG noted, the guidelines elaborate on other conditions and restraints on using drilling muds and fluids, including the necessity to purge contaminants introduced in the course of drilling. DOE, in its formal reply to the IG, agreed with the recommendations in the report, but said, "It is the opinion of NNSA that each well was, in fact, purged under specific criteria in accordance with the guidance contained in the act." Gilkeson, formerly a consultant on the lab's water monitoring program, prepared a report, "Groundwater contamination in the regional aquifer beneath the Los Alamos National Laboratory," which he presented to the Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board (NNMCAB) the Inspector General's office, NMED, and Governor Bill Richardson in May and June 2004. "I thought just bringing the problem to the attention of responsible people would be the end of it," Gilkeson said. But subsequent efforts to discredit his credentials and findings, he said, have forced him to pursue the matter, which he believes has still not been resolved. On Wednesday, the NNMCAB will hear a preliminary report from researchers of the Environmental Protection Agency, who were asked by the group to review the dispute. NNMCAB is chartered by the Department of Energy to provide public input on environmental issues. The board will hear a full evaluation from EPA at their next board meeting, Nov. 30. Joni Arends of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety said she was particularly sensitive to information about R-22, a regional well that is the "sentry well" for the Buckman Well fields, on which the city of Santa Fe partly relies for water. The IG report includes R-22 in the list of wells where LANL acknowledges that residual muds and drilling fluids had consequences or were not completely removed. "This is a big issue and an important report to come out in terms of protecting precious drinking water in Northern New Mexico," she said. NMED issued an announcement Friday supporting the Inspector General's findings as well as LANL's efforts to improve their drilling techniques. "NMED officials plan to request that LANL submit a full report on which wells may be impacted by those drilling fluids and that it prepare a plan to address those problems," the announcement stated. NMED Communication Director Adam Rankin said Friday, "There are a number of wells that this affects. If they can't be purged and made to function properly, or if they can't give us characteristic samples of the groundwater, we may require that they not be included in the characterization." Speaking for the lab, Delucas said, "We're planning a rehabilitation of those wells and a pilot project for the wells that have been affected." Gilkeson said he had sat in on a planning meeting last week, but believes, "The assessment strategy is very short-sighted." © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 Rocky Mountain News: Flats case heads to trial 15 years since filing, property owners take 2 firms to court By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News October 10, 2005 It was the FBI's dawn raid at Rocky Flats that roused the neighbors' worries. Environmentalists and some government officials had cautioned for years that the nuclear bomb factory 16 miles northwest of downtown Denver might not be as safe as its operators had insisted since it opened during the Cold War in the early 1950s. Many people had dismissed those cautions as exaggerated, but when FBI agents swept into the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant early one June morning in 1989, the plant's neighbors started losing sleep. Within days, Broomfield began digging a ditch to divert a stream that flowed through the plant away from the city's water supply. In Westminster, more than 100 angry residents showed up at a city council meeting to denounce their government for not being more careful about allowing development near the plant. And one group of the plant's neighbors decided to launch a legal battle on behalf of thousands of other nearby property owners against two companies that ran Rocky Flats for decades. Fifteen years later, the plaintiffs' day in court is dawning. On Tuesday, 12 jurors will hear the lawyers' opening statements in a federal trial expected to stretch nearly to Christmas. "It's been a very frustrating case," Merrill Davidoff of Philadelphia, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said of the long, weary work of getting the case to trial. Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane at one point found the entire U.S. Department of Energy, which owns Rocky Flats, in contempt of court because of its delays in handing over documents. The plaintiffs claim that mishandled toxic substances at the plant ate away both their property values and their rights under the law to use and enjoy what they owned. "The FBI raid is what the case at the end of the day is about and whether it caused problems in the market," said David Bernick of Chicago, one of the lawyers representing former Rocky Flats operators Rockwell International Corp. and Dow Chemical Co. Rockwell, which ran Rocky Flats under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy at the time of the FBI raid, pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental crimes - five felonies and five misdemeanors - and paid a fine of $18.5 million. The weapons plant has been shut down. Its 6,500-acre site has undergone environmental cleansing and is slated to become a wildlife refuge. Most of the thousands of neighbors in the class-action lawsuit have moved elsewhere. But their claims of loss live on in Colorado U.S. District Court. "At the time of the FBI raid, there was so much publicity and media coverage, and an admission of guilt by Rockwell that in fact they had violated the law, that it was very difficult to sell property (near the plant)," said Louise Roselle of Cincinnati, one of the lawyers for the neighbors. "And when you did sell property, you did not get what your property would have been worth without Rocky Flats as a neighbor," Roselle said. Seven of the plant's neighbors filed the class-action lawsuit in 1990 on behalf of themselves and the other owners. As of the time of the 1989 FBI raid, their complaint included 12,000 to 15,000 parcels of land in about 25 square miles east of Rocky Flats. One of the original named plaintiffs, Lorren Babb, has died. Another, 77-year-old Delores Schierkolk, will not attend the trial because of illness. Gertrude Babb, 85, walked with difficulty Thursday when she came to court to watch jury selection. She sat in a front row with fellow plaintiffs Sally Bartlett, Merilyn Cook, William Schierkolk and Richard Bartlett. The thousands of plaintiffs are seeking $500,000 - $250,000 in compensatory damages plus $250,000 in punitive damages - from Rockwell and its predecessor as the plant's operator, Dow Chemical Co. Bernick said they shouldn't get it. "Rocky Flats has been in the public eye now for, jeez, I want to say 25 years, on exactly the same kinds of issues that we're talking about here," he said. "For 25 years, those matters have been gone over thoroughly in the press, they've been gone over extensively by a wide variety of scientific and technical investigators, in investigations that have been transparent to the community at large," Bernick said. "And the conclusion of science with regard to Rocky Flats is now clear and unequivocal: that the risks associated with living around Rocky Flats . . . are so small as to be inconsequential," he said. He said the plaintiffs moved in near Rocky Flats knowing about accidents leading to releases of radioactive plutonium and other toxic materials within the plant site. "And the fact that they moved in is really the best evidence of how the risk didn't make any difference," Bernick said. But Davidoff disagrees. He accused Dow and Rockwell and the U.S. Department of Energy of covering up accidents, mishandling of toxic substances and other dangers at Rocky Flats for decades. "The two contractors, Dow and Rockwell, have badly supervised and very badly contaminated the plant area, and after the plant area, the surrounding neighborhood area, with plutonium that's going to unfortunately endure in the environment for thousands of years," Davidoff said. "The Department of Energy has launched a propaganda campaign falsely claiming that the plant has been cleaned up," he said. He said the Department of Energy, citing national security concerns, still won't give the plaintiffs information they have requested about plutonium allegedly missing from Rocky Flats. "I wish the United States Department of Energy, and its contractors who are the defendants here, had been more forthcoming in telling the public the truth," Davidoff said. Rocky Flats chronology • 1951: Federal government selects Rocky Flats as site for nuclear weapons plant. • 1952: Operations begin, with Dow Chemical Co. as prime contractor. • 1957: Fire in Building 771. • 1967: Barrels discovered to be leaking plutonium-laced chemicals into soil. Winds blew soil east. • 1969: Fire in Building 776-7. • 1973: Colorado health department discovers radioactive tritium in Walnut Creek flowing through Rocky Flats. • 1975: Rockwell International replaces Dow as Rocky Flats operator. • 1989: FBI and Environmental Protection Agency raid plant, looking for evidence of environmental violations. • 1989: A special grand jury is convened to investigate alleged environmental crimes at Rocky Flats. It would meet for more than two years. • 1989: Rocky Flats added to list of highly polluted sites eligible for Superfund cleanup money. • 1989: Plutonium operations halted for safety reasons and never resumed. • 1992: Rockwell, in a plea deal, admits 10 federal environmental crimes and is fined $18.5 million. • 1996: Grand jurors ask permission to break the silence required of them by law in order to testify before Congress. • 2004: Colorado U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch refuses to let grand jurors break silence, but says required grand jury secrecy may not be appropriate social policy and that Congress could change it. © Rocky Mountain News ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************