***************************************************************** 10/31/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.252 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Guardian Unlimited: I tried repeatedly to talk the US out of invadin 2 The Observer: Follow the trail: how a rumour in Niger led to a crisi 3 AFP: Iran upbeat on prospect of fresh nuclear talks - 4 Guardian Unlimited: UK Discourages Military Response vs. Iran 5 AFP: Iran won't return to full nuclear freeze: Ahmadinejad - 6 The Observer: Iran backs away from president 7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Says U.S. Pressure Hurts Talks 8 Reuters: U.S. envoy says N.Korea nuclear demand inexcusable 9 Reuters: Envoys meet in Seoul ahead of N.Korea nuclear talks 10 AFP: Hu has 'frank' meeting with Kim but no date for next nuclear ta 11 AFP: US nuclear envoy to visit South Korea 12 AFP: US nuclear envoy expects North Korean nuclear talks next month 13 US: Feinstein: Nuclear Bunker Statement 14 US: roanoke.com: Needed: a Manhattan Project for energy 15 Nuclear War Imminent? 16 Guardian Unlimited: Get real on climate change 17 Independent: Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion? 18 Japan Times: Nuclear carrier to replace Kitty Hawk 19 asahi.com: Japan backs U.S. nuclear flattop  20 DAWN: Relaxation of N-restrictions on Pakistan, India, Israel sought NUCLEAR REACTORS 21 London Times: Minister declares nuclear 'renewable' - 22 RIA Novosti: China may grant loan for floating nuclear power unit in 23 FT.com: UK - N-power is renewable, Sainsbury tells Lords 24 US: APP.COM: DEP permit for nuclear plant doesn't protect bay 25 US: toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse shuts down for weekend maintenance 26 Salt Lake Tribune: ABC's show on university reactor security was mis 27 US: York Daily Record: ENERGY: PPL reactor to shut down - 28 Scotsman.com News: Nuclear power is an option - Blair 29 AU ABC: ACF denies nuclear power inevitable. 30 Deutsche Welle: German Parties Set to Clash Over Nuclear Power 31 National Post: Re: "Runaway nuclear," Tom Adams, Oct. 26 32 Guardian Unlimited: Blair pushes for 'eco-friendly' petrol and NUCLEAR SECURITY 33 MD: Nuclear security is up, smuggling down, but terrorism's ultimate 34 US: North Augusta Star: Subcontract for MOX awarded 35 US: Guardian Unlimited: Homeland Security Misses Many Deadlines 36 asahi.com: Ministries finalize nuke, terror defense plan NUCLEAR SAFETY 37 [du-list][indianpointsec] 10-29-05 LTE: JN Tritium unsafe in 38 US: [du-list]Plant cylinders may hold toxic phosgene gas 39 [du-list] Blowin in the Wind - Australian film 40 Sydney Morning Herald: Atoll still scarred by tests - World - 41 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Uranium cylinders may be corroding NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 42 Critics: Changes Doom Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump Plan 43 [NukeNet] Critics: Changes Doom Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump 44 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast plume 'moving fast' 45 US: AU ABC: Union questions 'ludicrous' ERA fine 46 reviewjournal.com: Nuclear waste storage undergoes simple shift 47 Green Left Weekly: Anti-nuke dump make inquiry submission 48 US: JournalStar.com: Nuke group balks at giving away former dump sit 49 CNIC: Japan and internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle 50 Berkley: DOE Peddles Plan For Supposed "Clean" Nuclear Garbage Dump PEACE 51 Guardian Unlimited: A-Bomb Victims Stage Rally in Hiroshima 52 US: courier-journal: Eliminate nuclear weapons, raise minimum wage, 53 Xinhua: Deployment of US nuclear carrier in Japan criticized 54 asahi.com: Yokosuka expresses outrage at aircraft carrier deployment US DEPT. OF ENERGY 55 Santa Fe New Mexican: Former LANL engineer accused of selling secret 56 Chicago Maroon: Nineteen firms compete to manage Argonne Laboratory ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: I tried repeatedly to talk the US out of invading Iraq , says Berlusconi [UP] · Italian PM tries to distance himself from White House · Gadafy enlisted to help halt move towards war John Hooper in Rome Monday October 31, 2005 The Guardian Silvio Berlusconi, one of George Bush's closest allies, says he repeatedly tried to talk the US president out of invading Iraq, in comments to be broadcast today. In the television interview, which goes out on the day the Italian prime minister flies to Washington to meet Mr Bush, Mr Berlusconi says he even enlisted the help of the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gadafy, in behind-the-scenes efforts to stop America going to war. "I have never been convinced war was the best way to succeed in making a country democratic and extract it from an albeit bloody dictatorship," he says. "I tried on several occasions to convince the American president not to wage war." His version of events, recounted in an interview with the La7 private TV station, with excerpts reported by the Apcom and Ansa news agencies at the weekend, was backed by his deputy, Gianfranco Fini, leader of the former neo-fascist party, who said: "We tried right up to the end to persuade Bush and Blair not to launch a military attack." Mr Berlusconi said one of the "other ways and other solutions" he had tried was a "joint action" with Colonel Gadafy, whose country is a former Italian colony. Coming after Lewis Libby's indictment capped a crisis week for the Bush administration, Mr Berlusconi's remarks will be seen by many in Washington as treacherous. Italy's prime minister is standing for re-election in just over five months and polls indicate that his support for Mr Bush is a major handicap. He became closely identified with Mr Bush soon after coming to office in 2001 and avoided criticism of US policy in the run-up to the war. In March 2003 he told parliament the use of force against Iraq was legitimate and Italy could not abandon the Americans "in their fight against terrorism". Yesterday Mr Berlusconi's aides played down the remarks, pointing to two earlier occasions on which he had alluded to "doubts" and "reservations" about the invasion. Il Giornale, a newspaper owned by the Berlusconi family, quoted the prime minister as saying in November 2003 he had "expressed disagreement with Bush on the military action in Iraq". His latest remarks were nevertheless at odds with public perceptions of his stance and astonished his political rivals. "What's going on?" asked Romano Prodi, the leader of the centre-left. "Has he finally realised the war was wrong? Well, let him say so. He told Bush? Well, it means he doesn't count for anything at all." Though Italian troops did not take part in the invasion of Iraq they have played a prominent role since. Italy's 3,000-strong contingent is the third largest in the US-led coalition. Mr Berlusconi has repeatedly indicated that he intends to reduce Italy's presence, and an initial withdrawal of 300 soldiers took place in September. But at least one opposition politician suggested the prime minister might have been trying in advance to limit damage to his administration from the "CIA-gate" scandal. The document at the origin of the affair, which indicated that Saddam Hussein's regime tried to buy uranium in Africa, was allegedly forged by an Italian with links to the intelligence services. Last week La Repubblica suggested it had been passed to the US. The government has acknowledged that the head of Italy's military intelligence met the then national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in September 2002, shortly before the document was distributed to US intelligence agencies. But it said the uranium dossier played no part in their talks. Last night Mr Berlusconi gave full backing to his spymaster, Nicolo Pollari, who is alleged to have passed on forged documents. Arguments about the uranium claims are at the heart of the Plame affair in Washington. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 The Observer: Follow the trail: how a rumour in Niger led to a crisis in Washington The Guardian [UP] Sunday October 30, 2005 The errant diplomat Former diplomat Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to discover whether Iraq was seeking uranium for weapons. He found nothing but was married to... The undercover spy Valerie Plame was a blonde bombshell whose work on weapons proliferation at the CIA was classified information but her true identity was known by... The vice-president Dick Cheney, who was angered by Wilson saying the administration twisted findings to support an Iraq invasion. Cheney mentioned Plame's work to... The hapless fall guy Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff, and ended up revealing Plame's work at the CIA to several journalists, including Judith Miller. The woman of mass destruction New York Times reporter Judy Miller. She did not write a story on Plame but went to jail for 85 days for initially refusing to reveal Libby's identity to ... The relentless prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who investigated the blowing of Plame's cover - a federal crime. The probe has gone to the heart of the Bush administration. The trusted adviser Karl Rove, who, though still under investigation, has not been indicted. His fate is undecided; these are President Bush's darkest days. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: Iran upbeat on prospect of fresh nuclear talks - Sat Oct 29, 4:44 PM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranis upbeat about the prospect of fresh nuclear talks and finding a diplomatic solution to an international impasse over Iran's nuclear program, a government spokesman said. "The prospect of the negotiations is not negative as both the Iranian and the European sides believe in resolving the nuclear issue by diplomatic means," said spokesman Hossein Entezami, quoted by the student-run news agency ISNA. "Tehran has not set any pre-conditions for resuming the negotiations so we are hopeful about the continuation of negotiations," said Entezami, who is the new spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council. The Council is headed by top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. However, Entezami signaled that Iran was not likely to renounce its right to pursue a nuclear energy program, which it claims is for peaceful purposes but the United States believes is aimed at producing weapons, or to halt uranium conversion activities. "Neither the government, nor the Supreme Security Council nor any other official in the country will allow themselves to haggle over national interests or any matter that could elevate the nation and boost its privileges." Negotiations that had been ongoing for two years between three European nations -- France, Britain and Germany, also known as the EU-3 -- and Iran broke down in August when Iran resumed uranium conversion, a step in the enrichment cycle. The EU-3 had offered nuclear, political and trade cooperation in exchange for guarantees that Iran's program was peaceful, told the Islamic republic that negotiations could not resume until they suspended all enrichment-related activities. The EU-3 said that the best guarantee that Iran was not working to build a nuclear bomb would be for the Islamic republic to call a halt to all enrichment work. Iran could be sent before the Security Council over its nuclear program, should the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agencyso decide during its meeting at the end of November. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: UK Discourages Military Response vs. Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday October 30, 2005 12:16 PM LONDON (AP) - Iran, whose president this week called for the destruction of the state of Israel, poses a challenge to the international community but military action is not being considered as a response, British Defense Secretary John Reid said Sunday. The United Nations was holding informal discussions Sunday about Iran, which has been accused of supporting insurgents in their attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq. There is also international concern that the Middle Eastern nation has ambitions to build nuclear weapons. Reid said Iran appeared to be trying to confront the international community, which is considering how to respond. ``I don't think anybody is speaking about military involvement at any level about the questions we are facing just now,'' he said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Sunday AM program. ``But it is certainly a challenge to the United Nations.'' ``You cannot have a member of the United Nations developing its own nuclear weapons in complete breach of all of the promises, all of its obligations, and at the same time threatening to wipe out another state of the U.N.'' Reid said he did not have conclusive proof that the Iranian government was involved in providing weapons to insurgents in Iraq. But there was evidence of the involvement of Iranian elements in the Iraqi insurgency, he said. ``Iran has to change its behavior in terms of support for terrorism, in deceit over nuclear weapons and in terms of its relationship and threats to other members of the international community,'' he said. ``That is a challenge to the whole world and to the United Nations. It is the United Nations which must face up to that and (Secretary-General) Kofi Annan has made it plain that it intends to face up to that.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Iran won't return to full nuclear freeze: Ahmadinejad - Ahmadinejad Sun Oct 30, 6:15 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> will not return to a full freeze of its disputed nuclear fuel activities and rejects Western demands for such confidence building measures, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned. "We support the resumption of work at the UCF (uranium conversion facility) and we will continue," Ahmadinejad said Sunday, rejecting demands that Iran return to a full freeze agreed to in November 2004 in a deal with Britain, France and Germany. "The previous government backed down in the name of confidence building so much that they voluntarily suspended the fuel cycle in Isfahan and Natanz," he complained, referring to Iran's uranium conversion and uranium enrichment installations. "Recently the government realised that this confidence building claim is wrong." Reacting to Western pressure against Iran, he said: "They want to deprive us of the fuel cycle. They are lying and they don't want the Islamic republic to have the fuel cycle." These activities, Ahmadinejad insisted, were "100 percent lawful and there was no deviation" towards military purposes. "It is a big lie that Iran has concealed things for 18 years," he asserted. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 The Observer: Iran backs away from president [UP] Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday October 30, 2005 The Observer Under massive international condemnation, Iran moved rapidly to explain that its president's call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map' should in no way be taken as a threat of violence. As the UN Security Council joined secretary-general Kofi Annan, Tony Blair, Washington and a growing chorus in condemning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks, diplomats and officials sought to defuse the row. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to its UN Charter commitments,' a Foreign Ministry statement read yesterday. 'It has never used force against a second country or threatened the use of force.' The comments by the conservative Ahmadinejad in a speech to students at a conference marking the annual Jerusalem Day, represented only his latest catastrophic blunder in presenting Iran's relationship with the outside world since taking up the presidency three months ago. Since he spoke on Wednesday, Tehran's complex and competing centres of power have been plunged into a spin of contradictory briefing, with hardliners - including the head of the Revolutionary Guards - backing Ahmadinejad and reformers trying to repair the damage. In a mark of growing political polarisation, senior officials in the reformist camp have privately begun to wonder whether Ahmadinejad has the intelligence or skills to lead Iran at such a crucial juncture; others accuse him of living in the past. While Ahmadinejad stuck by his comments on Friday, by yesterday, while not specifically rebutting the president's remarks, the Foreign Ministry said Iran had no intention of launching an assault on the Jewish state and would back whatever course the Palestinians chose to resolve the Middle East conflict. The Iranian Embassy in Moscow - Russia is backing Iran's attempts to secure civil nuclear technology - also issued a statement that belittled Ahmadinejad's comments, saying that 'he did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict'. However, reassuring messages are unlikely in the short term to remove suspicions about Iran's trajectory. The US said his remarks underscored its fears that Tehran was pursuing nuclear arms. Tehran denies the charge, arguing it needs atomic fuel for power stations. The Foreign Ministry statement said Ahmadinejad had mapped out Iran's policy on Israel at the UN in New York last month. 'The official stance ... is that the occupation of Palestine should end, refugees should return and a democratic state should be formed with Jerusalem as its capital,' the statement added. Ali Larijani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told the ISNA students news agency that Iran would back whatever the Palestinians chose. Ahmad Nateq Nouri, a senior conservative cleric and member of the Expediency Council also played down the president's comments: 'What the president meant was that we favour a fair and long-lasting peace in Palestine.' This was the stance taken by Iran's reformist government under former President Mohammad Khatami, whose eight-year presidency ended this year, a policy that left the path open for a two-state solution. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Says U.S. Pressure Hurts Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday October 29, 2005 10:46 PM By KELLY OLSEN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea said Saturday that U.S. pressure over human rights and other issues threatens the future of international talks on an agreement to end the communist regime's nuclear arms program. The comment, carried in a dispatch from Pyongyang by the official Korean Central News Agency, came one day after North Korean leader Kim Jong Il promised visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao that his regime would participate in the next round of six-nation nuclear talks. North Korea promised in September to give up its nuclear arms work in exchange for aid and security guarantees. It tempered that pledge almost immediately, saying it first wanted a civilian nuclear reactor for generating electricity - a condition Washington calls unacceptable. The two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States agreed in a joint statement Sept. 19 to convene a fifth round of nuclear talks in the Chinese capital sometime in early November. No date has been set. ``The basic spirit of the joint statement of the talks is mutual respect and peaceful coexistence,'' the North Korean news agency said. ``The pressure campaign launched by the U.S. under the groundless pretexts of 'human rights abuse' and 'illegal trafficking' defying this spirit is little short of annulling the statement.'' It said such U.S. pressure could heighten tensions and ``hamstring the process for denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.'' North Korea delayed the start of the September round of talks by two weeks, citing anger over joint U.S.-South Korean war games and Washington's appointment of a special envoy on the communist nation's human rights status. The U.S. Treasury Department on Oct. 21 targeted eight North Korean companies suspected of being overseas fronts for Pyongyang's sale of missiles and nuclear and biological weapons. The action bars transactions between the companies and U.S. citizens and freezes any of the firms' assets under U.S. jurisdiction. North Korea also has accused the United States of using the six-nation talks to trick it into disarming before launching a nuclear attack. The United States, which has some 30,000 military personnel in South Korea, has denied plans to attack the North. Hu, who arrived in Pyongyang on Friday for an official visit, is the first Chinese leader to go to North Korea since 2001. Kim, who rarely travels abroad, last visited Beijing in 2004, when he studied Chinese economic reforms. China is under pressure from the United States and other governments to use its leverage as North Korea's main aid donor to push Pyongyang for concessions in the nuclear talks. The chief U.S. negotiator, Christopher Hill, was to arrive in Seoul on Sunday for talks with his South Korean counterpart, Song Min-soon, to discuss the next round. China's point man on Korean affairs, Li Bin, met with Song on Saturday. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 8 Reuters: U.S. envoy says N.Korea nuclear demand inexcusable Reuters.com Sun 30 Oct 2005 9:18 AM ET SEOUL, Oct 30 (Reuters) - Pyongyang's demand for a civilian nuclear reactor before North Korea will scrap its atomic weapons programme is "inexcusable", the chief U.S. envoy to the country's nuclear talks was reported as saying on Sunday. South Korea's Yonhap news agency cited U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill as saying a senior North Korean diplomat would "deeply regret" the up-front demand for a light-water reactor, made in an interview on Thursday. Yonhap did not provide a complete quote from Hill, who was speaking to reporters at Seoul's international airport prior to a meeting with his South Korean counterpart to six-party talks on ending North Korea's nuclear programmes. U.S. officials were not immediately available for comment. In Thursday's interview with Yonhap in Washington, Han Song-ryol, deputy chief of North Korea's United Nations mission, said Pyongyang would not even give details of its atomic programmes and weapons until the reactor has been built for it. The next round of the talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States is likely to take place in the week of Nov. 7, the parties said. North Korea has attached numerous conditions to implementing a deal, such as demanding a civilian reactor before it scraps its atomic weapons programmes. Last month at the six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear programmes in exchange for economic assistance, security guarantees and greater diplomatic recognition. Washington and others said conditions such as advance delivery of the civilian reactor were not part of the deal. Envoys to the talks said they want to use the next round to construct a road map that will lead to North Korea scrapping its nuclear weapons programmes. They also plan to lay out the rewards for Pyongyang for completing tasks toward that goal. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Reuters: Envoys meet in Seoul ahead of N.Korea nuclear talks | Reuters.com Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:45 PM ET SEOUL (Reuters) - China's top diplomat for Korean affairs met South Korean officials on Saturday as part of a rush of diplomatic discussions ahead of six-party talks on ending North Korea's nuclear programmes scheduled for November. The chief U.S. envoy to the six-party talks, Christopher Hill, will arrive in Seoul on Sunday for a one-day visit for talks with his South Korean counterpart Song Min-soon, said an official at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul. Li Bin, China's envoy in charge of affairs on the Korean peninsula who recently visited Pyongyang, met South Korean diplomats at the foreign ministry. "We would like to have detailed discussions over the issues and continue to make efforts so that we can push ahead with the direction we hope for," Li said at the start of his meeting. At last month's talks in Beijing among the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia, North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear programmes for economic assistance, security guarantees and greater diplomatic recognition. Envoys to the talks said they want to use the next round to construct a road map that will lead to North Korea scrapping its nuclear weapons programmes. They will also plan to lay out the rewards Pyongyang will receive for completing tasks toward that goal along the way. The parties have said the next round of six-party talks are likely to take place in the week of November 7. North Korea has attached numerous conditions to implementing a deal such as demanding a civilian reactor up front before it scraps its atomic weapons programmes. Washington and others said conditions, such as the civilian reactor up front, were not part of the deal. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: Hu has 'frank' meeting with Kim but no date for next nuclear talks - Sun Oct 30, 6:43 AM ET BEIJING (AFP) - Chinese President Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaoheld "frank and fruitful" meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and won a pledge that the Stalinist state will return to nuclear disarmament talks. But no date has been fixed for a resumption of the multinational negotiations that involve the two Koreas, Russia, China, Japan and the United States, Chinese Communist Party spokesman Wang Jiarui told reporters Sunday. When the sides last met in September, they all agreed to convene again in Beijing in early November. Hu returned to Beijing Sunday after Kim saw him off at the airport in Pyongyang. The pair hugged and kissed on the tarmac before Kim clenched his fists above his head as Hu boarded his plane, state television showed. It was Hu's first trip to North Korea" /> North Koreasince he took power in 2002, and was aimed at encouraging the North to stay at the nuclear disarmament negotiating table and engage in bolder economic reforms, state media said. "General Secretary Kim said that he will honour the commitment to participate in the fifth round as scheduled but it is not particularly meaningful to talk about a date," said Wang, who accompanied Hu. "From what I have observed from the meetings of the leaders and the attitude, we have reason to believe that the meeting will be held as scheduled and will achieve positive results under all sides' efforts." Wang characterised their talks as "frank and in depth". "The atmosphere was cordial and friendly, the meetings were frank and in depth and the results were fruitful and meaningful," he said at a press briefing. Hu told Kim to hold on to what has been achieved on the nuclear issue and work for more progress, according to Chinese state television. "China stresses the need to stick to the objective of a nuclear-free peninsula, and stick to a course of dialogue and peaceful resolution, so as to preserve peace and stability on the peninsula and in the region," said Hu. At the September six-party talks, North Korea agreed to a statement of principles under which it would give up its nuclear weapons program in return for energy and security guarantees. But soon after agreeing to the statement, Pyongyang said it would not dismantle its nuclear arsenal before the United States supplies it with a light-water atomic reactor to generate electricity. The United States says North Korea, a self-avowed nuclear power, must first disarm before getting incentive bonuses, including the nuclear reactor. China is seen as North Korea's most loyal ally and Wang said Kim and Hu agreed "both should maintain high level contacts, enrich economic and trade cooperation and consolidate collaboration on common interests." Wang refused to say if any incentives had been offered to win Kim's pledge, saying only that "economic assistance covers a wide area and we provide help depending on the situation of North Korea". He acknowledged that the impoverished North continued to struggle with economic reforms but said China had faith in its ability to bring about change. "The DPRK people and government attach a lot of importance to economic development but they still have a lot of difficulties, including electricity supplies and transportion," he said, referring to the North by its formal initials. "But we believe that under the party and the country's leadership they will overcome the difficulties." China is seen as an example that a socialist regime can undergo economic reforms without losing its grip on power and Hu broached the subject at a banquet held in his honor late Friday. "We have constantly perfected the socialist system, while exploring and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics," Hu said in a speech published by Xinhua news agency. "It has profoundly changed the face of China, causing an uninterrupted rise in the productive capacity, the overall national strength and the standard of living of the people," he said. Recommend It: Not at All Somewhat Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: US nuclear envoy to visit South Korea Sun Oct 30, 2:09 AM ET SEOUL, (AFP) - US chief nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill was due to arrive here for talks with Seoul officials on six-way talks aimed at ending North Korea" /> North Korea's nuclear ambitions, officials said. Hill, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, would meet with his South Korean counterpart Song Min-Soon and others during a short stopover in Seoul, they said. "He is just having a brief stopover overnight," US embassy spokesman Robert Ogburn said. "Then he is out tomorrow morning." In the past week, top envoys of the nations involved in the multilateral talks -- the United States, China, the two Koreas, Russia and Japan -- have busily met to discuss ways to ensure progress at the next round of six-way talks due next month. China's top nuclear negotiator Li Bin had talks with Song in Seoul Saturday after meeting with Hill in Hawaii and his North Korean counterpart Kim Kye-Gwan in Pyongang. On Friday, North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-Il pledged to return to the six-nation talks when he received Chinese President Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaoon a three-day visit to the Stalinist state. The last round of talks ended in September with a statement of principles under which North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons program in return for energy and security guarantees. But Pyongyang later warned it would not dismantle its nuclear arsenal before the United States supplies it with a light-water atomic reactor to generate electricity. The United States says North Korea must first disarm. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: US nuclear envoy expects North Korean nuclear talks next month - Sun Oct 30, 7:15 PM ET SEOUL (AFP) - US chief nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill said he expects six-nation talks on dismantling North Korea" /> North Korea's nuclear arsenal to resume next month despite a dispute over the next step. "We're expecting them to start in early November as agreed," Hill said upon arrival at Incheon airport for talks with South Korean officials. Hill, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, held a closed-door meeting with South Korea" /> South Korea's top nuclear negotiator Song Min-Soon during a short stopover in Seoul, officials said. "He is just having a brief stopover overnight," US embassy spokesman Robert Ogburn said. "Then he is out tomorrow morning." Washington and Pyongyang have been wide apart in the sequencing of disarmament even though they and the other nations agreed to a statement of principles on making North Korea free of nuclear weapons. Han Song-Ryol, deputy head of North Korea's UN mission, said last week that his country would neither declare nor dismantle its nuclear deterrent without getting a light water reactor for electricity. The last round of six-way nuclear talks ended in September with a statement of principles under which North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons program in return for energy and security guarantees. But the North later warned it would not dismantle its nuclear arsenal before the United States supplies it with a light-water atomic reactor to generate electricity. The United States says North Korea must first disarm. In the past week, top envoys of the nations involved in the talks -- the United States, China, the two Koreas, Russia and Japan -- have met to discuss ways to ensure progress at the next round due next month. China's top nuclear negotiator Li Bin had talks with Song in Seoul Saturday after meeting Hill in Hawaii and his North Korean counterpart Kim Kye-Gwan in Pyongyang. On Friday North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il pledged to return to the six-nation talks when he received Chinese President Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaoon a three-day visit to the Stalinist state. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Feinstein: Nuclear Bunker Statement Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein on the Elimination of Federal Funding for Nuclear Bunker Buster [U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein] October 26, 2005 I was heartened to hear that Senator Pete Domenici announced that the FY 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill will not include $4 million for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or nuclear bunker buster. This effectively kills the nuclear bunker buster program for this year. The move to research and develop new nuclear weapons is misbegotten and wrong-headed. I believe as more people learn about what the Administration plans that the opposition to the development of these weapons will grow stronger. This is a significant victory for those of us who believe that pursuing a nuclear bunker buster will only reopen the nuclear door and encourage the very proliferation we are trying to prevent. As we have long argued it is simply not possible to develop a nuclear bunker buster that can survive a thrust into the earth without spewing massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. As the National Academies of Sciences has found, a nuclear buster can kill between several thousand and a million people. Nevertheless we must remain vigilant. The policies underlying the request for a nuclear bunker buster remain in place: + The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, which places nuclear weapons as part of the strategic triad thus blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons; + National Security Directive 17, which indicates the United States would engage in a first use of nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack. + The draft nuclear weapons doctrine, which envisions using nuclear weapons preemptively, if necessary, to take out hard and deeply buried targets. I will continue to work with my colleagues to promote a sensible, bipartisan nuclear weapons policy. This includes working with Senator Kennedy to offer an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill to remove the Congressional authorization for the program. This is the second year in a row that Congress has eliminated all funds for this program. My great thanks to all the members of Congress who have worked to remove this funding, but most especially to Representative David Hobson who has been steadfast in his leadership against the development of a new nuclear bunker buster. ### ***************************************************************** 14 roanoke.com: Needed: a Manhattan Project for energy Commentary Stories - The Roanoke Times Manage Sunday, October 30, 2005 Bill Mashburn Mashburn, of Blacksburg, is a professor emeritus, mechanical engineering, and former director of the Energy Management Institute at Virginia Tech. The security and economy of nations of the world literally float on oil. No other single resource can have as much impact. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to destroy our fleet, which could have blocked Japan's oil imports from Indonesia. During World War II, we had a strategic plan to take over the Middle East oil if necessary. In 1973, because of our support of Israel, OPEC instigated an oil embargo against the United States. In 1979, there was a perceived 5 percent shortage of the production of oil. Oil companies panicked and started purchasing and filling every empty tank on land and sea. The price per barrel of oil nearly doubled overnight -- with just a 5 percent oil shortage. The recent hurricanes in the Gulf damaged both supply and refining capacity, sending gasoline prices soaring. We put both blame and expectations on our elected officials to solve the security and economic problems caused by these interruptions. The solutions, however, are the most complex of any ever to face our nation. The Department of Energy has been effective, but its efforts have been fragmented as far as a long-range strategic plan is concerned. It has failed, so far, to develop a nuclear waste depository, which it was assigned to do in the '90s and is necessary for further development of nuclear power plants. National energy policies developed by previous administrations do not provide the comprehensive long-range strategy for energy security. Political and environmental issues have dominated. It is too much to expect elected officials alone to have the necessary skills to develop and implement a strategic plan that has so many economic, political and technical components. But we are now at a point in history where we need to draw a hard line and make tough decisions. What is needed is a Manhattan-type project to study and develop a workable long-range strategic energy plan. The Manhattan Project, established early in WWII, had as its objective the development of a nuclear weapon before our enemies developed one. Top experts were identified, isolated and given the resources needed to accomplish their objective. The same should be done with energy. There are individuals in this country who have the knowledge and skills, and if isolated from political and vested interests, could develop such a plan. The plan should, as a minimum, address the following issues: available resources, both domestic and foreign; alternative fuels; industrial, commercial, institutional and residential usage; transportation; regulation of energy resources; and, last but not least, an intensive energy education program for all levels. Each domestic and foreign energy resource used by this country should be identified as to present and projected capacity, economic and political stability, and with a contingency plan that could be implemented immediately when and if any of the resources dropped out. Our delay in making decisions once a resource is lost due to hurricanes, war or embargoes causes confusion and economic loss. There are many alternative energy sources just waiting in the wings for either further technical development or for energy prices to rise enough to provide economic justification. These include the oil sands of Canada, solar and wind energy, hydrogen fuels, fuel cells, coal and many more. The government has, in the past, attempted to support development and commercialization of some of these technologies, such as solar. They failed to fully evaluate all influencing factors, such as the continued low cost of electric energy, so many of the projects are still in the wings. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, but clean-burning technologies should be further developed and implemented. Within the past 20 years, every new power plant coming on line has been fueled by natural gas because it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels. This is a major reason natural gas costs will continue to be higher for residential heating and other natural gas uses. Nuclear energy is now being proposed. Previously, each nuclear plant built had its own unique design, which made safety issues difficult to define and implement. Designs are now being standardized as was done in France -- which is now 70 percent nuclear -- so safety will be much improved. All alternative energy sources should be evaluated for both technical and economic feasibility and then put in a priority order for implementation. Industry, commercial and public institutions have done reasonably well in their efforts to use energy efficiently. In my previous work with energy survey teams, we determined the major problem in most was the lack of a proper internal organizational structure to manage energy. We found, almost without exception, employees wanted to save energy, but simply didn't know how. These groups have come a long way, but many dollars are still being left on the table. Transportation is a major component of our energy usage. It would be very expensive and disruptive to change. Our interstate system, built by the Eisenhower administration primarily for defense purposes, has diverted products previously hauled by rail to trucks. It has made personal travel much more accessible by automobile, making larger ones more desirable for comfort and safety. Could the long line of trucks now plowing along on our interstate system be replaced with rail? And if so, would the general public feel safe enough to again drive smaller cars? When I was a child, an electric-powered street car ran through the heart of the city. It was bought out and closed down by one of the automotive companies. Corporate power and individual freedoms would be the greatest challenge to any significant changes to the transportation system. Improved efficiency in the residential segment is impeded by two factors: lack of knowledge and lack of resources. Few homeowners have a good concept of priorities for reducing energy. Many think turning out lights will save lots of energy. On a pie chart showing energy usage in a residence, lighting comes under "other." For example, if a 100 watt light bulb is allowed to be on for 10 hours, the kilowatt hour usage would be 1000 or 1kW-hr, which has an average residential cost of only 8 cents. Many know heat pumps are the most efficient way to heat and cool a home, but don't have the financial resources to install one. Deregulation of many previously regulated industries has been detrimental to the industry, to the public and to the energy conservation effort. When the trucking industry became deregulated, more trucks came on the road, many with unsafe equipment, especially brakes. Deregulation of the electric industry has simply turned it over to corporate greed -- example: Enron and California. The recent blackout that started in Ohio was caused by a deregulated company not having proper safety equipment. Many corporations have a "risk analysis" department where, in many cases, they determine it is more economical to take a risk and pay for collateral damage than to implement safety features. The claim for deregulation was that costs would go down. Six years ago, I was part of a study mission with the Association of Energy Engineers that met with key energy officials in several of the Northern European countries, which were the first to deregulate their electric industry. In none of the countries visited were electric energy costs reduced as a result of deregulation. Residential electrical costs are expected to rise in every part of the United States when deregulation occurs, along with a decrease in reliability. A comprehensive energy educational program should be developed and instigated for all levels -- CEOs, managers, employees and homeowners. Two programs have been providing intensive training for energy managers in industry, commerce and government for the past 20 years. These are the Certified Energy Manager program conducted by the Association of Engineers, and the Energy Management Diploma program, which I started in 1978 and is now being conducted by North Carolina State University. Certification from either of these two programs is recognized by the federal government for government employees designated as energy managers. I have conducted a workshop in the Energy Management Diploma program for more than 20 years, and have always asked the same question: "What are the barriers to your energy management program?" The answer has always been the same -- lack of top management support and lack of funding. Our efforts to involve top management in training have been less than successful. Their training and interest seem to be more oriented to the bottom line. Our colleges of business should be providing energy management training to their students who may someday become operational managers and CEOs. The strategic plan developed by such a Manhattan-type energy group should be given wide dissemination so all people will have an understanding of the implications and magnitude of such an effort. Tough decisions and sacrifices will have to be made in many cases. With such a document, elected officials would have solid information as a basis for legislation to meet our energy requirements. It may require a reorientation of some elected officials to be less controlled by political and vested interest influences so they will have the courage and long-range vision necessary for the welfare of our country. ***************************************************************** 15 Nuclear War Imminent? Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:11:53 -0500 (CDT) Compliments of Free Voice of America (FVOA): Accurate News and Interesting Commentary for Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free. From: "Graham Jukes" Date: October 27, 2005 6:50:15 PM EST Subject: I HOPE YOU ALL REALISE THAT TOTAL ALL-OUT NUCLEAR WAR IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN! BECAUSE of ISRAEL!!! from maisoon http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649 Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come By Jorge Hirsch The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If these events unfold, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S. These are the reasons: The U.S. State Department determined in August 2005 that "Iran is in violation of its CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] obligations because Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability and dispersed mobilization facilities." According to the CIA, "Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them which it previously had manufactured." According to (then undersecretary for arms control and international security, now U.S. ambassador to the UN) John Bolton's testimony to the House of Representatives (June 24, 2004), "We believe Iran has a covert program to develop and stockpile chemical weapons," and on Iran's ballistic missiles, "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and "The 1,300-km range Shahab-3 missile is a direct threat to Israel, Turkey, U.S. forces in the region, and U.S. friends and allies." In the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24 [.pdf], Iran was found to be in "noncompliance" with its NPT safeguards agreements. Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan (Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel). Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran of plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets. According to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Organization, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia will ship the first cargo of nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr's reactor at the end of 2005 or early 2006. Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (which was under IAEA supervision) in 1981 just before nuclear fuel was loaded into it (to prevent nuclear fallout). President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2004, by a vote of 376-3, called on the United States to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In the recently released draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf], the Pentagon states that it will respond to the threat of WMD (which includes chemical and biological weapons) with nuclear weapons. Conclusion: according to Israel, the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran. How will it all get started? No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so. Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, there is no return. Bushehr is likely to be the first target; other installations will follow. Iran will respond how can it not? At a minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially, but given the U.S.-Israel "special relationship," there is no way the U.S. will stay out of the conflict. Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them all. Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According to the Pentagon planning [.pdf], nuclear weapons will be used: "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD." "Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations" "[O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies" "[T]o counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces" "For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms" "To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations" That makes six independent reasons for nuking Iran. The first nuclear bomb used in an act of war after "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" should be code-named "Demo" for "demonstration" that we can do it, don't mess with us, for "democracy" on the rise in the Middle East, and for the "Democrats" in Congress who will go along with the program. As with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we will be told it saved lives, ours and theirs. You know the script. The upshot: a nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own, and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression. Given these prospects, the U.S. government should be doing its utmost to restrain Israel, yet it is doing exactly the opposite. It should be trying to achieve a diplomatic solution, but it refuses to even talk to Iran. The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used? And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes. Do the majority of American citizens, from whom the authority of the administration is derived, really want to be drawn by Israel into a nuclear conflict? Is this really in the United States' best interest? The sane world needs to tell the U.S. and Israeli governments to back off. And the United States needs to tell Israel, in no uncertain terms, that it will not allow (American-supplied) Israeli bombers carrying (American supplied) bunker-busting bombs over Iraqi airspace, and that it will not aid, abet, or condone such an attack. By not demanding this of the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress is complicit in what is about to happen and is betraying the trust of the people it represents. There is a rational way to avoid this disaster. Let Iran pursue a civilian nuclear program. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, while only nine have nuclear weapons. Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei do their job! The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces, and any threat from a nuclear nation will be met with U.S. nuclear forces. If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT and not allow international supervision of its programs, it would still take several years for it to acquire a nuclear weapon. There would still be plenty of time to act. Otherwise? Welcome to the new world order, where the U.S. can nuke any non-nuclear country at will. Refrain from having a nuclear deterrent at your own risk. All nations that can will become nuclear, others on their way will be nuked, and all-out nuclear war will become an absolute certainty. Bye-bye, world. ======================================================================== ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: Get real on climate change Comment International unity on the way ahead is a must this time, says the Prime Minister Tony Blair Sunday October 30, 2005 The Observer This week is a potentially crucial week in the fight against climate change. On Tuesday, the UK hosts the first meeting under the new Gleneagles dialogue between the G8 and China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. I want to explain why this is important and why I believe the difficulties with the current climate change debate is the trouble with so much international politics: a reluctance to face up to reality and the practical action needed to tackle problems. We know climate change is a major threat. And worries over security of energy supply and rising oil prices are pushing energy policy to the top of the agenda. But we must understand that neither issue can realistically be dealt with unless the US, the EU, Russia, Japan, China and India work together. We also have to recognise that while the Kyoto Protocol takes us in the right direction, it is not enough. We need to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically but Kyoto doesn't even stabilise them. It won't work as intended, either, unless the US is part of it. It's easy to take frustrations out on the Bush Administration but people forget that the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto when Bill Clinton was in the White House. We have to understand as well that, even if the US did sign up to Kyoto, it wouldn't affect the huge growth in energy consumption we will see in India and China. China is building close to a new power station every week. They need economic growth to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty but want to grow sustainably. We have to find a way, as a start, to help them. Emissions trading is going well in Europe even if it is not finding it easy to meet Kyoto targets. And, of course, the first Kyoto commitment period ends in 2012. The challenge is what will come next. Will it be another round of division or what we need: a sound, rational, science-based unity, which ensures the right legally-binding framework to incentivise sustainable development? There are huge opportunities in environmental technology and huge possibilities in sustainable development, if the right framework for low carbon energy generation can be stimulated. But none of this is going to happen unless the major developed and emerging nations sit down together and work it out, in a way that allows us all to grow, imposes no competitive disadvantage and enables the transfer of the technology needed for sustainable growth to take place. That's the scale of the challenge - a challenge the Prince of Wales valuably raised again last week. But the mood is also changing. The scientific evidence is becoming more certain. Vicious climate disasters heighten public concern, whatever the precise link. In the US many states and much of industry wants a lead, and recent Senate votes are beginning to reflect this. China and India know that to be polluters in a world more and more sensitised to the environment is not smart and has impact on their people. That's why Tuesday's meeting matters. It will focus on what is needed to make the transition to a low carbon economy. We need to see how the existing energy technologies we have such as wind, solar and - yes - nuclear, together with new technologies such as fuel cells and carbon capture and storage, can generate the low carbon power the world needs. In the UK we have already been able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions significantly and remain on track to meet our target under the Kyoto Protocol. We will soon be taking further action to achieve our domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2010. One policy being considered is the increased use of biofuels, already well developed in Brazil and the US. If we can achieve just 5 per cent of fuel from renewable sources by 2010 that has the potential to take more than one megatonne of carbon. It is one of the new technologies we need to help tackle climate change. We need to create the right market conditions to increase the necessary investment to develop and install new low carbon energy generation - and to ensure it is shared with emerging economies. Chinese and Indian economic growth will be powered to a large degree by coal, which is both relatively cheap and readily available. This could be a relentless driver of global warming. But by developing and sharing new technologies for coal we can minimise its impact. It is a modest but significant start that the EU has already agreed to work with China to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions. These talks are going well and we hope the first project will be underway in the New Year. I believe Tuesday's meeting has an additional importance. The fact that we are meeting - and talking - in London about the challenges of climate change will also help create the conditions needed for us to look beyond 2012. This is the purpose of the UN process starting in Montreal next month. Whatever doubts and frustrations there might be about Kyoto and the difficulties ahead, Montreal is significant as it is the only forum in which formal negotiations on future international commitments take place. At the beginning of the UK's presidency, I promised that Africa and climate change would be our main priorities. No one sensibly expected that we could solve these global problems overnight. They had every right, however, to expect solid progress towards solutions. I believe that progress is underway. It's good news, too, that both Russia and Japan have already made clear that they will take forward the work we began at Gleneagles during their G8 presidencies. Climate change will only be addressed through both technological development and a robust, inclusive and binding international treaty. We are working hard to achieve both. This year has seen an unprecedented profile and attention given to climate change. Perhaps not the political theatre some would have wished for but, more importantly, clear and steady steps towards a more sustainable world. Through the G8 dialogue on Tuesday and the UN meeting in Montreal next month, we are starting to build the foundations of the genuinely global response we need. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 17 Independent: Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion? By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent Published: 31 October 2005 [Is Trident a sensible way to spend £20 billion?] The current Trident fleet consists of four submarines carrying up to 48 nuclear warheads - each eight times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb - mounted on Trident II D5 missiles. Tony Blair's determination to ensure that Britain's independent nuclear deterrent will be retained well into the middle of this century is set to provoke the most ferocious row yet in his increasingly fraught third term. The Government will today be accused by rebellious Labour MPs of preparing to squander up to £20bn of taxpayers' money by replacing Trident with a new generation of nuclear weaponry. The cost is equivalent to 800 new city academy schools, 60 medium-sized hospitals or the employment of 20,000 new NHS consultants. A coalition of independent military analysts, dissident Labour MPs and groups such as Greenpeace and CND argue that replacing Trident will contribute very little to Britain's security in a world that has been transformed since the days of the Cold War. Britain's nuclear deterrent was last modernised in 1980. In a growing insurrection that threatens to split the Labour Party, MPs will argue that any decision to upgrade Britain's nuclear defences would be a disastrous own goal. Party chiefs have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent a vote on the divisive issue at this evening's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) which will be addressed by John Reid, the Defence Secretary. But rebel MPs, spurred on by the belief that they have the private backing of several cabinet ministers, are planning to embarrass the Government by collecting a House of Commons motion underlining the strength of opposition to the move. One hope is that a final decision could be put off until Mr Blair, who has made clear he favours replacing Trident, steps down as Prime Minister. The current Trident fleet consists of four submarines carrying up to 48 nuclear warheads - each eight times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb - mounted on Trident II D5 missiles. As the vessels are due for replacement between 2020 and 2025 and there can be a lead-in time of up to 14 years to develop new weaponry, a decision is due shortly on whether to replace them. The Government says it has to be taken this parliament. Labour MPs fear the decision has already been taken in Downing Street and worry the "listening exercise" promised by Mr Blair on the subject is cosmetic. They point to a comment by the Prime Minister two weeks ago that he believed the "independent nuclear deterrent" was "an important part of our defence". There is also anger that ministers have sidestepped demands to give Parliament the chance to vote on the issue. Backbenchers had hoped to force a vote at tonight's meeting on a motion questioning the "wisdom of spending billions on Trident replacement" . But internal PLP papers seen by The Independent disclose that the Labour Parliamentary Committee, senior backbenchers who meet the Prime Minister each week, believed it "would be unhelpful to have a vote on the future of Trident" at tonight's PLP meeting. The strong feelings in PLP ranks are, from the Government's point of view, an ominous precursor to other looming rebellions on such issues as education and welfare reforms. One of the Trident motion's proposers, Gordon Prentice, MP for Pendle, dismissed Mr Blair's call for a debate on Trident as "completely vacuous ". He added: "John Reid will no doubt say that no decision has been taken yet, that the various options haven't been worked through yet." MPs will argue that no decision needs to be taken for several years and should not be reached until the issues have been fully aired. Paul Flynn, the Newport West MP, said: "The Cold War has ended and it's possible to discuss these things openly. There's no reason why we should not have a debate and a vote in the Commons on it. Having a new Trident would make the world a more dangerous place. We campaign against nuclear proliferation among other nations and we should lead by example." He said possession of a nuclear arsenal was irrelevant to British forces' main tasks of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has launched a nationwide petition against the replacement of Trident. It has also circulated among Labour MPs an article by Robin Cook, the late foreign secretary, written weeks before his death, arguing that updating Trident was "against Britain's national interests" and "against our international obligations" . Kate Hudson, the chair of CND said: "We are opposed to any replacement of Trident - no matter what that may be. We need to move towards multi-lateral disarmament." Possibilities being mooted for a new generation of Trident include the development of multi-role submarines, which can fire both nuclear and conventional missiles, or that new Astute submarines being designed for the Royal Navy could be adapted for nuclear weapons. A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "There are no official costs or even a list of replacement options for Trident at this time. Any decision on the future of Trident is needed in this parliament and ministers realise the importance of retaining the current Trident provision." What else could you buy? * 4 Channel tunnels * 60 medium-sized hospitals * 400 new trains for the London Underground * 715 miles of motorway * 800 city academies * 1p cut in basic-rate income tax for five and a half years (or 5.6p cut in basic-rate tax for one year) * Run the Metropolitan Police for 10 years © 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 18 Japan Times: Nuclear carrier to replace Kitty Hawk Saturday, October 29, 2005 By KANAKO TAKAHARA Staff writer The United States announced Friday it will replace the USS Kitty Hawk, a conventionally powered aircraft carrier, with one of its nine Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carriers in 2008. [News photo] The USS Kitty Hawk, one of the U.S. Navy's two conventionally powered aircraft carrin Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, in August. It is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2008. The decision provoked strong protest from local governments and antinuclear groups. U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer informed Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura of the decision Thursday evening. The Kitty Hawk is based in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, but is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2008. The only other conventionally powered U.S. aircraft carrier is the USS John F. Kennedy, which is due to be decommissioned. [News photo] Thomas Schieffer The announcement was made two days after Tokyo and Washington agreed on a relocation site for U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in Okinawa Prefecture -- the most critical issue in the bilateral negotiations on the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan. Observers point out that the U.S. apparently wanted to make the decision before Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's term ends next September. Yokosuka is Koizumi's home district. The U.S. Navy emphasized that Nimitz-class aircraft carriers are superior to the Kitty Hawk in speed, control and communications. At a news conference the same day, Defense Agency chief Yoshinori Ono said it is "meaningful" for Japan to host a highly efficient carrier considering the security situation in Japan and the region. "We would appreciate it if the public will accept the nuclear-powered carrier in the same context as a nuclear power plant," he said. In a separate news conference, Ambassador Schieffer stressed that the nuclear-powered carrier will significantly contribute to the peace and stability of Japan, the United States and the entire region. Schieffer also said the U.S. Navy is moving toward an all-nuclear-powered carrier force, which would rule out the deployment of a conventionally powered carrier. Since Japan is the only country to have suffered a nuclear attack, the local governments of Kanagawa Prefecture and Yokosuka city have resisted the idea of hosting nuclear-powered warships. Schieffer said the U.S. considered this factor. "In making our decision, we took into account the sensitivity of the people of Japan to a nuclear-powered warship," he said. The ambassador noted that there has not been an incident involving the release of radioactive material in warships in the past 40 years. The Navy said U.S. nuclear-powered warships have visited Japanese ports more than 1,200 times since 1964. But local government leaders and antinuclear groups are not convinced. "I'm sorry and disappointed. I'm feeling betrayed," Yokosuka Mayor Ryoichi Kabaya said. Kabaya had opposed the rumored deployment of a nuclear-powered carrier to the city's port due to local local antinuclear sentiment. Kanagawa Gov. Shigefumi Matsuzawa, who is currently in Washington, told reporters he will try to convince the U.S. and Japanese governments to reconsider and deploy a conventionally powered carrier instead. "We have urged the U.S. not to deploy a nuclear-powered carrier to Yokosuka because there are still problems with its safety inspection process," Matsuzawa said. Shoji Shimizu, a leader of a local Yokosuka group opposing the deployment of a nuclear-powered carrier, said, "The Japanese and U.S. governments had said they would respect local opinion. But this sudden agreement has come out." Shimizu's group in March submitted to the mayor a petition signed by about 300,000 people opposing the deployment of a nuclear carrier. Toshihiro Inoue, a senior official of the major antinuclear group, the Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs (Gensuikin), said if the nuclear-powered carrier collides with other vessels, a possible scenario in Tokyo Bay where a great number of ships come and go, it could cause a great disaster. The Japan Times: Oct. 29, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 19 asahi.com: Japan backs U.S. nuclear flattop  10/29/2005 By TARO KARASAKI, Staff Writer An aerial photograph of the Yokosuka Naval Base taken Friday morning. Japanese government officials Friday supported Washington's plan to station a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, despite outrage from officials and residents of the densely populated city. The new aircraft carrier will replace the 44-year-old Kitty Hawk when it is retired in 2008. Tokyo basically accepted the explanation given by U.S. officials that a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is needed at the Yokosuka Naval Base to protect peace and stability in Japan and the entire Asia region. "As we understand it, the U.S. Navy's basic policy is to deploy nuclear-powered ships from now on," Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda told a news conference Friday. "We feel that this (decision) cannot be helped." Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura went a step further, saying the central government "welcomes the decision." "Maintaining the presence of the U.S. Navy in the region will contribute to our nation's peace and security," Machimura said. But central government officials will have a tough time convincing local government leaders and Yokosuka residents of the merits of the U.S. plan. Kanagawa Governor Shigefumi Matsuzawa and Yokosuka Mayor Ryoichi Kabaya both expressed opposition Friday. The mayor has demanded an extension of service of the Kitty Hawk or replacing the ship with another conventionally powered flattop. Many Yokosuka residents say they fear the deployment of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier would bring the risk of nuclear contamination. Moreover, the vessel would increase Yokosuka's strategic importance in U.S. military operations, raising the chances that the city could become targeted. In an apparent attempt to appease the criticism, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer held a news conference Friday in Tokyo where he emphasized that Washington had not ignored the feelings of Yokosuka citizens. "The United States believes that a nuclear-powered carrier forward-deployed in the Western Pacific will significantly contribute to the peace and stability of Japan, the United States and the entire region," Schieffer said. He stressed that the U.S. side "took into account the sensitivity" of Japanese toward nuclear-powered vessels. Schieffer noted there have been no accidents involving U.S. nuclear-powered warships that leaked radiation. He also said that such warships have made 1,200 port calls in Japan without incident since 1964. "The U.S. has provided firm commitments to the government of Japan regarding the safe use of Japanese ports by U.S. nuclear-powered warships," the U.S. Navy said in a statement. "That commitment remains firmly in place." Schieffer said he was told by the chief of naval operations that the Navy's policy was to make the entire aircraft carrier fleet nuclear-powered. Of the 12 aircraft carriers, including one under construction, in the fleet, only two are conventionally powered. Sources have suggested that the USS Carl Vinson will be the aircraft carrier that replaces the Kitty Hawk at Yokosuka. The U.S. decision, which was announced Thursday, appeared to have been influenced by several factors. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, a key proponent of Japan-U.S. security cooperation, is still basking in his party's victory in the Sept. 11 Lower House election. And some security experts said the Japan-U.S. agreement Wednesday to transfer the heliport functions of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Camp Schwab in Okinawa Prefecture created an impetus for the U.S. Navy's decision.(IHT/Asahi: October 29,2005) + The Asahi Shimbun Company ***************************************************************** 20 DAWN: Relaxation of N-restrictions on Pakistan, India, Israel sought October 29, 2005 By Our Correspondent WASHINGTON, Oct 28: The United States should modify its non-proliferation laws in a way that allows all three non-NPT nuclear states – India, Pakistan and Israel – to receive nuclear cooperation from Washington, says a senior American expert. Robert J. Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, also urged the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to amend its guidelines accordingly. In a testimony before the House International Relations Committee earlier this week, Mr Einhorn advised the Bush administration not to make a country-specific exception for enabling nuclear cooperation with India. The committee is hearing the Bush administration’s proposal to share civilian nuclear technology with India under an agreement signed on July 18 during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the White House. The US administration has suggested that one option to achieve this goal would be to leave the general rules that forbid US cooperation with the states that have not yet signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in place but waive their application for India as “a special case.” The administration argues that India has earned an exception from these restrictions as “a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology.” Mr Einhorn, however, argued that such an option “would accentuate concerns that the US is acting selectively on the basis of foreign policy considerations rather than on the bases of objective factors related to non-proliferation.” He also pointed out that changing the NSG guidelines required a consensus and some NSG members, such as China, might resist a country-specific approach and press for permitting nuclear cooperation with other non-parties to the NPT with whom they are friendly, especially Pakistan. To avoid the pitfalls of making a country-specific exception without opening the door to nuclear proliferation, he urged the Bush administration to “propose modifications of US law and the NSG guidelines that would permit nuclear cooperation with any state not party to the NPT that meets certain criteria of responsible nuclear behaviour.” Contributions Privacy Policy © DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005 ***************************************************************** 21 London Times: Minister declares nuclear 'renewable' - Carl Mortished Lord Sainsbury’s declaration last Thursday provides more evidence that the anti-nuclear stance of the Government is shifting in response to mounting concern about an emerging energy deficit. A decision to reclassify nuclear as a renewable source of energy would have dramatic consequences. Nuclear generators would be exempted, like wind turbines, from the Climate Change Levy, a tax borne by the nuclear industry despite its carbon-free advantage. It would also force a rethink of the renewables obligation, which requires utilities to buy 10 per cent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Over the next ten to fifteen years a swath of ageing nuclear and coal-fired power stations, accounting for half of Britain’s electricity output, will need to be decomissioned. Promoters of nuclear power argue that only a new generation of nuclear reactors can both fill the gap and meet Britain’s target of reducing carbon emissions. Opponents of nuclear power in the Cabinet have blocked proposals to provide fiscal or planning support for the construction of a new fleet of nuclear generators. In his speech, Lord Sainsbury acknowledged that nuclear power raised other problems such as safety and environmental impact, but he said that the Government’s energy review must consider the problem of running down nuclear stations while working to reduce carbon emissions. “By 2020, we take out 20 per cent of our clean energy sources,” he said. “If you are very optimistic, you might get renewables to 20 per cent, but that would mean we have gone 20 years without making any impact on our emissions. “You have to ask if that is an acceptable situation or whether you should bring in nuclear.” Bringing nuclear power into the renewables obligation would restore investor confidence without diverting funds from other renewables, according to Keith Parker, of the Nuclear Industry Association. He said: “It would demonstrate a degree of government commitment to nuclear, which private investors would need to invest in new generators.” Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 22 RIA Novosti: China may grant loan for floating nuclear power unit in Russian north 30/ 10/ 2005 BEIJING, October 30 (RIA Novosti) - China could give Russia an export loan to build a floating energy unit for the nuclear power plant being constructed in Severodvinsk in Russia's European Far North, a source in the Russian delegation currently visiting Beijing said Sunday. The Russian delegation led by Russian Vice Premier Alexander Zhukov is making preparations for the 10th regular meeting of the two countries' heads of government scheduled for November 3. According to the source, Russia and China aim to resolve as soon as possible the issue of the project's financing through a Chinese loan. The parties also aim to reach a swift agreement over building a hull for the floating station at a Chinese shipyard. Russia is building a floating atomic power plant in Severodvinsk under a 2003 contract signed between China's Mashimpex and the Russian companies Rosenergoatom and Sudoimport. According to the source, China also plans to design a pilot energy unit with a 600 MWt fast-neutron facility based on a closed fuel cycle. Russia and China are already building a 65 MWt fast-neutron experimental facility under an inter-governmental agreement signed in July 2002. The parties plan to test the reactor between May 2006 and December 2008, and to put it into operation on December 31, 2008. Russia and China may also jointly develop an experimental ground-based reactor prototype for a space energy unit, the source said. According to the source, Russia's cooperation with China in the nuclear fuel cycle has strong potential given China's plans to bring the capacity of its atomic power plants up to 200 Gigawatts by 2020. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 23 FT.com: UK - N-power is renewable, Sainsbury tells Lords By Jean Eaglesham,UK Business Editor Published: October 29 2005 03:00 | Last updated: October 29 2005 Nuclear power is a renewable source of energy and new stations are needed if Britain is to make headway in cutting greenhouse gases over the next 15 years, the science minister has asserted. Lord Sainsbury's contentious comments are the strongest signal yet the government intends to commit to replacing ageing nuclear power stations in next year's energy policy review. The energy minister also said it would be "very optimistic" to believe the government could meet its target of generating 20 per cent of electricity from wind, wave and solar power and other non-nuclear renewable sources by 2020. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth are promoting renewables and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to building new nuclear power stations. But Lord Sainsbury told the House of Lords that anyone who cared about climate change had to consider that nuclear power did not produce the carbon dioxide emissions that are a prime cause of global warming. There was a "key and simple argument which the energy review will have to consider," peers were told. "If we run down nuclear power stations, by 2020 we take out 20 per cent of our clean energy sources. If you are very optimistic - you would have to be very optimistic - you might get renewables to 20 per cent [by that date]. But that would simply mean we have gone 20 years without making any impact on our emissions," Lord Sainsbury said. "If you care about climate change, you have to ask yourself whether that is an acceptable situation or whether you should bring in nuclear." Concerns about the cost and acceptability of nuclear waste would have to be resolved before any commitment could be given to building new nuclear power stations. Such a commitment would be preceded by the "fullest public consultation" and a white paper setting out the proposals in detail. The Conservatives said the comments were "part of a softening-up exercise" ahead of a decision next year that could face significant public hostility. Bernard Jenkin, shadow energy minister, backed ministers' increasingly pro-nuclear stance but said: "The government don't seem to recognise the urgency of making a decision [created by] the time lag on nuclear construction." He called on the government to legislate to allow the fast-tracking of the regulatory and planning approvals needed for new reactors. The government's short-term energy policy has also come under fire from the Tories. Mr Jenkin wrote to Alan Johnson, trade and industry secretary, claiming ministers' "contradictory statements and complacency" about potential gas shortages this winter were "creating exactly the kind of panic atmosphere we must surely seek to avoid". The letter cites assurances given to MPs by Geoff Hoon, leader of the Commons. Asked this week if ministers could "guarantee energy supplies to business and domestic consumers this winter," Mr Hoon said: "Yes they can and we are looking at this matter very carefully. Obviously that will depend on the nature of this winter's weather but we are prepared for all contingencies." The answer contradicts recent statements from Mr Johnson and Malcolm Wicks, energy minister, who have said business could face power cuts. Mr Wicks told the FT he had no idea how bad gas shortages might be but said there was no threat to domestic supplies. © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. ***************************************************************** 24 APP.COM: DEP permit for nuclear plant doesn't protect bay | Asbury Park Press Online October 30, 2005 Posted by the Asbury Park Presson 10/30/05 BY SUZANNE LETA Since Oyster Creek was built in 1969, the nuclear power plant's operation has resulted in far-reaching and long-lasting environmental degradation in the nearby waterways of Forked River, Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay. Unfortunately, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's draft water permit lets the plant off the hook. Oyster Creek uses a once-through cooling system that was designed in the 1960s. The system intakes water from Forked River to cool the reactor. The heated water, or thermal pollution, is then discharged into Oyster Creek. The plant intakes and discharges an enormous amount of water — more than 1.4 billion gallons on a daily basis. The water is taken in at a speed of 1,000 to 2,000 cubic feet per second, which is the force of a medium-sized river. The chlorine levels in the water are also 20 times the lethal level for many types of aquatic life. Although there are grates over the intakes, the water flushing creates a giant sucking action that brings with it an assortment of aquatic life. Some of this aquatic life is small, flows through the grate and is killed in the process of cooling the reactor. This lethal effect is called entrainment. Larger types of aquatic life, such as striped bass, white perch and endangered sea turtles, get pinned on the grate and often die from, or are seriously injured by, the rush of oncoming water. This lethal effect is called impingement. In addition to daily impingement and entrainment, Oyster Creek's daily thermal pollution discharge often spreads a thermal plume over a distance of more than four miles across the width of Barnegat Bay. The plume creates a "fry" zone for young larvae and spawn. Nuclear Regulatory Commission studies indicate that the thermal plume has increased the population of tropical wood-boring species that serve as aquatic termites for boat bottoms and home foundations. All of the problems associated with Oyster Creek's cooling system put the plant in violation of the Clean Water Act, which requires plants to install modern pollution controls. A closed-cycle cooling system, which draws water into the plant for cooling, recirculates it and expels the heat through cooling towers, meets this requirement. This system reduces water intake and discharge by more than 95 percent, saving 13 million fish and shellfish and an estimated loss of tens of millions of additional larvae annually. The system will also eliminate fish kills caused by thermal shock from the discharge, stop the dumping of more than 365 tons of toxic chlorine into the bay annually and create hundreds of jobs during construction. Regrettably, the DEP's current draft permit for Oyster Creek does not require the plant to install a closed-cycle cooling system. Instead, the draft permit describes a closed-cycle system as the "preferred alternative," but also gives Exelon, the plant owner, a fall-back option — the "restoration" of 3,500 acres of wetlands. This draft permit is unacceptable. Although "restoration" can be used as a penalty for degrading local waterways for the past 35 years, it does nothing to fix Oyster Creek's once-through cooling system that is the root cause of the problem. The inclusion of "restoration" in the draft permit goes against what is clearly the DEP's best professional judgment: retrofitting the plant with a closed-cycle cooling system. The DEP should follow the law and remove the "restoration" option from the final permit. The final permit should require Exelon to install a closed-cycle cooling system, with construction complete as expeditiously as possible and by July 2008 at the very latest. Oyster Creek has been degrading the local ecosystem for far too long. The DEP should be a true environmental steward and require the plant to protect Barnegat Bay once and for all. Suzanne Leta is the energy advocate for the New Jersey Public Copyright © 2005 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse shuts down for weekend maintenance Article published Saturday, October 29, 2005 OAK HARBOR, Ohio - The Davis-Besse nuclear power plant will be down this weekend for what is described as "low-level" maintenance. "We've got a list of low-level items we wanted to knock off," said Richard Wilkins, a FirstEnergy Corp. spokesman Yesterday afternoon, the reactor's operating power was down to 86 percent. The shutdown was to be completed by last night. Jan Strasma, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman, said no major safety issues necessitated the shutdown. "From a regulatory point of view, it's a routine thing they've had planned," he said. Work will include tightening reactor coolant system drain valves inside the containment building. The control rod drive system will get new power supply equipment. The main turbine will have a solenoid and a valve switch replaced, Mr. Wilkins said. FirstEnergy selected this weekend to do the work because the region's energy usage is expected to be down because people aren't running air conditioners or operating heating systems to the degree they will during wintertime, he said. The shutdown is expected to be Davis-Besse's last before its month-long refueling in March, during which more extensive maintenance will occur. Nuclear plants are refueled every 18 months to two years. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 26 Salt Lake Tribune: ABC's show on university reactor security was misleading Opinion Article Last Updated: 10/29/2005 03:39:42 PM Gary M. Sandquist ABC-TV aired a one-hour program on "Prime Time" on Oct. 13, assessing security of university nuclear reactors in the United States. There are 25 such reactors sited in various states including a TRIGA (Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics) nuclear reactor at the University of Utah in the Merrill Engineering Building. The overall impact and conclusion of the ABC presentation was that such facilities pose major terrorist risks as potential "dirty bombs" and even atom bombs. Because of the inaccuracies and harm that such a biased national broadcast creates, it is critical to assess the motivation and content of the ABC presentation and describe the actual situation at and purpose of these reactor facilities. The Carnegie endowment organization funded a visit by selected nonscience student teams to attempt to gain improper access to the reactors and test security measures. The Carnegie organization is very critical of the nuclear enterprise, particularly the U.S. nuclear weapons program. ABC has a long history of anti-nuclear bias including recent coverage of security at Los Alamos National Laboratory and purported dangers at nuclear facilities. Upon previewing the Carnegie reactor security investigation, ABC elected to air only those university reactors with perceived security deficiencies. The claim that the student team breached security at the University of Utah reactor was particularly misleading and deceitful. The reactor is sited in the MEB that houses four major departments each with graduate and undergraduate students. These several thousand students have access to the building 24 hours a day for class work and research studies. The ABC student team entered the outside doors to MEB and approached the entrance door to the reactor laboratory that is accessible to anyone. ABC incorrectly presented this on national television as unsecured, immediate access to the nuclear reactor. In reality the nuclear reactor fuel core resides over 100 feet from this entrance door and is located 25 feet below ground level in a double-wall reactor tank filled with water. The entrance door is a high security locked door that allows passage only to authorized persons. Furthermore, final access to the reactor itself requires passage through three more locked doors. The last two doors are alarmed, and forced or unauthorized passage through these doors alerts campus security and armed officers familiar with the facility immediately respond. Testing of these alarm systems and officer response is performed as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a monthly basis. It is well-established that all nuclear reactors including university reactors cannot serve as "atom bombs" or nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, ABC implied that many of these university reactors possessed sufficient quantities for one or more nuclear weapons. The path for producing a functional nuclear weapon from the uranium fuel in these reactors is extremely difficult and complex. Separation and refinement of the uranium is necessary, followed by casting of metal billets for machining. Then the pyrphoric uranium must be machined into highly precise geometries for insertion into a complex weapon assembly device. Indeed, there is less potential for a terrorist to produce bombs from uranium in university reactor fuel than to produce assault weapons from metal in scrap metal yards. Since most American fatalities in Iraq arise from assault weapons, perhaps we should impose security measures upon all scrap metal sites in the United States and the world. Diane Sawyer's question, "Why do so many universities have nuclear reactors?" requires response. The University of Utah TRIGA reactor has operated since 1975 and trained over 500 students in nuclear engineering. These students are now in nuclear fields including work at national laboratories, nuclear plants, naval reactors and defense installations. One of these Utah students served as the commanding officer of the USS Los Angeles attack submarine and rose to the rank of rear admiral. U.S. national defense is based upon nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactors are as essential to training nuclear engineers as computers are to training computer engineers. Most important for the economic and political security of the United States is the recognized capacity of nuclear plants to produce the large inventories of hydrogen fuel required for transition of the United States from an oil-dependent economy to a hydrogen economy within the next few decades. This production of hundreds of millions of tons of hydrogen can be accomplished economically, without greenhouse gas emissions, and with existing domestic uranium resources. Is nuclear energy important to the United States? The answer is an emphatic yes. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of U.S. electrical power without greenhouse gases. The average customer cost for nuclear generated electricity is less than natural gas, oil, and many coal-fired facilities. The U.S. Energy Act of 2005 recently signed by the president recognizes this fact and provides support and government reform to encourage vigorous growth of advanced nuclear power plants. --- Gary M. Sandquist is a professor of mechanical engineering and former director of nuclear engineering at the University of Utah. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 27 York Daily Record: ENERGY: PPL reactor to shut down - [ydr.com] [York Daily Record/Sunday News] October 29, 2005 One of the reactors at the Susquehanna nuclear power plant near Berwick will shut down late Friday for maintenance and should be generating power again within three weeks, PPL Corp. said Wednesday. Routine testing showed that some of the control rods and fuel assemblies on the Unit 1 reactor are experiencing increased friction, slowing their response time, the company said. The Unit 2 reactor is expected to continue operating normally. Copyright © York Daily Record 2005 122 S. George St., P.O. Box 15122 York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000 ***************************************************************** 28 Scotsman.com News: Nuclear power is an option - Blair [Scotsman.com News] Sun 30 Oct 2005 The major threat of climate change can only be tackled if developing and emerging nations work together, Tony Blair has said. The Prime Minister, writing in a Sunday newspaper, also stated that nuclear power was among the options that should be considered to produce "low carbon power". His comments come a few days after Prince Charles said the issue of global warming should be treated with "a far greater degree of priority than is happening now". Mr Blair's article in the Observer stated: "There are huge opportunities in environmental technology and huge possibilities in sustainable development, if the right framework for low carbon energy generation can be stimulated. "But none of this is going to happen unless the major developed and emerging nations sit down together and work it out, in a way that allows us all to grow, imposes no competitive disadvantage and enables the transfer of the technology needed for sustainable growth to take place." Mr Blair highlighted the importance of an international summit on climate change on Tuesday that will see the G8 nations come together with China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa in London. The Prime Minister went on to say: "We need to see how the existing energy technologies we have such as wind, solar and - yes - nuclear, together with new technologies such as fuel cells and carbon capture and storage, can generate the low carbon power the world needs." The Government will be taking action soon to achieve its domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010, said Mr Blair. He explained that one policy being considered was increasing the use of eco-friendly biofuels - made from plant oils. But Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said the Government was not doing enough to tackle the problem. © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2005, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 AU ABC: ACF denies nuclear power inevitable. 30/10/2005. ABC News Online [The ACF says the nuclear movement is capitalising on concern about global warming.] ACF denies nuclear power inevitable The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has rejected comments about the inevitability of nuclear power fuelling the country. The former head of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission , Keith Alder, has said Australia will have to convert to nuclear power eventually because of widespread concern over climate change. But the ACF's Dave Sweeney says there are cleaner and safer alternatives to nuclear power. "Nuclear power is expensive, it's dangerous, it's dirty, it creates ... long-lived waste materials that last 250,000 years that not one country has a final resting place for," he said. "It's a dangerous, dirty, discredited and obsolete technology. "It's not the way for a clean energy future for Australia or the world." He says the nuclear industry has jumped on the bandwagon of global warming at the last minute. "The industry has very cleverly and very successfully in the short-term positioned itself behind the increased community awareness about the seriousness and the urgency of climate change," he said. "It's saying that it's the solution to climate change. "When you take a step back and look at it, it's not." In other developments: + The former head of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) says it is morally indefensible for Australia to mine and export uranium but not bury the waste. (Full Story) ***************************************************************** 30 Deutsche Welle: German Parties Set to Clash Over Nuclear Power | 30.10.2005 DW-World.de [Just hot air or will nuclear energy split the partners?] Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Just hot air or will nuclear energy split the partners? The future of nuclear energy is set to be a key battlefield in talks between Germany's potential coalition partners with both bracing for a showdown over the emotive issue. One of the most crucial pieces of legislation passed by outgoing Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's coalition of Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens, in the eyes of many, was a planned phase-out of Germany's atomic energy plants by 2020. The idea, largely pressed by the environmentally-friendly Greens, was to focus on renewable energy and away from a crippling dependence on oil. It also found support at a time when safety concerns over nuclear power reactors were highlighted with accidents like the one in Chernobyl in 1986. But that law now faces an uncertain future with Germany's new government set to comprise the conservatives and the Social Democrats in a power-sharing alliance by the end of November. Economic arguments The conservatives led by chancellor-designate Angela Merkel have made no secret of the fact that they intend to put the brakes on the nuclear-phase out. [Angela Merkel fears Germany may lose out if it halts nuclear-power production] Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Angela Merkel fears Germany may lose out if it halts nuclear-power productionEarlier this year, Merkel argued in a speech that if Germany is no longer active in nuclear power it would have no influence on the international market when it comes to exporting nuclear technology. "In my view, an ideologically motivated nuclear phase-out does not reflect economic demands," Merkel said, citing the fact that countries such as India and China are expanding their nuclear energy capacities. "For me, the question is, how can Germany with its technical know-how profit from this export potential. As a patriot, I would like to see my country profit from our expertise, not watch others take the profits." Merkel's rhetoric could have been put down to mere election-speak at the time. But now with a federal election forcing the two largest parties into a grand coalition and the hard negotiating over policies gathering momentum, the issue of nuclear energy is proving to be a key test for the future partners. SPD, conservatives dig in their heels Signs over the weekend weren't encouraging with both sides sticking to their positions. [A nuclear reactor in Biblis, Germany ] Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: A nuclear reactor in Biblis, Germany "The lifetime of nuclear power stations cannot be extended," SPD chairman Franz Müntefering told Bild am Sonntag newspaper, adding that a so-called nuclear compromise hammered out between Schröder's government and energy companies in 2000 and which became law in 2002, must be upheld. The law foresees phasing out the last of Germany's 17 nuclear power plants by 2020. However, the conservatives are keen to provide Germany, a large importer of oil and gas, with greater energy security and allow the energy industry to earn more by extending the life of their plants. In a guest commentary in Bild am Sonntag, conservative premier of Baden-Württemberg, Günther Oettinger urged the future government not to switch off any nuclear power plants in the next four years and to generally extend their lives. "We need time and money to further develop stable renewable energy sources," Oettinger wrote. "The extension of the lifetimes of nuclear stations with maximum security standards can give us both." But, Michael Müller, vice-chairman of the SPD parliamentary group demanded that the conservatives finally recognize that they "have no chance" to chip away at nuclear phase-out with the SPD. Müller argued that if the nuclear plants were indeed allowed to run longer, they would have to undergo updated security modifications -- something that would cost money, he said. Nuclear energy makes comeback The two future coalition partners have thus far made steady progress on a host of issues, from budgetary policy to renewable energy. But it seems unlikely that the same will be seen on nuclear energy, which is set to dominate talks next week. [The Loviisa southern Finnish nuclear power station ] Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: The Loviisa southern Finnish nuclear power station One thing that's bolstered the conservatives' case is the fact that nuclear energy has been gradually making a comeback in Europe with the first new nuclear plant on the continent in years being built in Finland. Its supporters also point out that nuclear reactors emit virtually no greenhouse gases. DW-WORLD + DW-World: Renewable Sector Wary of CDU Promises Should the conservatives win September's election, the renewable energy sector, which boomed under the Green party's influence, will be hit by changes. Opinions are clashing over what's best for Germany's economy. (Aug. 10, 2005) + DW-World: Energy Oil and gas are scarce resources. Politicians from Germany's main parties have vastly different ideas when it comes to meeting growing energy demand. + DW-World: A Rebirth for German Nuclear Energy? The prospect of victory by Germany's conservative opposition in an early general election has shaken up the country's energy sector. The nuclear power industry is hoping to slow the planned phase out atomic energy. (May 25, 2005) Your Comments + Feedback: Do you think Germany should stop its nuclear phase-out? What do you think of nuclear energy? Please include your name and country in your reply. ***************************************************************** 31 National Post: Re: "Runaway nuclear," Tom Adams, Oct. 26 Bob MacIntosh Financial Post Saturday, October 29, 2005 Tom Adams is strongly opposed to the contract between the Trans Canada Pipelines consortium and Bruce Power to refurbish the four units of the Bruce A nuclear plant. Ideally, Ontario should invite proposals for state-of-the-art nuclear reactors from any possible supplier in the world, as China has done. The problem is time. Incompetence, neglect and weak government oversight have characterized Ontario's energy policy for three decades. The current regime has neither the intellect nor the managerial ability to engineer a major change. Money and time have been frittered away on marginal projects involving wind, hydro and ethanol. Urgency is driving the government to refurbish Bruce A. Tom Adams closes by urging the province to find "lower cost options for large amounts of much-needed new electricity supply". He does not say what those options are. Mr. Duncan, the recent Ontario Minister of Energy, has told us it would be natural gas. He has evidently not noticed that the price of natural gas has quadrupled in the last few years. Energy Probe (which Mr. Adams leads) has recently demonstrated that state-of-the-art coal-fired plants are perhaps the best choice. But the Ontario government is too obtuse to consider this option. The minister said that proponents of coal were "Neanderthals." Should we laugh or weep? Bob MacIntosh, Toronto © National Post 2005 ***************************************************************** 32 Guardian Unlimited: Blair pushes for 'eco-friendly' petrol and cleaner, greener cars Gaby Hinsliff, political editor Sunday October 30, 2005 The Observer It smells of popcorn, can be made from chip fat, and may just help save the planet. Every motorist in Britain will shortly be filling their tanks with eco-friendly petrol under government plans to tackle climate change. The nation's cars will switch to using a mix of ordinary diesel or petrol with 'biofuel', a cleaner alternative made from plant oils, by 2010, in an attempt to reduce harmful emissions from traffic. The move - which comes amid new concern over the speed of climate change, following a month of hurricanes and an unusually balmy October in Britain - suggests the government has accepted it cannot force motorists out of their cars, and opted to clean them up instead. Writing in The Observer today ahead of a major international summit on climate change to be held in London, Tony Blair warns that 'vicious climate disasters' such as floods and hurricanes have intensified the case for action. But he adds: 'None of this is going to happen unless the developed and emerging nations sit down together and work it out, in a way that allows us all to grow [and] imposes no competitive disadvantage.' Cars will not need to be modified to cope with biofuel, and although it is costlier to produce, officials insist the price of petrol will not rise since the biofuel will represent only five per cent of the mix. However that small change is enough to reduce Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide, the 'greenhouse gas' implicated in global warming, by more than 1 per cent by 2010 according to government calculations. The move follows warnings from Prince Charles that climate change is now the greatest threat facing humanity. Blair admitted last year that on current trends, Britain would miss its target to reduce greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by 2010 - prompting a shakeup of climate change policies to plug the gap. The review will be published shortly by Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, and the biofuels move is being actively considered for inclusion. However, more controversial measures are being debated. Although building more nuclear power stations - which produce fewer emissions - is unlikely to help meet the 2010 target because they would not be ready in time, Blair argues that 'wind, solar and - yes - nuclear' power have roles to play. Green groups are also alarmed about the search for a successor agreement to the Kyoto accord once it expires in 2012, fearing it will be weakened to encourage the US to sign. However, Blair signals today he will push for it to be legally enforceable, adding the world needs a 'sound, rational, science-based unity, which ensures the right legally-binding framework to incentivise sustainable development.' Biodiesel is usually made from 'oily' crops such as sunflower or palm fruits, but can be made from used cooking oil thrown away by restaurants. Aficionados say cars running on it emit smells of fresh popcorn rather than stale chip shop. Under the plan, suppliers would be legally obliged to ensure five per cent of sales comprise biofuels. A spokesman for Friends of the Earth welcomed the decision but warned it could not substitute for long-term behaviour changes. 'Biofuels are potentially a useful way of cutting carbon dioxide emissions, but the honest truth is the best way to cut emissions from transport would be to try and get people out of their cars,' he said. A poll published today by the Stockholm-Network found three quarters of Britons thought climate change should not be prioritised over economic prosperity, suggesting there are limits to what the public would tolerate. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 33 MD: Nuclear security is up, smuggling down, but terrorism's ultimate nightmare lingers on MSN-Mainichi Daily News: October 31, 2005 National VIENNA, Austria -- After years of warnings, hard work and billion-dollar budgets, the "loose nukes" of Russia and other nations are coming under tighter control, and nuclear smuggling cases have fallen sharply, international and U.S. agencies report. Despite the good news, however, the potential nightmare of nuclear terrorism still haunts those charged with preventing it. "There's still so much to be done," said Jerry Paul, whose U.S. Energy Department office aims to complete work by late 2008 upgrading security at Russian nuclear sites, two years ahead of the original schedule. Here in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says only a dozen incidents of uranium or plutonium trafficking were reported worldwide in 2004, down from an average of about 30 a year in the mid-1990s. Only one reported last year involved bomb-grade material, and that was a minor amount. "What does it mean?" asked Anita Nilsson, the agency's nuclear security chief. "That we can relax and go on holiday? I don't think so." In a nuclear world of too many unknowns, experts say, no one should expect al-Qaida's leadership to abandon its longtime goal of a doomsday weapon. More than a decade after it first showed a nuclear bent, however, there's no evidence the terror group has found anything but dead ends. In 1994, for example, al-Qaida agreed to pay US$1.5 million for a cylinder supposedly holding bomb material, highly enriched uranium, but it turned out to be radioactive junk, an al-Qaida ex-operative later testified in a U.S. court. In 2001, in Afghanistan, U.S. forces found a crude "superbomb" drawing and related writings at an al-Qaida location, but they displayed more nuclear ignorance than know-how. Now al-Qaida's leaders are either captured or deep in hiding, their movements, communications, finances circumscribed. "With the pressure they're under, our assessment is that the most likely threat comes from conventional weapons" -- ordinary explosives -- "because they know they can do it," Donald Van Duyn of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division said in Washington. Since the late 1990s, sensational, thinly supported reports in the Arab and Western news media have repeatedly claimed that al-Qaida had obtained enriched uranium or even complete atom bombs -- from the Russian mafia, from Ukrainians in Afghanistan, or from Kazakhs, or Chechens. But among the more than 730 cases of trafficking or loss confirmed by the IAEA since 1993, no terrorist connection was ever established. Almost all involved non-bomb material -- low-grade uranium or radioactive sources, such as cesium-137 sealed in radiation-therapy equipment. Sometimes workers pilfered material from nuclear sites in the former Soviet Union in hopes of finding a buyer. Some traffickers dealt in abandoned radioactive sources. In the last known case of smuggling of bomb material, confirmed last year, an individual was arrested in June 2003 trying to cross from ex-Soviet Georgia into Armenia with 168 grams of highly enriched uranium -- a tiny fraction of what's needed for a nuclear device. Its origin hasn't been determined, and further details weren't released. Such trafficking surged after the Soviet Union's breakup in 1991 weakened government controls there. In 1994-95, European and Russian authorities foiled nine attempts to smuggle small amounts of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the other bomb fuel. Cases typically involved opportunists seeking buyers. Investigators are not known to have found links to foreign governments. Why has activity declined dramatically? "Apparently it's the result of improved security at nuclear facilities, and the vigilance of law enforcement authorities, especially in European countries," said Viacheslav Turkin, in charge of IAEA's trafficking database. Since 1994, Russian work crews and U.S. money -- some US$6 billion thus far -- have been hardening walls, installing surveillance cameras and radiation detectors, and otherwise "locking down" 600 tons of Russian bomb-grade material that isn't inside warheads. The Energy Department's Paul, chief deputy in the National Nuclear Security Administration, pointed out that 75 percent of the buildings in Russia's vast nuclear network have gotten full upgrades. "We're very proud of the progress," he said in Washington. Others note, however, that the unimproved sites hold most of the nuclear material. The pace of work has been tripled this year in hopes of meeting the 2008 target. In Latvia, Romania and elsewhere, meanwhile, the IAEA and the U.S., Russian and other governments are retrieving highly enriched uranium from university and other nuclear research reactors, and working to convert them to low-enriched fuel. But these "takebacks" are going slowly, and more than 100 such reactors worldwide still run on highly enriched uranium, with up to 24.75 kilograms of the bomb-usable material. That's the amount the IAEA calls "significant," that is, possibly enough to build a bomb. Physicists debate whether nonspecialists could readily fabricate a basic, Hiroshima-style weapon, in which two loads of highly enriched uranium are slammed together to create a critical mass, a fission reaction and a blast. The IAEA's Jacques Baute, a former French weaponeer, is skeptical. "You would get a critical accident. You would kill people around it. But it would not be the same as a Hiroshima." Much more goes into true bomb design, Baute said. He worries instead about terrorists acquiring a readymade bomb along with people who know how to use it. Others note, however, that Japan's Aum Shinrikyo terrorist cult, with millions of dollars and thousands of adherents in Russia, failed to acquire a nuclear weapon there in the early 1990s despite years of effort. If they're proficient in conventional bombings, terror groups may be unwilling or unable to invest the time and resources to develop -- with unpredictable results -- chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear arms, U.S. congressional researchers argued in a 2004 study. The IAEA's Nilsson finds such discussions "irrelevant." "If it would happen with even the crudest nuclear explosive device, it would change so many things and be so catastrophic that we can't think about it," she said. But the "odds" on worst cases will always be discussed, as in an official U.S. report to the U.N. Security Council that warned of "a high probability" al-Qaida would attempt a WMD attack "within the next two years" -- a report issued two years and five months ago. (AP) October 30, 2005 Copyright 2004-2005 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All ***************************************************************** 34 North Augusta Star: Subcontract for MOX awarded Sun, Oct 30, 2005 The National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) plutonium disposition program has moved another step forward with the start of site preparation for its Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site. NNSA announced Friday that the first subcontract for this work has been awarded to MDM Services Corporation, a small business located in Aiken. MDM Services Corporation will begin relocating approximately 85,000 cubic yards of earth at the MOX site in November and will be paid $468,013 for the work. NNSA's plutonium disposition program aims to eliminate a total of 68 metric tons of surplus weapon-grade plutonium both in the United States and in Russia (34 metric tons in each country), and is based on a 2000 nonproliferation agreement between the two countries. Both countries will dispose of their plutonium by converting it to MOX fuel for use in existing nuclear reactors. Once the MOX fuel has been irradiated, the plutonium can no longer be readily used for nuclear weapons. Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for maintaining and enhancing the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; working to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; providing the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responding to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad. ***************************************************************** 35 Guardian Unlimited: Homeland Security Misses Many Deadlines From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday October 30, 2005 6:01 PM By LESLIE MILLER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has missed dozens of deadlines set by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks for developing ways to protect airplanes, ships and railways from terrorists. A plan to defend ships and ports from attack is six months overdue. Rules to protect air cargo from infiltration by terrorists are two months late. A study on the cost of giving anti-terrorism training to federal law enforcement officers who fly commercially was supposed to be done more than three years ago. ``The incompetence that we recently saw with FEMA's leadership appears to exist throughout the Homeland Security Department,'' said Mississippi Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee. ``Our nation is still vulnerable.'' Congress must share the blame for the department's sluggishness in protecting commerce and travel from terrorists, according to other observers. Lawmakers piled on deadline after deadline for reports, plans and regulations while the department, created after the 2001 attacks, had to integrate 22 agencies with 170,000 workers and cope with terrorist threats and hurricanes. Those deadlines, sometimes for minor projects, distract the department from putting in place the most important security measures, experts say. The Transportation Security Administration, for example, scrambled to try to meet a Feb. 15 deadline to ban butane lighters from airplanes, a precaution that does little to protect airliners, they said. ``You have no ability to prioritize against something like that, and it's going to take up all your time,'' said Dan Prieto, homeland security expert with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. ``The urgent becomes the enemy of the important.'' Thompson said the government has yet to develop a comprehensive plan to protect roads, bridges, tunnels, power plants, pipelines and dams. He said a broad plan to protect levies and dams might have helped prevent the New Orleans levies from being breached. Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said the department goes to great lengths to work with Congress. But, he said, ``there is an extraordinarily high number of reporting requirements.'' The department has to submit 256 reports to Congress every year, while the TSA alone has 62 reporting requirements. ``There's a lack of adult leadership on both sides,'' said James Carafano, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. ``The department just doesn't have its act together,'' he said. ``Some of these deadlines are unrealistic.'' The first response to the Sept. 11 hijackings was to prevent terrorists from taking over airliners with weapons and crashing them into buildings. It became clear that more needed to be done after suicide bombings of railways in Madrid, Spain, and London, on a tanker near Yemen and on airplanes in Russia. So Congress set more deadlines for more security measures. Some were met. Many were not. A law signed by President Bush on Nov. 25, 2002, set a July 1, 2004, deadline for ships and ports to tighten security amid fears that terrorists might smuggle nuclear weapons in a cargo container. The Coast Guard largely accomplished the undertaking. But much still remains undone: A report on how a grant program for shippers and ports would work is more than a year late; a report on cargo container security is eight months overdue; a national security plan for marine transportation is well past its April 1 due date. Rep. Harold Rogers, chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Homeland Security spending, was unhappy because the TSA missed a March 17 deadline for a plan to deploy bomb-detection machines at airports. Rogers, R-Ky., put a provision in the Homeland Security spending bill, signed into law Oct. 18, that withholds $5 million from the department until it submits such a plan. Some security deadlines have been met, especially those set soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. Within nine weeks of the hijackings, lawmakers ordered a federal work force to take over airport security, many more air marshals and the creation of the TSA. Congress set 33 deadlines; a press release went out each time one was met. One of the biggest deadlines was met with great fanfare when the TSA announced on Nov. 19, 2002, that it had replaced private airport screeners with a government work force. The next year, then-TSA chief James Loy told Congress they had met ``100 percent of the aviation screening mandates.'' The TSA does not make those kind of announcements any more. ^--- On the Net: Transportation Security Administration: http://www.tsa.gov Coast Guard: http://www.uscg.mil Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 36 asahi.com: Ministries finalize nuke, terror defense plan 10/29/2005 By HITOSHI KUJIRAOKA The Asahi Shimbun The central government on Friday finalized plans that outline what government ministries must do to protect citizens in the event of a foreign military or terrorist attack, including one involving nuclear weapons. Twenty-eight administrative agencies, covering almost all central government ministries, were required to come up with a list of specific duties to protect citizens in case Japan comes under attack. Also on Friday, the government held an exercise, meant to simulate how it would respond if there were simultaneous attacks on Saitama, Toyama, Tottori and Saga prefectures. Officials from all 47 prefectures were invited to participate in the exercise. Thirty-eight prefectures staged joint simulation exercises involving officials from about 700 municipalities within those prefectures. Friday's plan and simulation exercises went toward implementing the citizen protection law, which went into effect in September 2004. The plan's main objective is to devise methods to evacuate and provide emergency assistance to citizens as well as to attempt to return things to normal after an attack. The measures were meant to deal with the different situations defined in the basic policy for protecting citizens that was approved last March. Each of the ministries and agencies designated will establish a headquarters to deal with citizen protection. Each ministry will be allotted different tasks. The Foreign Ministry would be responsible for providing information to Japanese nationals living abroad and coordinating with U.S. troops based in Japan. The National Police Agency and the National Public Safety Commission would define the areas of contamination in the event of a terrorist attack involving nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and also designate regions where caution should be used. The Justice Ministry would be in charge of evacuating prisoners while the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare would provide support for evacuees in finding new jobs. Friday's plan will serve as the basis for putting in place citizen protection measures around the country, according to a government source.(IHT/Asahi: October 29,2005) [The Asahi Shimbun Asia Network] + The Asahi Shimbun Company ***************************************************************** 37 [du-list][indianpointsec] LTE: JN Tritium unsafe in amount 10-29-05 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:10:48 -0800 One of the many lies told by the nuclear industry and their servants has been, for years, that tritium, produced through fissioning, is harmless. The facts are very differentt. ( It also has a military function ie, in triggering nuclear bombs.) Mitzi From: "Lisa Rainwater VanSuntum" Subject: [indianpointsec] 10-29-05 LTE: JN Tritium unsafe in any amount JOURNAL NEWS Tritium unsafe in any amount (Original publication: October 29, 2005) In "Indian Point 2 still leaking water" (Oct. 19 article), it would have been helpful to include some of the well-documented dangers of radioactive tritium so that we would be informed as to the risk we may be facing: • Tritiated water passes through the human body in 12 days. However, when it unites with carbon in the human body, it can remain in the body for 450 to 650 days. One study found traces of tritium in the body 10 years after exposure. • When and where tritium deposits its radioactivity, it creates at least one lesion in the cell. This lesion must be repaired within 24 hours or the cell becomes carcinogenic when it eventually divides. There may be a threshold below which the repair mechanism is not activated in the body; therefore, low levels of chronic radiation exposure can accumulate in the body without the repair system being activated. Indeed, this is consistent with the recent National Academy of Sciences report affirming that even extremely low doses of ionizing radiation (such as tritium) pose a health and cancer risk. • In addition, radiological research has found a correlation between tritium and cumulative genetic injury. There was found in successive generations a reduction in relative brain weight, increased re-absorption of embryos, and correlations with Down syndrome. While Entergy scrambles to figure out the cause and extent of the tritium leak, problems at Indian Point continue to increase. Remember, after Indian Point has closed, we will no longer have to face headlines such as "Nuke leak tainted wells." Mark Jacobs, Cortlandt Manor ***************************************************************** 38 [du-list]Plant cylinders may hold toxic phosgene gas Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:09:37 -0800 X-Temp-Whitesubject: YES du-list X-Temp-Whitephrase: YES Nuclear X-Spamprobe: ham-super * 0.0000183 OK Pike County News Watchman Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2005 Plant cylinders may hold toxic phosgene gas VAN ROSE Staff Writer A corrosive chemical warfare agent could be deteriorating uranium storage cylinders stockpiled at U.S. Department of Energy facilities in Piketon and elsewhere, according to a federal memorandum obtained by a Louisville, Ky., newspaper. The internal memo - made public by The Courier-Journal in an article published yesterday - was sent from DOE Assistant Inspector General Alfred K. Walter to managers of Energy Department offices in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Lexington, Ky., on Sept. 30. It stated, among other information, that as many as 406 cylinders currently stored at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon are suspected to contain residual amounts of phosgene, a caustic, toxic gas once stored in the metal containers that were manufactured as early as 1940 and acquired from the U.S. Army's Chemical Warfare Service. However, the possibility of phosgene gas - used as a chemical agent by German forces during World War I - being present in the cylinders is "extremely remote," said Laura Schachter, public affairs officer for the DOE Portsmouth/Paducah (Ky.) Project Office in Lexington. She said many of the cylinders in question - containers 30 inches in diameter and seven feet in length, classified as "model 30A cylinders" - were washed clean before they were filled with depleted uranium hexafluoride, or DUF6, a by-product of the uranium enrichment process. "There are so many processes and procedures used to clean them out," Schachter said. "The gas might be gone." The Portsmouth plant is not alone. As many as 1,825 cylinders are located at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, with another 309 at DOE's East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge suspected to contain phosgene gas. DOE has known about possible contamination of stored uranium at the three sites since an October 2000 report by its Office of Environmental, Safety and Health stating some cylinders "may contain residual phosgene that was not purged prior to the cylinders being filled with UF6," said Walter in the DOE memo. As a result, shipment of uranium cylinders from the ETTP to the Portsmouth plant has been temporarily halted until the threat can be assessed, Schachter said. The Portsmouth plant is the location of a facility being constructed to convert DUF6 into a more stable form. A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission official said the unexpected introduction of phosgene into the conversion process could have "catastrophic" safety consequences and added he had not been told to expect the gas to be present in the cylinders, Walter explained. Employees of the United States Enrichment Corporation, which operates the Portsmouth and Paducah plants, would be protected if an accidental release of any material from the cylinders was to occur, said Jack Williams, an enrichment corporation public affairs officer at Portsmouth. "Our employees wear personal protective equipment and respirators," he said. "We have a number of procedures in place so our employees know exactly what to do in the event of any unplanned release from a cylinder." If an individual was to come in direct contact with phosgene, known results could include respiratory failure and death as the colorless gas would contact water in lung tissue and become carbon dioxide and hydrochloric acid. Phosgene can also cause severe burns if it comes in contact with skin. USEC Inc., the enrichment corporation's Bethesda, Md.-based parent company, gained ownership of 141 of the 406 potentially contaminated cylinders at the Portsmouth plant when the company was privatized in the 1990s, according to Williams. The company performs periodic maintenance and surveillance of uranium cylinders in search of deterioration, Schachter said, the guidelines of which are "very strict." Some corrosion found on 30A cylinders at Oak Ridge could be attributed to phosgene since the gas is known to deteriorate metals like steel, which comprises the containers, Walter explained in the memo. A recent report from Oak Ridge National Laboratories "emphasized that some model 30A cylinders at Paducah have deteriorated to a minimum thickness, while others have possibly been breached," he added. Failure by both DOE and USEC Inc. to notice such corrosion for so many decades makes Ewan Todd wonder what else has been overlooked. Todd, a technical expert for public interest group Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, has recently been trying to stop USEC in its pursuit of a 30-year operational license for a proposed American centrifuge plant, or ACP, through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If an appeal he submitted to the NRC this month is not accepted and USEC is licensed, it could mean the transportation of more cylinders to the Portsmouth plant and a greater health and safety threat to local residents near the facility, he thinks. "The ACP would have up to a thousand of these cylinders on our roads every year," Todd said. "We have no assurance that they won't be compromised by phosgene corrosion or some other, as-yet undiscovered, weakness. An accident releasing hydrofluoric acid won't be pretty." Officials at all three plant sites are currently conducting reviews of project records and historic documents that relate to the 30A cylinders, Schachter said. "They have records on every cylinder," she added. "They are looking to determine what the history and project records say about the cylinders that may be in question." The DOE memo was provided to the News Watchman by Courier-Journal staff writer James Malone. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 39 [du-list] Blowin in the Wind - Australian film Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:11:10 -0800 http://www.bsharp.net.au/ "This is a must-see film, focusing as it does on one of the most vexed and contentious issues of today." Peter Garrett MP "Our kids' future is Blowin' in a nuclear Wind... See this film then get bloody angry!" John Howard (the actor) Blowin' In The Wind is the latest film from two-time Academy Award nominee, David Bradbury - arguably Australia's most contentious and provocative documentary filmmaker. It examines the secret treaty that allows the US military to train and test its weaponry on Australian soil. It looks at the impact of depleted uranium (DU) weapons and the far reaching physical and moral effects on every Australian. This film shocked, angered and surprised large audiences recently when shown at the Sydney and Brisbane Film Festivals. Last year Australia signed a 20-year agreement (the terms of which most Australians are yet to see or even hear), which allows the US to test its new weaponry and to use our military bases, our airfields and our naval ports. The United States has been forced to withdraw its bases from Puerto Rico, Japan and the Philippines, where they have created a toxic nightmare that will cost billions to clean up and take a conservative 300 years to complete. But the Americans have skipped town and there is no legal obligation on them to repair the areas they have destroyed. The facts of high rates of cancer and serious illness wherever American bases have been set up has made a number of Australians ask how this deal will ultimately benefit their country. The agreement waives Environmental Impact Studies and carries immunity from our criminal laws. What weapons will the US be testing here? What will be the long-term consequences for our people and for the environment in giving the Americans virtually carte blanche to intrude on our most pristine environments? Already under the agreement, the US government has the green light to begin shelling military training grounds at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland, in the Northern Territory and at Lancelin in Western Australia. In June of this year, 11,000 US soldiers sailed into Shoalwater Bay in their nuclear warships to join 6,000 Aussie troops in Queensland for military exercises known as "Talisman Sabre 2005". They stormed our beaches for three weeks and pounded our coastline and offshore islands with live aerial bombing and ship-to- shore shelling. No journalists were 'embedded' during those exercises, so they could not see what was used or how our most pristine environments were blasted by US warships and aircraft. Two weeks after signing the agreement last year the Minister for Defence, Senator Hill and the Minister for the Environment, Senator Ian Campbell, came to an understanding, now formalised, that an EIS - an Environmental Impact Study - no longer has to be conducted inside a military training area, either before or after training exercises. A basic environmental safeguard for the Australian people - that their most pristine environments have not or will not be contaminated by the Americans testing their latest weaponry - has been terminated under the guise of being in the 'national interest'. Shoalwater Bay near Rockhampton on the Queensland coast is a jewel in the environmental crown of Australia. With its mountains and mangroves, its sweeping beaches and bays, its ancient sand dunes it is home to a wide variety of flora and fauna. It's a huge area of biodiversity. 56 % of Australia's bird species are found here. Whales, dolphins, dugongs, sea turtles and countless species of fish swim in its waters which border or include the Great Barrier Reef. Shoalwater Bay has been home to Australia's defence forces since the Vietnam War. It has been used as a training ground for military exercises and the Army has done a reasonably good job in the past of protecting most of the untouched areas. Under this new arrangement with the US, we will allow them to come in here and test their latest laser guided weapons (the so-called smart bombs). The locals in the nearby town of Yeppoon (where the American military will R&R) are split between those who think that the influx of Americans will lead to more jobs and economic prosperity for the townsfolk and those who don't want them there, no matter what. "If we have a large American contingent housed in Shoalwater Bay, it's going to grow. The big question is, does this community want that? The inevitable nightclubs and bars and what surrounds large numbers of troops. I don't know anybody who came here for that sort of lifestyle." "The Americans aren't going to ruin a perfectly good US training area by using radioactive equipment. They want to turn somebody else's into radioactive mud." "If people knew the US used depleted uranium here, it would decimate the tourist industry. People wouldn't want to come here. It would be like saying, we'll build a tourist destination at Chernobyl." (Paul Hoolighan, State Member, Queensland Parliament) more... ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/151 - Release Date: 10/28/05 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 40 Sydney Morning Herald: Atoll still scarred by tests - World - smh.com.au By Michael Field October 31, 2005 Unexpectedly high levels of radioactive contamination are being discovered in French Polynesia almost a decade after nuclear testing ended on Mururoa Atoll, says the territory's President, Oscar Temaru. Up to five people a day are being sent to private hospitals in Auckland for diagnosis and treatment for what may be radiation-related illnesses, officials say. Mr Temaru has accused the French Government of covering up the health and environmental consequences of the testing. France conducted 41 atmospheric nuclear tests over the Tuamotu atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa between 1966 and 1974. It followed these with 134 underground nuclear tests at the same testing sites between 1975 and 1991. Eight more tests took place in 1995 and 1996. In July Mr Temaru set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the tests. It was due to report back next month. But he said the French Ministry of Defence was refusing to co-operate with the commission and was keeping secret files in Paris while insisting that Mururoa and Fangataufa were still off limits. "One of them [commission members] told me they found out very strange, very high levels of contamination from the atoll of Tureia." Tureia, 115 kilometres north-east of Mururoa, has about 100 people. It is the closest resident population to the test sites. The inquiry commission head, Tea Hirshon, said its aim was to make a precise assessment of the effects of nuclear tests on the environment and the health of the Polynesians. "The major question put forth was to know whether or not the Mangarevans still live in a contaminated environment." The news agency Tahitipresse reported last week that Bruno Chareyron, head of the independent French Commission on Radioactivity Research and Information, was unable to say whether there is or was radioactivity on Mangareva, in the Gambier Islands. At the inquiry hearing on Mangareva, 450 kilometres south-east of Mururoa, witnesses talked of "an accident" on July 2, 1966, after which the French military bought vegetables in Papeete instead of locally and talked about children being covered with wounds after an atmospheric test. A witness also told of an important French military official going to the island and leaving abruptly after a test. The Dominion Post Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 41 Chillicothe Gazette: Uranium cylinders may be corroding www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH By JAMES MALONE Gannett News Service PIKETON - Cylinders storing depleted uranium at the Piketon uranium enrichment plant and other sites may be corroding because of toxic gas mistakenly left in them, according to a federal memo obtained by The (Louisville) Courier-Journal. About 406 cylinders at the Piketon plant previously had been used to store phosgene, a chemical warfare gas, according to the memo from the Department of Energy Inspector General's Office to nuclear facilities in Paducah; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; and Piketon. Investigators said there are "as many as" 309 cylinders in storage at Oak Ridge and another 1,825 at Paducah. At the Piketon plant, U.S. Enrichment officials have ordered an immediate hold on movement, processing or transportation of 141 of the steel tanks under their control until studies are completed. The issues regarding the cylinders are: does enough phosgene remain to endanger workers or the public, will the gas corrode the tanks and cause a leak, and could the gas cause a dangerous reaction during a proposed conversion process? Experts have said a cylinder breached by corrosion could release hydrogen fluoride, a ground-hugging toxic gas. But Laura Schachter, an Energy Department spokeswoman, said in an interview that existing safeguards protect workers and people living near the plant. "We are looking at project records and documents to determine what records are in place to definitely state these cylinders have been washed (and cleaned)," she said. Any trace elements such as phosgene "probably have been dissipated," she said. But she said the issue remains under investigation. "Obviously the department is taking it seriously," she added. The Energy Department is building factories at the Paducah and Piketon plants to recycle and stabilize the depleted uranium in hopes of selling the fluorine that is mixed with it. The "unexpected introduction" of phosgene into the fluorine recycling plant under construction at Piketon and Paducah could have "catastrophic safety consequences," according to the memo. "We believe the findings may warrant immediate attention," said the memo's author, Alfred K. Walter, DOE assistant inspector general for Inspections and Special Inquiries. Schachter said some cylinder shipments have been placed on hold during a review but the department "has not found any verification" of an immediate danger. The Energy Department has known since October 2000 that the former Army cylinders may contain residual phosgene, according to the memo. Schachter said she could not comment on the memo's reference to October 2000 because the department could not immediately find the report. Walter's office referred questions to a spokeswoman, Denise Smith. Smith, in a telephone interview, said the Sept. 30 memo was "not a public document" and referred questions to the Energy Department. The discovery will not have an impact on production of commercial nuclear-reactor fuel at the plant, said Elizabeth Stuckle, a spokeswoman for U.S. Enrichment, which leases the Paducah and Piketon plants from the federal government. Since 2000, the government has made numerous disclosures about historical operations at the plant that have exposed workers to hazardous and highly radioactive substances. 2,500 cylinders hold gas? The phosgene gas, according to the memo's preliminary findings, could be present in about 2,500 cylinders the government acquired during the Cold War from the Army's Chemical Warfare Service in the 1940s and '50s. The company said it controlled only one of the tanks at the Paducah plant and the balance were owned by the Energy Department. Stuckle said the measures taken to protect workers from uranium hexafluoride are sufficient to safeguard them from phosgene. At the Paducah plant, uranium that has been mixed with fluorine to form uranium hexafluoride is heated and forced through filters to separate uranium isotopes. The leftover waste product is pumped into storage cylinders and crystallizes as it cools. A plant is being built on site to treat the waste uranium byproduct and extract the fluorine. It was unknown if the same procedure was done at the Piketon plant. (Malone can be reached at jmalone@courier-journal.com.) Originally published October 29, 2005 Print this article About the gas Phosgene is a corrosive, toxic gas the Germans used briefly during World War I. Exposure to skin can cause lesions and burns and inhalation causes a victim's lungs to fill with mucus and fluid. ***************************************************************** 42 Critics: Changes Doom Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump Plan Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:14:54 -0500 X-Fingerprint: smirnowb@ix.netcom.com-127.127 Greatest Threat To Life On Earth: http://www.heatisonline.org Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html http://www.lasvegassun.com From: "Richard" Subject: Critics: Changes doom Yucca Mountain nuclear dump plan www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/s...0251.html Las Vegas SUN: Critics: Changes doom Yucca Mountain nuclear dump plan =============================================== By BRENDAN RILEY ASSOCIATED PRESS CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - State lawmakers were told Thursday that the federal Energy Department's latest changes in plans for storing nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain are "ludicrous and preposterous." "Things really are going our way in the entire Yucca Mountain arena," Marta Adams, a senior deputy state attorney general, also told the lawmakers' Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste. "The federal government is in total disarray. There is no reason to believe this repository will ever be constructed." Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, told the committee the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain dump project "is hopelessly mired in a briar pit" of problems. He labeled Tuesday's announcement of a change in the way that waste would be packaged a "diversionary tactic" to shift attention away from those problems. The Energy Department said high-level wastes would be sealed in canisters that could be put directly into the ground, eliminating the need to repackage the radioactive material at the proposed dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "That eliminates much of the potential radiation exposure to workers in Nevada," project official Russ Dyer told legislators, adding, "The burden would be placed on the generators of the material" to ensure the canisters are secure. Dyer also said the change would do away with the need for large handling facilities where spent nuclear reactor fuel would be transferred from transportation canisters into different containers for underground storage. While it's not known what the change will do to the project's timetable, Dyer said the end result would be a "simpler, safer and cleaner" way of handling radioactive wastes. The opening date already has slipped from 2010 to 2012 at earliest. Adams said she didn't think that the dump, if it survives various challenges, could be ready by 2025. Both Loux and Adams also said the proposed packaging change would add to the cost of the $58 billion project - and Loux said the canisters still would be breached in as little as a few hundred years because of the highly corrosive minerals in the soil where they'd be entombed. The dump would hold 77,000 tons of highly radioactive used reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and military installations. The change comes amid project delays, budget shortages and calls by some in Congress for the administration to supplement the dump with interim waste storage or to reprocess spent fuel. The government was forced to rewrite its radiation safety standards after a federal court threw out the first version, and the Energy Department is redoing some scientific models after e-mails surfaced last spring indicating government workers on the project might have falsified data. --- On the Net: Yucca Mountain project: www.ymp.gov ***************************************************************** 43 [NukeNet] Critics: Changes Doom Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:10:51 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Greatest Threat To Life On Earth: http://www.heatisonline.org Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html http://www.lasvegassun.com From: "Richard" Subject: Critics: Changes doom Yucca Mountain nuclear dump plan www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/s...0251.html Las Vegas SUN: Critics: Changes doom Yucca Mountain nuclear dump plan =============================================== By BRENDAN RILEY ASSOCIATED PRESS CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - State lawmakers were told Thursday that the federal Energy Department's latest changes in plans for storing nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain are "ludicrous and preposterous." "Things really are going our way in the entire Yucca Mountain arena," Marta Adams, a senior deputy state attorney general, also told the lawmakers' Committee on High-Level Radioactive Waste. "The federal government is in total disarray. There is no reason to believe this repository will ever be constructed." Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, told the committee the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain dump project "is hopelessly mired in a briar pit" of problems. He labeled Tuesday's announcement of a change in the way that waste would be packaged a "diversionary tactic" to shift attention away from those problems. The Energy Department said high-level wastes would be sealed in canisters that could be put directly into the ground, eliminating the need to repackage the radioactive material at the proposed dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "That eliminates much of the potential radiation exposure to workers in Nevada," project official Russ Dyer told legislators, adding, "The burden would be placed on the generators of the material" to ensure the canisters are secure. Dyer also said the change would do away with the need for large handling facilities where spent nuclear reactor fuel would be transferred from transportation canisters into different containers for underground storage. While it's not known what the change will do to the project's timetable, Dyer said the end result would be a "simpler, safer and cleaner" way of handling radioactive wastes. The opening date already has slipped from 2010 to 2012 at earliest. Adams said she didn't think that the dump, if it survives various challenges, could be ready by 2025. Both Loux and Adams also said the proposed packaging change would add to the cost of the $58 billion project - and Loux said the canisters still would be breached in as little as a few hundred years because of the highly corrosive minerals in the soil where they'd be entombed. The dump would hold 77,000 tons of highly radioactive used reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and military installations. The change comes amid project delays, budget shortages and calls by some in Congress for the administration to supplement the dump with interim waste storage or to reprocess spent fuel. The government was forced to rewrite its radiation safety standards after a federal court threw out the first version, and the Energy Department is redoing some scientific models after e-mails surfaced last spring indicating government workers on the project might have falsified data. --- On the Net: Yucca Mountain project: www.ymp.gov _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 44 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast plume 'moving fast' | 10/29/2005 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - The Tallevast plume is almost to U.S. 301 east of the neighborhood and may have reached the Floridan aquifer, perhaps compromising public drinking water, warns an independent geologist who tested residents' private wells. Samplings from 35 drinking water and irrigation wells reveal a "deep diving plume" that has not been adequately defined, said Michael Graves of Environmental Sciences &Technologies in Lakeland. Tallevast residents selected Graves, a geologist with extensive experience in investigating underground pollution, to run independent tests on their wells to compare with data collected by Lockheed Martin Corp., the company responsible for cleaning up the pollution. Lockheed has repeatedly reassured residents that it has defined the plume, now known to measure more than 131 acres. The toxins underground, Lockheed insists, are too deep to be dangerous to the community But Graves' data paints a different, frightening picture of a fast-moving plume that may be exposing residents to significant health risks. And the plume is growing, Graves warned. Graves attributes the plume's movement to changes in pressure. When Tallevast residents were connected to county water in the summer of 2004 they were told to stop using their contaminated wells. The drop in pressure caused the plume to shift, Graves said. Meanwhile, residents and businesses surrounding Tallevast that still pump water through private wells are drawing the plume toward their properties, Graves said. Graves presented his results to Tallevast leaders, their attorneys, state and county health officials and representatives of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection at a meeting held Friday at Mount Tabor Missionary Baptist Church. Lockheed did not attend because officials did not receive their invitations until late Thursday night, said Gail Rymer, director of communications. Rymer declined comment, saying she could not discuss data she had not yet seen. As the owner of the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant, 1600 Tallevast Road E., when the leak from an underground sump was discovered, Lockheed has assumed full responsibility. Although Lockheed reported the toxic spill to the county and DEP, almost four years would pass before residents would learn of the pollution under their homes. Graves' data raises serious questions about Lockheed's data and conclusions, said Tim Varney, a scientist with Chastain Skillman and Tallevast's technical consultant. Varney described Lockheed's monitoring wells as state of the art, but he said the sampling methods used were not adequate to define the plume. Some of Lockheed's monitoring wells were sampled too early after they were drilled, Varney said. In some cases, the wells were not sampled deep enough to tell how far down the contaminants may have sank. "This data raises serious questions on whether the plume has been fully characterized, both vertically and horizontally," said Varney. "And Graves' data puts an exclamation point after those statements, especially in regard to the well on Heidi Booth's property." Booth is a Tallevast cattlewoman who refused to let Lockheed Martin Corp. cut a path through her pine forest to drill a monitoring well. But Booth did offer Lockheed permission to test her own 500-foot well used to water her cattle. Lockheed declined, Booth said. Graves did run tests on Booth's well. He found contamination that may have compromised the Floridan aquifer, but Graves won't know for sure until he has more data on the well's construction. Located just west of the Tallevast Post Office near U.S. 301, Booth's well was drilled two years ago. While Graves determined the hole for the well is 500 feet deep, he does not know how far the casing of the well extends down the sides. Graves found high levels of 1,4-Dioxane almost 20 times the allowable standard at the bottom of the 500-foot hole. If the casing goes all of the way down to the bottom, that means the contamination is at that level and has entered the Floridan aquifer, Graves said. But if the casing stops somewhere above the bottom, the contaminates could have leaked through the soil from above, he added. Either way, Varney said, finding 1,4-Dioxane on Booth's property means the solvent has spread far from its source at the former beryllium plant. That finding is significant, said Graves, because 1,4-Dioxane is very soluble and moves quickly through groundwater, making its presence an indicator of the leading edge of the plume. But Booth's property is not drawn inside Lockheed Martin's current composite plume map, which the defense giant said marks the edge of the plume. Varney said Graves' test data on Booth's well challenges Lockheed's cleanup plans, which currently call for removing solvents in the groundwater beneath industrial site primarily through a pump-and-treat method. "It would be very hard to remediate a plume extending all of the way to 301 by a pump-and-treat method," said Varney. "You could not pump and treat from just one location to remediate a plume this size." Varney said remediation of the plume would require a distribution of treatment areas throughout the Tallevast community. Lockheed maintains that it is not necessary to remediate the groundwater contamination in the residential areas because the pollutants are too deep. Lockheed has proposed removing contaminated groundwater from only under the former beryllium plant. Limiting remediation to the the site of the old beryllium plant would mean Lockheed would only have to meet industrial cleanup standards, which are much lower than residential cleanup levels. Bill Kutash, DEP's point man on the Tallevast cleanup project, said he could not comment on remediation methods, but he did agreed that a larger plume is much harder to clean up than a smaller one. Tallevast leaders say Graves' data shows the toxins in their backyards present clear health risks and remediation must include the residential neighborhood. J.B. Harris, an attorney representing Tallevast residents, asked Varney if his data indicates residents have been exposed to higher risk levels than Lockheed has assumed. "We know 21 of the wells have levels of contaminants that exceed groundwater clean-up standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act," said Varney. "Some of those compounds are carcinogenic and some cause systemic health problems." Factoring those levels into computer programs to measure exposure risk over time would likely indicate significant excess risk, Varney said. DEP sampled and tested Tallevast's private wells one year ago. That well survey missed several wells in Tallevast. Graves also questioned how they tests were conducted. Past tests of private wells did not go far enough or deep enough, said J. Gregory Webb, another attorney representing residents. "Testing was very inadequate early on," said Webb. "One could say they chose methods to assess the plume that would minimize their results." Graves said more testing must be done before the true size of the plume is known. "They have spend a lot of money on the assessment process," Graves said, "but the more that is spent, the more we find out. This will take time." Graves said he was most surprised by the heavy concentration of 1,4-Dioxane south of Tallevast Road behind the old beryllium plant and east of a golf driving range near Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport. "It is moving fast," said Graves. "The plume is dynamic, and it is changing all of the time." Which is why, Graves added, his data and all of the other existing data must be combined into a dynamic three-dimensional model that will show not only the horizontal and vertical characteristics of the plume but also how groundwater is moving through the area known to be contaminated. Until that model is constructed, any plans for remediation would be premature, Varney said. Earlier this year, county staff urged Tallevast residents to have their private wells capped, but leaders of the advocacy group FOCUS - or Family Oriented Community United Strong - refused. FOCUS President Laura Ward told county leaders last winter that capping the wells before they could be independently tested would eliminate any opportunity to test DEP's prior well test data. Graves' findings, FOCUS leaders said, prove how important it was to keep the wells open. On Sept. 1, Tallevast residents filed a negligence lawsuit against Lockheed, claiming the plume has damaged their property values and caused emotional distress. • Find a map of wells that have contamination over the accepted limits. 17A • Find The Herald's archived Tallevast coverage and discuss the latest developments regarding the plume at HeraldToday.com. Science groups say Kansas can't use their materials in education standards ***************************************************************** 45 AU ABC: Union questions 'ludicrous' ERA fine (AEDT)Saturday, 29 October 2005. 08:17 (AWST) The Unions NT president has criticised a Darwin court's decision to fine Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) more than $80,000 for failing to operate and maintain a site at its Ranger uranium mine. The company pleaded guilty to the charge in relation to an accident in July last year in which a 32-year-old contractor was seriously injured while carrying out maintenance work at the mine. Joe Gallagher says the size of the fine sends a wrong message. "If something serious happens the company sticks its hand up ... and says, 'well look sorry about that we do admit we run an unsafe workplace' and because they admit it they get a reduced fine. I think it's ludicrous," he said. Mr Gallagher says unsafe workplaces are unacceptable and ERA should have at least received the maximum fine. "We don't believe that the fines go far enough and quite frankly in the ACT and hopefully soon in New South Wales legislation may force some of these companies to face manslaughter charges," he said. ***************************************************************** 46 reviewjournal.com: Nuclear waste storage undergoes simple shift Oct. 29, 2005 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Graphic by Mike Johnson. In the world of nuclear waste, simpler is better. That's the case with the so-called "new path" that government scientists embarked on this week to improve the design and safety of the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. In another respect, it's also the course spelled out by independent experts in the Oct. 21 issue of the prestigious journal Science. For different reasons, the simple-is-better philosophy appears to be gaining momentum among scientists for tackling what many of them consider to be a huge environmental problem: how to safely dispose of the most lethal radioactive materials on Earth, the stuff left over from splitting atoms to generate nuclear power. Thomas H. Pigford, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, says the best way to attempt to protect generations for hundreds of thousands of years from dissolved radioactivity escaping into groundwater from 77,000 tons of nuclear waste entombed in the mountain is to surround the metal disposal containers with sand and gravel. Ten percent, or 7,700 tons, would be in the form of solidified, heavy metal from highly radioactive defense waste turned into glass logs. The rest would be solid spent fuel from commercial power reactors. In the Science article, Pigford and co-author Luther J. Carter, an independent science writer, suggest that a layer of dry, coarse gravel topped with a layer of fine sand or finely ground volcanic tuff -- the same stuff the mountain is made of -- would create a capillary action system. The layers would slowly draw away water that seeps through the mountain's cracks and drips down from the ceilings of tunnels where metal waste canisters are sealed. "All the waste containers beneath the gravel will corrode over time from the water vapor and oxygen present," Pigford and Carter wrote. "Eventually radioactive elements dissolved in water will emerge from the failed containers, diffuse along gravel particle surface and ... remain trapped there for hundreds of thousands of years." Their calculations, based on a 1995 performance assessment by a Yucca Mountain Project contractor, show that "the radiation dose to future people from a repository using a capillary barrier would be lower at all times by a factor of 1 million than the one envisioned by the Yucca Mountain Project today," the article states. Instead of sand and gravel, the current design calls for installing expensive drip shields made of titanium to divert water migrating through the mountain. However, Pigford and Carter say neither the drip shield nor nickel-based Alloy 22, which forms the outer shell of the waste-disposal canisters, is needed. The cost savings would be considerable, considering the price tag for each of the 14,700 canisters with drip shields would be $900,000. In an e-mail, a spokesman for the Energy Department's Office of Repository Development in Las Vegas said the idea of using backfill and even depleted uranium as a barrier system previously has been reviewed. "Currently, we are undertaking an exploratory study related to the potential benefits of backfilling," wrote Allen Benson, the DOE spokesman. "The safety case at Yucca Mountain will be outlined in the license application when it is submitted to the" Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nevertheless, Benson said the drip shield design is still under consideration by project scientists. In addition, he said the waste package, or disposal canister, for spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors hasn't changed. "The waste package still consists of an outer corrosion barrier of nickel-based Alloy 22, approximately 1 inch thick, and an inner vessel of stainless steel, approximately 2 inches thick," Benson wrote in an e-mail Wednesday. His message came in response to a new design approach for using standardized canisters to deliver spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain. DOE's announcement Tuesday said this "new path" design differs from the previous design in that solid, spent fuel pellets inside metal cladding assemblies would be sealed in these canisters at reactor sites, then hauled to Yucca Mountain on rail cars or trucks. Once at the mountain, they would remain sealed with the transport canister being put inside a double-layered, disposal sheath canister for being moved by rail into permanent storage tunnels, or drifts. Paul Golan, DOE's acting director for Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, stated that with this "new path forward ... we are confident that the simpler we make the design, the more reliable the project will be." He said this eliminates the need for huge, multibillion-dollar surface facilities for handling and repackaging spent fuel assemblies to be put into disposal canisters. "It also reduces the potential hazards caused by the oxidation of bare spent nuclear fuel during handling," DOE officials stated in their announcement. In an interview Tuesday, Golan said there still will need to be a special, inert facility at Yucca Mountain for repackaging "off-normal" spent fuel that arrives in damaged cladding. A previous study found that thousands of fuel assemblies would arrive damaged including some with undetected leaks and cracks from which fuel could oxidize and result in powderlike contamination. After Pigford heard about DOE's "new path" design, he said, "It's certainly a change ... that brings so many potential changes that it's going to require a lot of study." He was referring to a claim in a trade publication, "The International Radioactive Exchange," that the new design eventually would involve reprocessing of spent fuel at reactor sites. While reprocessing is a way of recycling some unused fuel back for commercial power generation, the waste left for disposal at Yucca Mountain would have to be solidified, such as the 10 percent received as highly radioactive defense waste. "These words about reprocessing are major," Pigford said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "Instead of spent fuel elements, they would be borosilicate glass containing fission products and containing some radioactive, transuranic elements." If this course is pursued, the whole aspect of the Yucca Mountain Project would change in light of new data required for heat loading on the repository and many other factors, Pigford said. "That's not just storing spent fuel from reactors, that would be storing a new material," he said. "Sure the military waste at Savannah River (S.C.) and Hanford (Wash.) looks like reprocessing waste. But it's different from commercial spent fuel. There's an enormous difference that has a big effect upon the design of Yucca Mountain. ... It puts us in a whole new era." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 47 Green Left Weekly: Anti-nuke dump make inquiry submission http://www.greenleft.org.au Kathy Newnam, Darwin Opponents of the nuclear industry took their message to the federal parliamentary inquiry into uranium resources when it met in Darwin on October 24. Deceptively calling itself “the inquiry into developing Australia’s non-fossil fuel energy industry”, the inquiry’s main focus is on the expansion of the uranium industry. Twenty anti-nuclear activists gathered outside the hearing and then attended it to support the Northern Territory’s Environment Centre (ECNT) during its submission. According to the ECNT spokesperson Peter Robertson pointed out that “just about every mining company in Australia that has any interest in mining uranium appears to have been given the opportunity to appear before this inquiry, whereas ... only one group with concerns about the environment and future generations was given the opportunity to appear". The rising price of uranium, which has spurred the Howard government's push to expand uranium mining, has also led Energy Resources Australia (ERA) to announce the extension of its Ranger mine. This mine, located inside Kakadu National Park, is due to be closed in 2008, but with ore processing continuing until 2011. ERA announced on October 27 that it would be processing lower grade uranium oxide, extending processing operations for a further three years. Meanwhile, opposition to the location of a nuclear waste dump in the NT continues to grow, with traditional owners of the land near Mount Everard — 42 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs — affirming their opposition to a nuclear waste dump on their land, one of the three potential dump sites proposed by the Howard government. From Green Left Weekly, November 2, 2005. http://www.greenleft.org.au Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW ***************************************************************** 48 JournalStar.com: Nuke group balks at giving away former dump site By KEVIN OHANLON / The Associated Press A four-state group balked Friday at giving away the site where it once planned to build a regional nuclear waste dump in Nebraska. Group members Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana had planned to deed the parcel to the village of Butte as a gesture of goodwill for the political and emotional tumult the 18-year fight over the dump caused residents of the tiny, northeast Nebraska town. But Kansas representative Joseph Harkins successfully pushed for the appraisal, saying it would not be prudent to give the land away without knowing its value. This is not good business, he said. Nebraska, which earlier withdrew from the group, agreed to pay $141 million plus interest for blocking construction of the low-level radioactive waste dump. As part of the agreement, Nebraska was relieved of its obligation to build the waste site for the group, known as the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. The compact will decide what to do with the 320-acre tract at its January meeting. The land has been estimated to be worth $160,000. The dispute over the Nebraska site had its genesis in 1970, when Nevada, South Carolina and Washington grew tired of accepting low-level radioactive waste from the rest of the country. As a result, Congress told the rest of the states in 1980 to build their own dumps or join regional groups to dispose of the waste. Nebraska joined with the four other states to form the compact, which voted in 1987 to put the waste in Nebraska. The fight began soon after, with both sides wrangling in court on several issues. No compact has yet built a dump. The settlement between Nebraska and the other states ended a lawsuit in which U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf in Lincoln ruled that former Nebraska Gov. Ben Nelson, now a U.S. senator, engaged in a politically motivated and orchestrated plot to keep the dump from being built in Nebraska. Kopf ordered Nebraska to pay $151 million. Nebraska officials argued that they didnt license the dump because of concerns about possible pollution and a high water table at the proposed site a process that Kopf ruled Nelson tainted. Butte Mayor Cindy Schroetlin has asked the commission to give the village some $4 million from the settlement as reimbursement for the toll the fight exacted on the town. The commission has not acted on that request. Of the total $146 million that Nebraska paid, all but about $15 million has been handed out. About $115 million went to the six utilities that helped back efforts to build the dump. Some $12 million went to US Ecology, the company the was to develop, build and run the dump. Another $4 million went to the remaining states in the group. Meanwhile, Nebraska and the compact are exploring possible sites to store their waste. Central Interstate Compact: http://www.cillrwcc.org/ U.S. District Court for Nebraska: http://www.ned.uscourts.gov/ © 2002-, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. | ***************************************************************** 49 CNIC: Japan and internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle (Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) 28 October 2005 Media Release "The Japanese government's recent expression of interest in internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle should be seen for what it is: a self-serving attempt to justify Japan's own uranium enrichment and reprocessing programs", according to the Tokyo based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC). An agency of the Ministry for Economics Trade and Industry held a meeting on Tuesday, October 25th to discuss the issue. Among the options considered were the possibility of enriching uranium and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for other countries. "Previously the Japanese government had not been supportive of proposals to internationalize the nuclear fuel cycle. It was afraid of restrictions being placed on the new spent fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture. A proposal made by Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, included a call for a moratorium on such facilities." "Now the government is concerned that if it does not make a concrete proposal of its own, it might end up being lumped with all the other non-nuclear weapon states and be subject to the same restrictions as them in regard to uranium enrichment and reprocessing." "There has been strong international criticism of the Japanese government's plan to start up the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, because of the negative impact it will have on the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Many people believe that it could undermine international efforts to discourage other countries - including Iran and North Korea - from building their own enrichment and reprocessing facilities." "The government is now trying to deflect these criticisms and to avoid the risk that moves towards internationalizing the nuclear fuel cycle might jeopardize its own programs. This is a cynical move, because the government knows full well that Japan will not have the capacity to enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel for other countries for the foreseeable future. It hopes that by offering to participate in a program to guarantee other countries access to uranium enrichment and reprocessing services, it will persuade them to be more accepting of its own plans to increase its uranium enrichment capacity and to commence reprocessing at Rokkasho. But how will other countries view Japan's enrichment and reprocessing programs when they realize that the offer is hollow?" "The government wants Japan to be recognized as a model of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. However, it would gain far more respect if it showed real leadership and chose not to proceed with reprocessing at Rokkasho. The world would then believe that Japan is truly committed to nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament." Background information The uranium enrichment plant in Rokkasho has been plagued by problems and is now only able to meet 10% of Japan's own needs. Extensions are planned, with a suggested start-up date of 2010, but nothing concrete has emerged so far. The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant is currently undergoing uranium trials. Active trials using spent fuel are scheduled to begin in December this year, but due to various problems, in particular with the high level radioactive waste storage facility, there is no prospect that this date will be met. If it ever commences operations, it will be the first industrial-scale reprocessing plant in a country which does not possess nuclear weapons. Its maximum capacity will be 8 tons of plutonium each year, enough to make 1,000 Nagasaki type bombs. At most it will be able to reprocess only 80% of the spent fuel from Japan’s own nuclear power plants. Consequently the government has in mind a second reprocessing plant, which might also be able to reprocess foreign spent fuel. However, no mention was made of a second reprocessing plant in the new nuclear energy policy adopted by the government on October 14th. If a second plant is to be built, planning won't begin until 2010 and it is unlikely to be operational until decades hence. One example of criticisms of the proliferation implications of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant is a statement issued on 5 May 2005 at the Non-Proliferation Review Conference by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The statement was signed by 27 eminent scientists, former policy makers and analysts. See the links below: Contact: Philip White, International Liaison Officer Citizens' Nuclear Information Center TEL.03-5330-9520 FAX.03-5330-9530 ***************************************************************** 50 Berkley: DOE Peddles Plan For Supposed "Clean" Nuclear Garbage Dump in Nevada; Berkley Points to Continued Terror Risks Congresswoman Shelley Berkley - Legislation: Press Releases 2005 (Washington, DC -- October 25, 2005) U.S. Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV) today refuted Department of Energy claims that newly proposed containers to store nuclear waste will create a clean radioactive garbage dump 90 minutes from Las Vegas. Berkleys response follows an announcement this morning from DOE that it will abandon its current plans for packaging radioactive waste and will be developing a new system that seeks to make Yucca Mountain easier to operate. "Calling plans to dump radioactive garbage in Nevada clean is an insult to the intelligence of families in the Silver State and ignores the fact that nuclear waste is one of the deadliest substances on Earth. Regardless of how they repackage this waste, at the end of the day, its still going to be dumped in Nevada, and its still going to threaten the lives of millions of Americans living along transportation routes, said Berkley. This proposal creates a standard container for use by the nuclear industry, but it will not reduce the enormous vulnerability of thousands of waste shipments to an accident or terrorist attack, said Berkley. "The DOE is desperate to show that Yucca Mountain is moving ahead, despite the fact that its already years behind schedule and poses an enormous threat to public safety and the environment. The DOEs announcement is but the latest example of the disarray that has been a hallmark of the Yucca Mountain Project from the outset. The fact they are still changing the design and have abandoned any timetable for submitting a license for the dump, only proves how desperate theyve become and how many obstacles remain. The only safe solution is to keep nuclear waste at the plants where it was produced and where it can be safely stored, Berkley said. "I fear that this is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this Administrations plans to bury Nevada in nuclear waste. President Bush has made the nuclear industry huge promises in exchange for campaign dollars and they are pressuring him to deliver one way or another. That could include plans for interim waste storage at the Nevada Test Site, even though such a plan has been rejected by Congress in the past, said Berkley. # # # Photos courtesy of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor Authority For Our Privacy Policy, click here Please direct all questions about this site to the Site Manager Page Last Updated: 10/26/2005 439 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone - (202) 225-5965 Fax - (202) 225-3119 2340 Paseo Del Prado, Suite D-106 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone - (702) 220-9823 Fax - (702) 220-9841 ***************************************************************** 51 Guardian Unlimited: A-Bomb Victims Stage Rally in Hiroshima From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday October 30, 2005 2:46 AM AP Photo TOK801 TOKYO (AP) - Victims of the U.S. atomic bombings of Japan joined a sit-in rally in Hiroshima on Saturday to protest plans to base a nuclear-powered American warship in the country, an activist said. The protest came as talks got underway between top Japanese and American security officials on how to realign the U.S. military presence in Japan. About 80 people - many of them victims of the 1945 U.S. atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - rallied against plans announced Friday by the U.S. Navy to deploy a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Japan, said Kazutoshi Kajikawa, who heads the Hiroshima Peace Movement Center. ``It makes me angry that America can even consider basing a nuclear carrier in Japan, the only country in the world to have suffered a nuclear attack,'' Kajikawa said. Basing the ship in Japan will also put the Japanese public at risk of being exposed to a radiation leak, he said. The U.S. has said the carrier can be operated safely in Japanese waters. American Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer told reporters Friday that nuclear ships had made 1,200 visits to Japan in the past 40 years without harming the environment. The U.S. Navy said it decided to replace the conventional aircraft carrier now based in Yokosuka, just outside Tokyo, with the nuclear-powered ship because it has greater capabilities. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 52 courier-journal: Eliminate nuclear weapons, raise minimum wage, churches urge Saturday, October 29, 2005 By Peter Smith psmith@courier-journal.com The Courier-Journal The Kentucky Council of Churches approved resolutions yesterday calling for all countries to eliminate nuclear weapons and for the Kentucky and federal governments to raise the minimum wage. The votes came on the final day of the council's annual meeting, held at Thomas More College in Crestview Hills, Ky. About 120 delegates represented the 11 Christian denominations that make up the council. The statement on nuclear weapons was originally adopted at a conference in May by leaders of the Indiana-based Islamic Society of North America and the Washington-based Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy, a research organization. The latter group says 1,589 individuals and three or four organizations have endorsed it so far. The statement calls for a freeze and eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons by all nations, saying that both Christianity and Islam defend the "sanctity of life." "The most responsible position for people of faith in our two traditions is to call upon the United States and other countries of the world to gradually, and in a verifiable manner, finally eliminate these weapons from the face of the Earth," the statement says. "Nuclear weapons are weapons of genocide," said the Rev. Nancy Jo Kemper, executive director of the Kentucky council. "The continued presence of these weapons is just making them more available for rogue nations and terrorist groups." She said she was encouraged by news this week that the Bush administration had abandoned plans to develop nuclear warheads that could destroy deep bunkers. Critics said they would cause massive destruction and encourage other nations to seek nuclear weapons. The council's statement on the minimum wage asserts that wage inequality is growing and that inflation has eroded any gains from when the federal minimum wage was last raised to $5.15 in 1997. Kentucky's minimum wage is the same as the federal rate. "People who are earning minimum wage are falling farther and farther behind," Kemper said. "We have not had an increase in minimum wage in so long that it's as if people just don't matter." The measure calls for not only the federal government but the state of Kentucky to require a "living wage." Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have minimum wages higher than the federal level, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. The council also called for employers, including faith-based organizations, to pay "living wages" even without government mandate. It also pledges support for job-training and child-care programs. The resolution cited a 2003 study by Kentucky Youth Advocates stating that, while many working residents are officially above the poverty line, they don't earn enough to meet basic needs. The council elected Kathryn Johnson, a professor at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, as its new president. Johnson, a Lutheran, teaches church history and historical theology and has long been involved in ecumenical work. Denominations that are members of the Kentucky council are the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Roman Catholic Church, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church. Copyright 2005 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 53 Xinhua: Deployment of US nuclear carrier in Japan criticized www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-10-29 19:24:04 TOKYO, Oct. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- While Japanese government highly welcomed the first deployment of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Japan, saying it will ensure better security in the country, the public voice conveys strong protest against the plan,regarding it a further integration between Japanese and US military forces. The move came after Washington announced Thursday that Japan and the United States had agreed to have the carrier to replace the conventional carrier Kitty Hawk at the naval base in Yokosuka,east Japan's Kanagawa Prefecture, in 2008. Washington and Tokyo reiterated that nuclear-powered carriers are safe and that the stationing of such a vessel does not contradict Japan's nonnuclear principles because the principles refer to nuclear weapons, not to nuclear power generation. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said at a press conference that the deployment will "strengthen the Japan-US alliance and maintain the (US military) deterrence." Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura underscored the importance of the continued presence of the US Navy in and around Japan for the country's security and international peace. Defense Agency Director General Yoshinori Ono echoed the foreign minister, saying that "from the viewpoint of Japan's national security and the security of the Asian region, I think itis extremely significant to have a carrier with such high capabilities using Japan as its home port." But, no matter how much efforts the officials exerted in seeking for public support and understanding on the issue, local governments, military experts and residents across Japan strongly criticized the deployment plan immediately after the announcement. Yokosuka Mayor Ryoichi Kabaya was quoted as saying in a NHK TV interview that, "I'm sorry and disappointed. I'm feeling betrayed." Kanagawa Governor Shigefumi Matsuzawa also criticized the Japanese government for agreeing with the United States on the matter, saying that "the move is extremely deplorable as it ignores local wishes." Shoji Shimizu, one of the leaders of a Yokosuka group opposing the deployment of a nuclear-powered carrier, told reporters that "the Japanese and US governments had said they would respect local opinions. But then this sudden agreement has appeared." Shimizu's group has submitted to the city government of Yokosuka a petition signed by about 300,000 people opposing the deployment of this type of carrier. The United States has deployed three aircraft carriers in Yokosuka, including the Kitty Hawk, since 1973, all of which were conventionally powered. The Kitty Hawk has been stationed there since 1998. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where atomic bombs were dropped by the United States to force Japan to surrender during World War II,people voiced fear of possible accidents on a nuclear-powered carrier and concern that its deployment in Yokosuka could increasethe danger that Japan might be sucked into international disputes. "If an accident ever occurs and causes damage to local people, it (Yokosuka) will be the third Japanese city exposed to nuclear radiation," said Hitoshi Hamasaki, a atomic bombing survivor. The Hiroshima chapters of the Japan Council against A and H Bombs and the Japan Confederation of A- and H- Bomb Sufferers Organizations said they sent a letter to the US Embassy in Tokyo to demand that US President George W. Bush withdraw the deploymentplan. Meanwhile, Japanese military experts also commented on the news. Tetsuo Maeda, professor at Tokyo International University specializing in military research, said the deployment would make Yokosuka a leading US military base, giving the warship remarkablyhigh mobility, and symbolizing US power. Maeda also noted that locals would have concerns about safety issues, and referred this type of vessel as "a mobile nuclear reactor". Experts' opinion coincide with the public voice, regarding the deployment as a dangerous sign of the Japanese government's attempt to ignore the nonnuclear principles. The nuclear-powered carrier in Japan is not allowed because it will bring danger to Japan and its people, according to the experts who urged the Japanese government to insist on nonnuclear principles, enacted in 1971, and to keep the country away from nuclear weapons. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 asahi.com: Yokosuka expresses outrage at aircraft carrier deployment 10/29/2005 By YU YOSHITAKE, Staff Writer From the governor on down, officials and citizens of Yokosuka expressed shock Friday at a government announcement that U.S. naval forces will deploy a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at the naval base in Kanagawa Prefecture. The flattop will replace the conventional aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, which will retire in 2008. Yokosuka Mayor Ryoichi Kabaya voiced strong opposition to the plan and criticized the way the decision was handled. He said the sentiments of Yokosuka citizens were ignored. Kabaya wasted no time in lodging a strong protest with the Foreign Ministry. And Kanagawa Governor Shigefumi Matsuzawa, who is visiting the United States, said it would be impossible to secure the agreement of prefectural residents to the plan. Kabaya met Friday with Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi and demanded the deployment be reconsidered. Yachi responded that the Koizumi administration was satisfied with a U.S. statement concerning safety measures when nuclear-powered aircraft carriers visit Japanese ports. He noted that those measures would be strictly enforced, according to Foreign Ministry officials. "I am really disappointed," Kabaya said after the meeting. He noted that his predecessor, Hideo Sawada, had repeatedly requested both the Japanese and U.S. governments not to deploy a nuclear flattop at Yokosuka, about 60 kilometers south of Tokyo. Kabaya said city residents were concerned about the risk of radioactivity caused by a nuclear accident. "Our citizens are very concerned," he said. "Their anxiety cannot be easily overturned, no matter what U.S. officials say about there not being any risk of a serious accident." Yokosuka's mayoral election in June, coupled with a citizens drive to collect signatures against the deployment, leaves no doubt about local sentiment on the issue. In the election, all four candidates campaigned on strong opposition to the deployment. Kabaya was formerly the deputy mayor. His predecessor served three terms as mayor. More than 340,000 signatures have been collected by a citizens group since last year protesting deployment of a nuclear carrier. The leader of that group, lawyer Masahiko Goto, said: "The nuclear aircraft carrier will probably be refitted at Yokosuka. There is the possibility of a radiation leak to which workers would be exposed." Goto said his group plans to dispatch the representatives to the United States in December to convey their opposition to the plan to Bush administration officials. Governor Matsuzawa, who is visiting Maryland state on official business, said: "The United States should remember the Japanese are the only people who suffered from nuclear bombing, and so prefectural residents remain strongly opposed to nuclear power."(IHT/Asahi: October 29,2005) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights ***************************************************************** 55 Santa Fe New Mexican: Former LANL engineer accused of selling secrets By ASSOCIATED PRESS October 29, 2005 HONOLULU  A former Los Alamos National Laboratory engineer who called himself the father of the technology that protects the B-2 stealth bomber from heat-seeking missiles has been arrested and accused of selling U.S. military secrets involving the aircraft to a foreign country, the FBI said. Noshir S. Gowadia, 61, of Haiku, on the Hawaiian island of Maui, was arrested Wednesday in Honolulu. According to the FBI, Gowadia faxed a document detailing infrared technology that was classified top secret by the Air Force to a foreign official in 2002 and also provided classified information to two other countries. The government would not identify the countries or disclose how much money he allegedly received in return for the information. Suffice it to say that this is a very sensitive, ongoing investigation, the special agent in charge of the FBIs Honolulu office, Charles Goodwin, said at a news conference Thursday. Gowadia, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in India, was jailed without bail on a charge of willfully communicating national defense information to a person not entitled to receive it, an offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. He was an engineer with Northrop Grumman Corp. from 1968 to 1986 and helped design parts of the B-2s propulsion system that make it difficult for enemy missiles to detect the bomber. The technology is highly classified. According to an affidavit filed Wednesday by the FBI, Gowadia marketed himself to foreign officials and other foreigners as the father of the B-2s unique infrared-suppressing propulsion system. Federal agents searched Gowadias home Oct. 13 and found classified documents from his days at Northrop and as a contract engineer in the early 1990s at Los Alamos National Laboratory, according to court documents. The FBI said Gowadia admitted during questioning that he gave classified information to about eight countries. His public defender, Donna Gray, would not comment on the case, and said his family is seeking to hire a private attorney. According to Hawaii state records, Gowadia and his wife own an engineering and consulting company. ***************************************************************** 56 Chicago Maroon: Nineteen firms compete to manage Argonne Laboratory Online Edition] The independent student newspaper of the University of Chicago since 1892 By Isaac Wolf October 28, 2005 in WASHINGTON, DC—Nineteen firms have expressed interest in taking over management of Argonne National Laboratory from the University of Chicago, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced last Friday. The Chicago office of the Department of Energy will select a steward for Argonne by September 2006, when the University’s contract expires, said Gary L. Pitchford, a DOE spokesman in Chicago. Groups interested in managing the $500-million-a-year research lab include research powerhouses Northrop Grumman and Battelle, as well as several small firms seeking subcontracts for part of the work. Under the University’s management, Argonne has been reprimanded for its handling of nuclear material. According to Argonne officials, nuclear materials were mislabeled—but never unsecured—in 2004. Despite these problems, the University says it welcomes competition for the non-weapons lab, which focuses on high-level physics, chemistry, and energy. The lab is 25 miles southwest of the Chicago Loop. In an interview two weeks ago, Thomas F. Rosenbaum, the University’s vice president for Argonne, said, “I don’t want to be arrogant, but I’m confident we’ll receive the contract.” Asked Monday about the other firms’ interest in the contract, Rosenbaum said, “Argonne is an extremely well run lab that does great science, so we’re not surprised at all that there’s considerable interest in running Argonne National Lab.” Battelle, a not-for-profit firm that manages five national labs, began its oversight of Argonne National Lab West in February—replacing the University as steward of the nuclear research lab in Idaho. “When these labs are up for bid, it’s something we almost always take a look at and see if it’s a fit for us,” said Battelle spokesman Mark S. Berry. “We’ll have to wait for the official request for proposal to see if it really is a fit for us.” Battelle’s acquisition of Argonne West will probably not affect the Ohio-based group’s level of interest in Argonne East, Berry said. “I don’t know if there would be any connection,” he said. Smaller firms interested in Argonne want specific subcontracts. Chicago-based Globetrotters Engineering, for example, is interested in facility management and maintenance opportunities, Vice President Michael J. Paulius said. Argonne has been managed by the University of Chicago since its creation in 1946. Widespread mismanagement of the Los Alamos National Laboratory by the University of California system led to a January 2004 decision to put Argonne and four other university-run labs up for competitive bidding. DOE will issue a preliminary request for proposals (RFP) by the end of this year. But the agency intends to meet with interested firms and negotiate a final RFP to make Argonne as attractive as possible to research firms, Pitchford said. The RFP could differ from the terms of the current management of Argonne, signaling a change in expectations from a management group. One possible change is an increase in the management fee, which could make the lab more attractive to potential Argonne managers. The University currently receives about $3 million annually. Another area of change could be security. In three cases in 2004, nuclear material was labeled incorrectly, leading the DOE to reprimand Argonne, said Adam B. Cohen, Argonne’s chief operating officer. In one case, uranium sent to Nevada was not removed from Argonne’s log, Cohen said. Another time, documents showed that nuclear material being transferred within Argonne changed weight during transit. “Those were bad things, and they should never have happened, but the material’s security was never the issue,” Cohen said. Because of shortcomings in “Materials Control and Accountability”—the category that includes security of sensitive materials—DOE downgraded Argonne’s “Integrated Safeguards and Security” rating from “outstanding” in 2003 to “good” in 2004. But in other areas of the 2004 report, the University received a stellar review, earning 99.5 percent of performance-tied funding. According to Cohen, who said he would be out of a job if the University lost management of Argonne, DOE focused on these three incidents in its report. “They hit us pretty hard because this is a really serious area, and there’s very little margin for error,” he said. E-mail this articleSend letter to editorPermanent URL: http://maroon.uchicago.edu//articles/2005/10/28/nineteen_firms_co mpe.php More articles by Isaac Wolf Copyright © 1995-2005 Chicago Maroon ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************