*****************************************************************
01/02/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.304
*****************************************************************
   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 IRNA: Russia nuclear agency's new head due in Iran in February
2 Rediff: US to stike Iran N-facilities - Report
3 AFP: Iran insists on right to enrich uranium at home
4 IRNA: MP: Iran starts its nuclear research in coming days
5 Xinhua: DPRK to settle nuclear issue through dialogue   
6 IRNA: MP: Nuclear research project is 2nd step in peaceful nuclear p
7 AFP: Russian nuclear proposal has 'serious problems' - Iran
8 AFP: Iran develops uranium separation technology 
9 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Political direction of N.K.   
10 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North adds plutonium to stocks, expert says
11 Korea Times: Seoul's Charm Offensive on NK to Intensify 
12 Sunday Times: North Korea gathers kit for nuclear bombs - 
13 US: Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 1
14 US: Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 2
15 US: Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 3
16 US: Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 4: GOD TOLD ME TO STRIKE,
17 US: Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 5: A Marriage Made in Heaven
18 US: Op Ed News: What Fate Awaits NSA Spying Whistleblower
19 US: Physics Today:  Discussing (or Not) Our Nuclear Future - 
20 RIA Novosti: Russia takes on G8 presidency
21 BBC: Former Russian minister charged
22 BBC: Russia takes over G8 leadership
23 BBC: Energy and the new world power play
24 WorldNetDaily: Islamic back-scratching
25 Japan Times: Testing times for Japan, China
26 AFP: India and Pakistan swap list of nuclear facilities 
27 Guardian Unlimited: French accused of Pacific nuclear cover-up
28 London Times: Blair is fading away to a dubious place in history - 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
29 FT.com: Brussels briefing - Dispute likely to boost arguments for nu
30 Independent:  Cost of cleaning up after nuclear power stations are c
31 US: APP.ccom: Wind power offers cost-effective choice 
32 US: APP.COM: NRC dismisses state's concerns 
33 US: toledoblade.com: Grand jury decision on Besse may come soon
34 Xagena: Chernobyl legacy sheds light on link between thyroid cancer 
35 Irish Examiner: Nuclear energy is our only option
36 US: Dallas Morning News: Europe warms up to nuclear power developmen
37 CTK: Activists block Czech-Austrian border crossing over Temelin 
38 Webindia123.com: Underwater turbines can harness equivalent energy o
39 Guardian Unlimited: Russian gas row reignites nuclear debate
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
40 US: toledoblade.com: Area cities seek safeguard from nuclear threats
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
41 [NYTr] Are "Baghdad Boils" a Symptoms of DU Poisoning?
42 [ImpeachBushNOW] cancer? from DU?
43 [du-list] Uranium suspected in Iraq merc's death
44 US: [du-list] How THEY downplayed the DU issue
45 TODAYonline: Gulf War syndrome persists in US troops after 10 years 
46 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Metal Most Rare 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
47 US: JS Online: Funds for nuclear reprocessing set off debate 
48 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Did all that really happen?
49 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: The mounting toll of tax cuts 
50 US: Salt Lake Tribune: 2005 wrap-up: Debates raged over taxes, nucle
51 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Delegation came together in Congress 
52 US: Boston Globe: Uranium cleanup moves ahead - 
53 KRNV: BLM sets aside corridor for study of Yucca Mountain rail route
54 US: KOLD-TV: Navajos act to stop potential uranium rush
55 asahi.com: Commercialization far away for Monju fast-breeder reactor
56 asahi.com: Residents even more concerned about safety
57 asahi.com: Clarify energy goals before starting up Monju again
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
58 Tennessean: Oak Ridge helps Russia protect nuclear materials - 
59 Jackson Hole Wyoming News: Group: Reports show reactor safety lapses
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IRNA: Russia nuclear agency's new head due in Iran in February

Moscow, Dec 31, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-Russia-Nuclear 

The new head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Sergei
Kirienko, will visit Iran in February to hold talks with Iran's
nuclear officials.

 Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for the agency, said here Saturday
Kirienko will visit Iran's Bushehr power plant, which is
currently in the final phase of construction by Russian
specialists.

 He added that during the agency head's visit, the two sides
will establish a final timetable for assembly operation and
discuss preparations for the Bushehr nuclear reactor.

 The source said Russia hopes the first phase of the Bushehr
power plant in southern Iran can be inaugurated by 2006.

 The new head of the Russian nuclear agency had announced that
timely completion of the power plant was among the priorities of
bilateral relations with Iran.

 Kirienko, who is also the Russian head of the Iran-Russia Joint
Economic and Technical Commission, has also expressed his
country's readiness to hold the commission's next session in
Tehran.

*****************************************************************
 2 Rediff: US to stike Iran N-facilities - Report
 
 PTI

January 01, 2006 19:36 IST

The United States is mulling a strike on Iran's nuclear
facilities in 2006 and has informed North Atalantic Treaty
Organisation member states to make similar preparations, a
report claimed Sunday.

Military action against Tehran to foil its nuclear ambitions is
one among several options being considered by NATO members,
military intelligence officials familiar with the Iran file told
German daily Der Spiegel.
  + The Iran vote and after

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Oman are also being updated
with the plan, with American officials saying a military
operation is "a possible option", without giving a timetable,
Ynetnews reported citing the report.

Der Spiegel reported that Central Intelligence Agency head
Porter Goss asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
during his latest visit that Ankara allow the US to use its
military bases in the country for an air strike on Iran planned
for 2006.

"What's new about these reports is that the United States seems
to be sending top envoys to ally countries in preparation for an
attack. It is no longer a matter of hints we heard over 2005,"
the German daily was quoted as saying.

The daily also quoted a New York Times report last year saying
that US commando units have already infiltrated Iran to mark
nuclear facilities for a possible strike. 
7333: The Latest News on Your Mobile!

  © Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or
 Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 3 AFP: Iran insists on right to enrich uranium at home
 
02/01/2006 12h27

 The uranium conversion facility near the Iranian city of Isfahan

©AFP/ISNA/File - Amir Kholoosi 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran will only consider a compromise offer from
Russia on its nuclear programme if the deal acknowledges its
right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil, the government
spokesman said. 

"As we said before we want to have enrichment inside Iran... and
any proposal which is based on this principle will be studied,"
government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters on
Monday. 

"We are studying the Russian proposal based on this framework,"
he said. "The government will never give up its principles." 

Moscow has suggested allowing Iran to conduct uranium enrichment
in Russia, giving the country access to the nuclear fuel cycle
while guaranteeing its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. 

The Russian proposal seeks to overcome the key sticking point in
talks between Iran and the European Union over the programme,
which the United States alleges is a cover for nuclear weapons
development. 

Elham's comments came after top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani
criticised the Russian proposal for having "serious problems." 

"It is an idea, not a structured proposal, we don't see it as
mature and it has serious problems," Larijani, the secretary of
the country's Supreme National Security Council, said on state
television. 

Iran has denied it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb and says
it is seeking only to produce electricity. 

However, Larijani did not completely reject the Russian
proposal. 

"The (Russian) plan could be complementary and supporting, there
are technological benefits, we have to examine them. It is not
rigid and there is room for maneuver," he said. 

Last week another top national security official offered
Tehran's warmest reaction to the offer by vowing that his
country would study it carefully. 

"The new Russian proposal can be studied so that its economic,
technical and scientific aspects will be clear," Supreme
National Security Council member Javad Vaidi told the ISNA
agency on December 28. 

He said that the Russian proposal was based on the establishment
of a "joint Iran-Russia company on Russian soil" for the
enrichment of uranium, a key component of the nuclear fuel
cycle. 

"It is natural that the share of the participation of the
Iranian side in this project will be a serious element," he
emphasised. 

However Vaidi also gave no indication of whether Iran was ready
to drop its long-standing demand to enrich uranium on its own
territory. 

Russia enjoys close ties with Iran and is helping build the
Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran. 
	 	 
  + Арабский 	 	Copyright Disclaimer ©AFP 2006 	
*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: MP: Iran starts its nuclear research in coming days

Tehran, Jan 2, IRNA                                                                                                              

Iran-Majlis-Nuclear 

Head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission 
Alaeddin Boroujerdi said the suspended research works on Iran's 
nuclear activity will be activated again in the next few days.

 Attending a meeting here on Monday, Boroujerdi said, " 
Completion of nuclear fuel process upon international regulations 
is a part of our policies and we are determined to make Natanz 
project active after the Isfahan one".

 He stressed the west has accepted that the job be done in 
Russia, while we have accepted the participation principle, not 
the whole thing can be done in Russia.

 The MP said, "It must be negotiated with Russia so that the job 
can be done in Iran's territory".



*****************************************************************
 5 Xinhua: DPRK to settle nuclear issue through dialogue   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-31 12:40:47   

    PYONGYANG, Dec. 31 (Xinhuanet) -- The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) reiterated on Saturday that it will
continue to seek a solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean
Peninsula through dialogue and negotiation and warned the United
States not to take this as "weakness." 

    "The key reason why the six-party talks have not made
substantial progress is that the United States remains unchanged
in its hostile policy toward the DPRK, blocking the settlement
of the nuclear issue," the country's leading newspaper Rodong
Sinmun said in a commentary. 

    The article stressed that the DPRK would make positive
efforts for the denuclearization and stabilization of the Korean
Peninsula. 

    "But if the United States persists in its hostile policy to
theDPRK, the nuclear issue will never be settled, and the
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula can't be realized
either," the article said. 

    In 2005, China, the United States, the DPRK, South Korea,
Russia and Japan held the fourth and fifth rounds of the
six-party talks successively in Beijing. 

    A landmark joint statement was issued in the second phase of
the fourth round of the talks, which was seen as "an important
staged success," changing all the commitments into letters for
thefirst time since the talks began in 2003. 

    The DPRK however refused to attend the second phase of the
fifth round of the talks on Dec. 6 under the financial sanctions
imposed by the United States. It urged the United States to take
practical measures to lift the sanctions at an early date if it
truly wants the resumption and progress of the six-party talks.

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 IRNA: MP: Nuclear research project is 2nd step in peaceful nuclear project - 

Tehran, Jan 2, IRNA                                                                                                              

Iran-Nuclear-Haji-Babaie 

An Iranian lawmaker said here on Monday that the nuclear
research project should be a second step in the peaceful nuclear
activities.

 Member of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy
Commission Hamid-Reza Haji-Babaie said the first step in the
peaceful nuclear activities was resumption of the UCF activities
in Isfahan, and the next step should mark a new phase in that
connection.

 "In whatever stage we are, Europe will talk to us in the same
step.

 "Whether they like it or not, we will continue our nuclear
activities and the conclusion of the measure will be
establishment of a new form of collaboration.

 "Regarding the first step we have taken in connection with UCF
today, there are no longer any talks on the issue and they only
say don't start the Natanz project," the parliamentarian added.

 The Iranian government should start peaceful nuclear activities
in Natanz too, said Haji-Babaie, adding, "in case of following
the path of wisdom, the US and the parties, being against us,
cannot do a damn thing also."
 No room has been left today for the US to confront Iran's
peaceful nuclear activities, said the lawmaker, adding that
Tehran is now in a favorable position and the US cannot find any
reason to drag the case into the UN Security Council.

 The US has done whatever it wished to do against Iran so far,
he concluded.

*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: Russian nuclear proposal has 'serious problems' - Iran

 Sun Jan 1, 5:17 PM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - A senior Iranian official dismissed a proposal
for Iran" /> to enrich uranium on Russian soil as problematic
and expressed disappointment in Europe's latest negotiations
over the Islamic republic's controversial nuclear program. 

over the program, which the United States believes is a cover
for nuclear weapons ambitions. 

Moscow has suggested allowing Iran to conduct uranium enrichment
in Russia, giving the country access to the nuclear fuel cycle
while guaranteeing its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. 

Larijani also expressed disappointment with recent talks with
Britain, France and Germany, the parties leading the European
negotiations. 

"I had hoped the recent negotiations in Vienna to make more
progress. I don't have a negative view, but we hope future steps
be taken more seriously and carefully," he said. 

Larijani warned the West, which has threatened to push for the
United Nations" /> Security Council to impose sanctions, about
taking strong action. 

"If they act harshly, our behaviour will change. We have
prepared scenarios and they cannot checkmate us easily," he
said. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 8 AFP: Iran develops uranium separation technology 

 Sun Jan 1, 8:58 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranhas developed technology to separate
uranium from its ore, reinforcing the Islamic republic's
self-sufficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle. 

 The technology, known as a mixer-settler, is used to separate
the uranium from the mined ore to produce concentrated uranium
oxide -- also known as yellowcake -- which can then be converted
and enriched in nuclear fuel work. 

"The mixer-settler can be used effectively in the fuel cycle for
producing zirconium and uranium," one of the engineers, who
helped develop the machinery, said on state television Sunday. 

"It minimizes the use of solvent and has a recycling mechanism,"
he said, adding the country could not afford to buy the
machinery before. Zirconium is a metal used for coating tubes in
nuclear plants to prevent corrosion. 

In a mixer settler, two liquids of different density are mixed,
allowing certain chemical compounds pass from one liquid phase
into the other. The two liquids then settle due to natural
gravity. 

The United States accuses Iran of trying to master the civil
nuclear fuel cycle as a cover for a military programme to obtain
atomic weapons -- a charge vehemently denied by Tehran. 

Iran announced in 2003 its intention to start extraction of
uranium from a mine at Saghand, in the province of Yazd, which
has an estimated 1.5 million tons of uranium ore. 

Once refined, the yellowcake is usually sent to conversion
facility for conversion into uranium hexafluoride gas and
subsequently for enrichment before making it to a nuclear
reactor. 

In August, Iran ended its freeze on the conversion of yellowcake
to uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) at a facility near the central
city of Isfahan. So far it has agreed to maintain a freeze of
enrichment at a plant in Natanz. 

Iran's right to enrichment has proved a major stumbling block in
talks with the European Union" /> European Unionon its nuclear
programme, as in highly enriched form uranium can be used in the
core of an atomic bomb. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 9 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] Political direction of N.K.   
        
2006.01.03

It is not always easy to extract the core message from a mass of
political rhetoric in a document like the "joint editorial" that
appeared in official North Korean newspapers on New Year's Day.
And sometimes, determining what was not mentioned is more
important than examining what was laboriously illustrated. 

So we may find it significant that this year's joint editorial
published in the official organs of the party, military and the
youth corps contained the usual criticism of the United States
for obstructing the reunification of Korea but said nothing
about the North's nuclear development program, the key issue in
relations with Washington. The closest the editorials came to
the subject was the call for a "consistent emphasis on military
projects" which the editorial said was of the first priority in
establishing a "powerful, great country."

 At a time when the six-party talks remain stalled with the
United States taking a tough stand on the North's suspected
counterfeiting of American banknotes and trading in drugs and
technologies of weapons of mass destruction, the absence of a
direct denunciation of Washington on this matter could indicate
its interest in the progress of the multilateral channel. The
language of the document, which has served as a sort of national
policy guideline from the supreme leader since 1995, the year
after the death of Kim Il-sung, was rather mild, considering the
renewed tension with the United States.

 Besides the usual exhortation of the people to maintain their
dedication to the "military-first policy" and "socialism in our
own style," the joint editorial pointed to agriculture as the
"main frontline" for economic advancement. It specifically
emphasized programs for developing high-yield species,
revolutionary improvement of potato and soy farming and
expansion of the annual two-crop farming to broader areas. 

North Korea had a bumper crop last year after years of
disastrous harvests caused by recurring natural disasters and
technological backwardness. Though it still needs external aid
to feed its people, Pyongyang ordered the departure of
humanitarian aid groups from the country. Now some sign of
confidence was detected on developing power, metal, mining and
rail transportation industries and the editorial expressed
satisfaction in the performance of the cabinet in carrying out
economic policies.

 As is customary, the document devoted a large section to a
review of the "reunification movement" across the peninsula
which it said made remarkable progress with the staging of
grand-scale unification festivals in the North and South with
the involvement of government authorities last year. However,
behind the claims, the North Korean leadership exposed doubt
about the ideological firmness of the young people in the
monolithic communist society. The document stressed the need to
arm the "third and fourth revolutionary generations" with strong
political ideology so the infiltration of enemy thoughts and
culture will be effectively deterred.

*****************************************************************
 10 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North adds plutonium to stocks, expert says

January 3, 2006 KST 13:44 (GMT+9)

  January 03, 2006 ¤С An American nuclear scientist, Siegfried
Heckler, said in an interview with London's Sunday Times that
Pyongyang had added about 14 kilograms (30 pounds) of plutonium
to its stocks last summer. 

He said the new processing of spent nuclear fuel had brought the
North's total to about 43 kilograms, enough for eight nuclear
weapons. 

He based his estimate on his gleanings during two trips to North
Korea, the most recent last October.

 Mr. Heckler said his biggest concern was that Pyongyang would
sell the material or weapons to terrorists.   
	  
IHT-JAD (±ёµ¶јц±в)          



Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 11 Korea Times: Seoul's Charm Offensive on NK to Intensify 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times   
      
By Seo Dong-shin Staff Reporter

 For some South Korean policymakers, North KoreaЎЇs nuclear
weapons programs are not the only thing to be dismantled on the
Korean Peninsula. In their view, to move toward peace and
prosperity, one more thing needs to be dismantled as urgently
but cautiously as the possible nukes: the remains of the Cold
War structure.

 However vague it may sound, the idea of dismantling the Cold
War structure boils down to this: the establishment of a
permanent peace regime of the two Koreas. Seoul officials have
touted the issue as one of the top priorities to be tackled this
year.

 Chung Dong-young, who served as Unification Minister and the
chair of the presidential National Security Council until last
month, saw discussions on the peace regime as one of the three
main tasks for this year, along with promoting a Korean economic
community and resolving humanitarian issues.

 ``A peace regime is a broader concept for bringing about peace
and stability on the Korean Peninsula beyond the settlement of
the nuclear issue,ЎЇЎЇ Chung said in a speech last week. ``If
established, (it) will lay the legal and institutional
foundation for peaceful coexistence and economic communityЎЇЎЇ
between the two Koreas, he said.

 The road to the peace regime, however, would involve as many
thorny issues as reunification itself, as it is bound to be
affected not only by inter-Korean relations but also by hegemony
in Northeast Asia as well as the traditional alliance between
South Korea and the United States, experts say. 

``Expediting the process of building an inter-Korean peace
regime will also entail formidable tasks such as dismantling the
armistice regime as well as realigning the American command
structure in the South,ЎЇЎЇ Moon Chung-in, professor of
political science at Yonsei University, said.

 To establish a permanent peace regime, one essential move is
replacing the armistice signed at the end of the 1950-1953
Korean War with a peace treaty, which would terminate the
ceasefire status, or a technical state of war, on the peninsula.

 Among other factors that have hindered the progress on the
issue, however, there is a fundamental difference of opinion
between the two Koreas. 

Unlike Seoul, Pyongyang has insisted that the possible peace
treaty be signed between itself and the United States, not South
Korea, citing the nationalities of those who signed the
armistice in 1953 _ a U.S. commander who led the United Nations
forces and his North Korean and Chinese counterparts.

 The process of signing a peace treaty is also expected to
create nerve-racking issues challenging the half-century-old
alliance between South Korea and the United States. 

Questions could be further raised, for example, over the future
presence of the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) stationed in the South,
which has functioned as a deterrent against a possible invasion
from the North. 

Under its global defense posture review (GPR), the United States
is said to have been considering expanding the USFK role into
that of a regional force. But some critics in the South have
argued it could put the nation at odds with China, which is in
rivalry with the United States over Northeast Asia. 

South KoreaЎЇs bid to take the wartime command back from the
United States, which is scheduled to be further discussed
between Washington and Seoul from early this year, is another
issue to be influenced by the progress in establishing peace
regime, according to Seoul officials.

 Despite such daunting problems, Seoul put forward the peace
regime initiative on the multilateral table as well as at the
inter-Korean dialogues last year, and sowed some seeds. 

The Sept. 19 joint statement from the six-party talks on North
KoreaЎЇs nuclear programs, for example, includes an article that
says: ``The directly related parties will negotiate a permanent
peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate
forum.ЎЇЎЇ 

The South also sounded out the proposal with the North at the
inter-Korean ministerial talks. Kim Chun-sig, a director at the
Unification Ministry who acted as the spokesman for the
ministerial talks, said after the December talks last year that
the South ``stressed the issue of building the peace regime
needs active consultation in 2006 after progress is made at the
six-party talks.ЎЇЎЇ

 A top Seoul official summed up the necessity of establishing
the peace regime by saying that it is ``ridiculousЎЇЎЇ to talk
about globalization or the reunification of the Korean Peninsula
without cracking the remaining Cold War structure. He was
stressing the priority of stability for the South Korean economy.

 ``If the president had to choose between (working on)
reunification or peace,ЎЇЎЇ the official, who has virtually been
in charge of outlining SeoulЎЇs security-related issues under
President Roh Moo-hyun, said in a recent informal meeting with
reporters, on customary condition of anonymity, ``he would go
for the latter.ЎЇЎЇ 

saltwall@koreatimes.co.kr 01-01-2006 17:23         

Chung Dong-young
   
*****************************************************************
 12 Sunday Times: North Korea gathers kit for nuclear bombs - 

“They have the plutonium,” he said. “We have to assume the North
Koreans can and have made a few nuclear devices.” 

Hecker’s revelations were based on information gleaned during
two visits to North Korea, the last in August 2005, in which he
met physicists and, in a pure moment from spy fiction, was
handed a specimen of weapons-grade plutonium, stored in a
marmalade jar. 

His findings are being studied with increasing concern in
Washington. North Korea further hardened its defiant stance this
weekend by ending all United Nations food distribution to its
people and by ordering out aid workers, including a British team
from the charity Save the Children. 

Thousands will be put at risk by the decision. The UN’s World
Food Programme had been feeding up to 6.4m of North Korea’s 23m
people since the famine of the 1990s. 

Diplomats believe the expulsions are part of a clampdown ordered
by Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s “Dear Leader”, as he prepares to
stand alongside Iran to confront the Americans over their right
to have nuclear weapons. 

Hecker, who was at Los Alamos from 1973-97, gave his warning at
a recent conference in Washington as one of the most
authoritative observers of North Korea’s programme. 

On his first visit to North Korea in 2004, Hecker was taken to
the Yongbyon nuclear research centre to meet its director. His
hosts brought a small steel container into the conference,
containing a wooden box. 

“They slid open the box and inside were two glass jars — two
marmalade jars, actually — with screw-on tops,” he said. One
contained powder, the other a thin scrap of metal — the “ stuff
you would use for the bombs”. 

“I held the plutonium and it passed the test,” he added. When he
told the director it was not very warm, the latter replied:
“Well Dr Hecker, that’s because the plutonium 240 content is
low, which means that it’s good bomb-grade plutonium.” 

On his second visit, Hecker met the director in Pyongyang, the
capital, to learn that while the North Koreans had been
negotiating in China, they had also been making up to 14kg of
plutonium, taking their total stock to an estimated 43kg, enough
for about eight bombs. 

Hecker said his main fear is that North Korea’s impoverished
regime might sell material to terrorists. “Forty kilograms of
plutonium, some number of briefcases anywhere in basements, in
one of the 15,000 tunnels in North Korea — nobody will find it,”
he said.   	 		

Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. 

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 13 Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 1
 
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:37:08 -0600 (CST)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

Rachel's Democracy & Health News
http://www.rachel.org

Newletter #792

Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 1, May 27, 2004

For some time now, I have been searching for answers to a deeply perplexing
question: Why is the United States promoting the spread of atomic bombs
worldwide?

By "atomic bombs" I mean the kind that turned Hiroshima and Nagasaki into a
fiery hell in 1945 -- A-bombs made from plutonium (Nagasaki) or "enriched"
uranium (Hiroshima).

In this series, I will briefly examine the facts, then consider some of the
possible reasons why the U.S. might favor the proliferation of atomic
weapons worldwide.

In at least four different ways, the U.S. is refusing to limit -- and in
some cases is actively promoting -- the spread of atomic bombs around the
globe.[1]

(1) The U.S. is helping foreign nations acquire nuclear power plants, which
everyone acknowledges have provided the basis for A-bomb programs in India,
Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea and, during the 1980s, in Iraq.[2] In
the hands of a willing nation, nuclear power equals nuclear weapons.

(2) The U.S. is dragging its feet in achieving its stated goal of preventing
theft of nuclear weapons within the former Soviet Union.[1]

(3) The U.S. is failing to retrieve 35,000 pounds of weapons-grade uranium
that the U.S. loaned or gave to 43 countries during the past 50 years. A
crude but effective A-bomb requires 110 pounds (50 kg) of enriched
uranium.[3]

(4) President Bush has ordered a fundamental shift in U.S. nuclear weapons
policies, initiating what the New York Times calls "the second nuclear age."

These new policies entail (a) creation of a new class of smaller nuclear
weapons, (b) guiding small A-bombs to their targets from outer space, (c)
reducing the time it takes to launch a nuclear strike, and (d) a new policy
of pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear states.

"It is precisely these kinds of provocative new weapons capabilities -- at a
time when the administration seeks to prevent proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction elsewhere -- that worries even hawkish Republicans," says
James Sterngold of the San Francisco Chronicle.[4]

Let's examine each of these four developments in more detail:

I. Nuclear power = nuclear weapons

The U.S. is urging -- and subsidizing -- foreign nations to build new
nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while acknowledging that every
nuclear power plant certainly provides the stepping stones to A-bombs.

For example, when Vice-President Dick Cheney visited China in April, 2004,
he was promoting the sale of Westinghouse nuclear power plants to the
Chinese.[5] Current U.S. policy restricts the export of nuclear technology
to China but the Bush administration is expected to lift those restrictions
in September. The immediate beneficiaries will be Westinghouse and General
Electric.[6] China has already announced plans to build 32 nuclear power
plants, and to export the technology to other countries. For example, China
has said it intends to help Pakistan build two large nuclear power plants
capable of producing plutonium.[5]

Within the U.S. itself, in recent months two corporate consortiums have
proposed building new nuclear power plants.[7] President Bush is an
enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power.

But nuclear power plants always carry an unspoken danger. For nations that
want to build A-bombs, nuclear power provides the basis for all that's
needed in the way of technology, opportunity and know-how.

No one disputes this view -- the "nuclear club" has been able to expand only
because the spread of nuclear power plants has been encouraged and
subsidized. Why does the U.S. continue down this path?

As the New York Times wrote recently, "'If you look at every nation that's
recently gone nuclear,' said Mr. [Paul] Leventhal of the Nuclear Control
Institute, 'they've done it through the civilian nuclear fuel cycle: Iraq,
North Korea, India, Pakistan, South Africa. And now we're worried about
Iran.' The moral, he added, is that atoms for peace can be 'a shortcut to
atoms for war.'"[8]

The Times goes on, "Today, with what seems like relative ease, scientists
can divert an ostensibly peaceful program to make not only electricity but
also highly pure uranium or plutonium, both excellent bomb fuels."[8]

And: "Experts now talk frankly about a subject that was once taboo:
'virtual' weapon states - Japan, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Brazil,
Kazakhstan, Taiwan and a dozen other countries that have mastered the basics
of nuclear power and could, if they wanted, quickly cross the line to make
nuclear arms, probably in a matter or months."[8] Experts call crossing that
line "breakout."

Other nations thought to have the know-how (though not necessarily the
inclination) to cross the breakout line include Egypt, Syria, Nigeria, and
South Korea.

The U.S. is on record as vigorously opposing the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. However, U.S. actions to prevent proliferation are half-hearted and
contradictory at best.[1,9] For example, when U.S. allies break all the
rules and export A-bomb technology, the U.S. looks the other way. Earlier
this year, the world was rocked by news that Pakistan's chief nuclear
engineer, Abdul Qadeer Khan, had sold a "complete package" of A-bomb
technology to Libya, to North Korea, and probably to Iran. The "complete
package" included enriched uranium, centrifuges for making more enriched
uranium, and one or more designs for A-bombs.[10] Dr. Khan even maintained a
telephone support hotline for his A-bomb customers. It was a good
business -- Dr. Khan reportedly received more than $100 million from Libya
alone.[11]

When Dr. Khan's international smuggling network was discovered, the
President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, forced Dr. Khan to retire
as head of Khan Research Laboratories, then turned around and gave him an
official pardon, lavished him with praise and gave him the title "special
adviser" to the president.[10] According to the New York Times, "...some
former and current American officials say there was considerable evidence
that General Musharraf was turning a blind eye to Dr. Khan's activities,
which they say may have involved parts of the Pakistani military."[12]

The Bush administration did nothing. "Although Mr. Bush has vowed to pursue
and prosecute those who spread nuclear weapons technology, the
administration did not criticize Mr. Musharraf when he decided to pardon Mr.
Khan, who ran what now appears to be one of the largest nuclear
proliferation networks in the past half-century."[10]

Did Dr. Khan provide bomb-grade uranium and nuclear know-how to Al Qaeda?
"It's mystifying that the administration hasn't leaned on Pakistan to make
Dr. Khan available for interrogation to ensure that his network is entirely
closed," writes New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof. "Several
experts on Pakistan told me they believe that the [U.S.] administration has
been so restrained because its top priority isn't combating nuclear
proliferation -- it's getting President Pervez Musharraf's help in arresting
Osama bin Laden before the November election," Kristof writes.[13]

Pakistan was not the only U.S. ally involved in selling A-bombs to Libya,
North Korea and Iran. Dubai in the United Arab Emirates served as the "key
transfer point" for all the technology Dr. Khan was selling. Just as the
Cayman Islands are known for laundering drug money, Dubai is known for
laundering black-market products like A-bomb parts.[14]

When President Bush learned of Dubai's role in Pakistan's atomic shopping
mall, he again did nothing. As the scandal was breaking in March, 2004, the
Times reported that Lockheed Martin was proceeding with the sale of 80 F-16
fighters to Dubai -- apparently a reward to a trusted and valued ally.[14]

Even when wealthy, technically-savvy governments play strictly by the rules,
the civilian nuclear fuel cycle has proven impossible to control. For
example, the Japanese acknowledged earlier this year that they have lost 435
pounds of plutonium -- enough to make about 25 nuclear bombs as big as the
one that wiped out Nagasaki in 1945. They know they produced it but they
have no idea where it went.[15]

So long as the U.S. continues to promote nuclear power for itself and its
allies, the fiery hell on earth draws ever closer and more vivid.

I used to think this problem of "nuclear weapons proliferation" was the
"Achilles heel" of nuclear power -- the uncontrollable problem that would
finally convince the world to stuff the nuclear power genie back into the
bottle and never let it out again.

I am now wondering whether I had it exactly backwards: perhaps nuclear
weaponry is the main appeal of nuclear power -- both to those who are buying
it AND to those who are selling it. (More on this in Part 3.)

II. Turning a Blind Eye to Loose Soviet A-Bombs

The U.S. has continually failed to secure nuclear weapons left over from the
cold war in countries of the former Soviet Union. As the New York Times
reported in March 2004, "The bipartisan [U.S.] program to secure weapons of
mass destruction is starved for funds -- but Mr. Bush is proposing a $41
million cut in 'cooperative threat reduction' with Russia."[13]

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if nuclear weapons are used over the next 15
or 20 years," Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information,
told the New York Times recently, "first and foremost by a terrorist group
that gets its hands on a Russian nuclear weapon or a Pakistani nuclear
weapon."[13]

There are an estimated 15,000 nuclear weapons in the countries of the former
Soviet Union -- 7,000 of them strategic weapons plus an estimated 8,000
tactical weapons.[3] Strategic weapons are the big ones capable of
incinerating whole cities. They are covered by disarmament treaties and so
have been pretty well inventoried. They are also physically large and
protected with several layers of elaborate codes and anti-detonation
devices. It would be extremely difficult to steal one and set it off.

But tactical nuclear weapons are a different story. "The most troublesome
gap in the generally reassuring assessment of Russian weapons security is
those tactical nuclear warheads --smaller, short-range weapons like
torpedoes, depth charges, artillery shells, mines. Although their smaller
size and greater number makes them ideal candidates for theft, they have
gotten far less attention simply because, unlike all of our long-range
weapons, they happen not to be the subject of any formal treaty," says the
New York Times.[3]

The commonly-used estimate of 8,000 tactical nukes is "an educated guess,"
says the Times. Other estimates range from a low of 4,000 to a high of
32,000 tactical A-bombs. Even the Russians don't seem to have a reliable
inventory.[3]

"The other worrying thing about tactical nukes is that their anti-use
devices are believed to be less sophisticated, because the weapons were
designed to be employed in the battlefield. Some of the older systems are
thought to have no permissive action links at all, so that setting one off
would be about as complicated as hot-wiring a car," says the Times.[3]

But stealing a nuclear weapon may not be the easiest way for a terrorist
group to join the nuclear club.

Bill Keller, who wrote the eye-opening article, "Nuclear Nightmares" for the
New York Times magazine two years ago, says, "The closest thing I heard to
consensus among those who study nuclear terror was this: building a nuclear
bomb is easier than you think, probably easier than stealing one."[3]

III. Sluggish Response to Weapons-Grade Uranium

So the third way that the U.S. is promoting the spread of atomic bombs is by
failing to retrieve the weapons-grade enriched uranium that the U.S. sent
abroad during the past 50 years.

Here is the opening paragraph from a New York Times story March, 7, 2004:
"As the United States presses Iran and other countries to shut down their
nuclear weapons development programs, government auditors have disclosed
that the United States is making little effort to recover large quantities
of weapons-grade uranium -- enough to make roughly 1,000 nuclear bombs --
that the government dispersed to 43 countries over the last several
decades," including Iran and Pakistan.[16]

Why would President Bush fiddle around in the face of a threat as serious
and obvious as this one? --Peter Montague [To be continued.]

======

[1] This newsletter was written before the New York Times editorialized as
follows on May 28, 2004:

"While the Bush administration has been distracted by the invasion and
occupation of Iraq, it has neglected the far more urgent threat to American
security from dangerous nuclear materials that must be safeguarded before
they can fall into the hands of terrorists. That is the inescapable
conclusion to be drawn from a new report that documents the slow pace of
protecting potential nuclear bomb material at loosely guarded sites around
the world.

"The report -- prepared by researchers at the Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard -- does not directly blame the invasion of Iraq for undermining
that effort. It simply notes that less nuclear material was secured in the
two years immediately after the 9/11 attacks than in the two years
before....

"The most plausible explanation is that the administration has focused so
intensely on Iraq, which posed no nuclear threat, that it had little energy
left for the real dangers. Indeed, the Harvard researchers said that if a
tenth of the effort and resources devoted to Iraq in the last year was
devoted to securing nuclear material wherever it might be, the job could be
accomplished quickly."

[2] In early June, 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear power plant under
construction in Iraq, asserting that Iraq intended it for making A-bombs.
See Steven R. Weisman, "Reagan Asserts Israel Had Cause To Mistrust Iraq:
Senate Panel Not Convinced," New York Times June 17, 1981. pg. A1.

[3] Bill Keller, "Nuclear Nightmares," New York Times May 26, 2002.

[4] James Sterngold, "A new era of nuclear weapons: Bush's buildup begins
with little debate in Congress," San Francisco Chronicle Dec. 7, 2003.

[5] H. Josef Hebert, "Cheney to shop Westinghouse nuke technology to China,"
Salt Lake City (Utah) Tribune April 10, 2004.

[6] Reuters, "Asian countries in race for nuclear power," Economic Times [of
India] April 11, 2004.

[7] "A 2nd Consortium Wants a Reactor," New York Times April 1, 2004.

[8] William J. Broad, "Nuclear Weapons in Iran: Plowshare or Sword," New
York Times (Science Section) May 25, 2004.

[9] "Editorial: Half a Proliferation Program," New York Times Feb. 16, 2004.

[10] David E. Sanger, "U.S. Widens Its View of Pakistan Link to Korean
Arms," New York Times Mar. 14, 2004.

[11] David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, "Pakistani's Nuclear Earnings:
$100 Million," New York Times Mar. 16, 2004.

[12] David Rohde and Talat Hussain, "Delicate Dance for Musharraf In Nuclear
case," New York Times Feb. 8, 2004.

[13] Nicholas D. Kristof, "A Nuclear 9/11," New York Times Mar. 10, 2004.

[14] Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz, "OpEd: Nukes 'R' Us," New York Times
Mar. 4, 2004.

[15] Bayan Rahman, "Japan Loses 206 kg of Plutonium," New York Times Jan.
28, 2003.

[16] Joel Brinkley and William J. Broad, "U.S. Lags in Recovering Fuel
Suitable for Nuclear Arms," New York Times Mar. 7, 2004.

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is a publication of the Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160; Phone:
(732) 828- 9995; Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org. Back issues
available by E-mail; to get instructions, send E-mail to INFO@rachel.org
with the single word HELP in the message. Subscriptions are free. To start
your own free subscription to Rachel's, send a blank Email to:
join-rachel@gselist.org NOTICE: Environmental Research Foundation provides
this electronic version of RACHEL'S DEMOCRACY & HEALTH NEWS free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce
it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help
by making a tax-deductible contribution(anything you can afford, whether
$5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax- deductible contribution to:
Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ
08903-0160. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For
further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by
credit card please use the Donate Now button on the home page of our website
http://www.rachel.org. --Peter Montague, Editor

--------

http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=3

-------
*****************************************************************
 14 Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 2
 
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:38:07 -0600 (CST)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

Rachel's Democracy & Health News
http://www.rachel.org

Newletter #793 June 10, 2004

Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 2.

The U.S. is enabling the spread of atomic bombs worldwide in at least four
different ways (see Rachel's #792). But why? Do Mr. Bush's military advisors
or his core supporters in the Republican party imagine some benefit from
allowing A-bombs to slip into the hands of terrorists?
In this series, I am searching for answers.

By "atomic bombs" I do not mean "dirty bombs" -- a few sticks of dynamite
wrapped with a packet of radioactive medical waste. I mean the kind of
A-bomb that turned the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki into a lake
of fire in 1945.

There can be no question about it: In at least four ways the U.S. is failing
to stop -- in some cases is actually promoting -- the spread of A-bombs by:

(1) Helping foreign government acquire nuclear power plants --a sure
stepping stone to an A-bomb for any government inclined to take the step
(see Rachel's #792). All the newest members of the "nuclear club" -- such as
India, Pakistan and North Korea -- gained membership by acquiring nuclear
power plants, then developing A-bombs. Nuclear power = nuclear weapons, and
the U.S. is aggressively promoting the spread of nuclear power worldwide.

(2) The U.S. is dragging its feet in securing A-bombs that are lying around
in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Thousands of Soviet A-weapons
are still poorly secured. As the New York Times wrote two years ago, "No
observer of the unraveling Russian military has much trouble imagining that
a group of military officers, disenchanted by the humiliation of serving a
spent superpower, embittered by the wretched conditions in which they spend
much of their military lives or merely greedy, might find a way to divert a
warhead to a terrorist for the right price."[1]

Furthermore, the U.S.-Russian program to secure 68 tons of plutonium (enough
to make more than 10,000 A-bombs), begun in 1998, is "stalled" over a
trivial legal technicality. As the Washington Post reported last month, some
analysts and politicans -- including Republican Senator Pete Domenici (a
staunch proponent of nuclear power and weapons) -- "are doubting the Bush
administration's commitment" to securing the plutonium.[2]

(3) The U.S. is failing to aggressively retrieve 35,000 pounds of
weapons-grade uranium that the U.S. and the Soviets gave or lent to 43
countries during the cold war -- enough to make more than 300 hefty A-bombs;
and

(4) Reversing long-standing policy, the U.S. is now building a new class of
smaller A-bombs, which are being advertised as "more usable" -- meanwhile
telling the rest of the world to renounce atomic weapons. "This
administration seems to believe that the United States can move the world in
one direction while we ourselves move in a different direction," says U.S.
Representative John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-S.C.), a senior member of the House
Armed Services Committee and an expert on U.S. nuclear policy. Mr. Spratt
says President Bush is "taking us back to somewhere where we were years ago
and were thankful to have moved beyond."[3]

Here we pick up the story with point 3:

Late last month U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced a $450
million effort to retrieve the 35,000 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from
43 countries.[4] It is expected to take 13 years, if all goes according to
plan. Mr. Abraham said his plan would ensure that nuclear materials "will
not fall into the hands of those with evil intentions."[5] This sounds
reassuring until you learn that Pentagon auditors concluded two months
earlier, in March, that "large quantities of U.S.-produced highly-enriched
uranium were out of U.S. control."[6]

The New York Times reported in March, 2004, that "The Energy Department's
inspector general says that about half of the [35,000 pounds of enriched]
uranium is in the hands of government agencies, universities or private
companies in 12 countries that are "not expected to participate in the
program" to return it. Among those countries are Iran, Pakistan, Israel,
Mexico, Jamaica and South Africa.[6] Furthermore, according to the Wall
Street Journal, other countries with "research reactors" that could be used
to make weapons include Vietnam, Syria, Serbia, Pakistan and North Korea.[7]

Commenting on Secretary Abraham's announcement, Graham Allison, a Harvard
professor and author of the forthcoming book, Nuclear Terrorism [ISBN
0805076514], told the New York Times that the plan would be "important if
the words are matched by deeds." However, he said, the scale and speed of
the effort are still woefully inadequate. "There is still a serious
imbalance between the magnitude of the nuclear threat he [Abraham] describes
and the remedies proposed," Allison said.[4] Mr. Allison subsequently signed
up to advise the John Kerry campaign, which has said the uranium cleanup job
should take 4 years, not 13. Administration officials scoff at the Kerry
timetable as unrealistic.[8]

The fastest possible retrieval does seem warranted. As the New York Times
editorialized May 28, "Highly enriched uranium is scattered at some 130
research reactors in more than 40 countries, often guarded by little more
than a night watchman and a chain-link fence. Dozens of these sites have
enough material to make a bomb."[9]

But, inexplicably, U.S. retrieval efforts have actually slowed since 9/11.
The Times noted that "less nuclear material was secured in the two years
immediately after the 9/11 attacks than in the two years before."[9]

And: "Although the United States and Russia are cooperating on a program to
safeguard dangerous materials and have fixed some of the most glaring
vulnerabilities, only a fifth of the dangerous nuclear material not in
weapons has been protected by comprehensive security upgrades, an
appallingly sluggish performance," the Times's editors said.[9]

Why is President Bush approaching this problem in an "appallingly sluggish"
fashion? Who among the President's advisors or core supporters in the
Republican party imagine that there's something to be gained by this
approach?

Point 4: Provocative new A-bomb policies

The Bush administration is promoting the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide
in a fourth way -- by starting its own provocative program to build a new
generation of A-bombs, reversing long-standing U.S. policy. Furthermore, the
administration has announced a new policy of possible pre-emptive first use
of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.[10]

Mr. Bush's military strategists say the new generation of smaller weapons is
desirable because smaller A-bombs are "more usable." A New York Times
editorial June 8 says "more usable" means "easing the taboo that has kept
nuclear weapons sheathed since 1945 on behalf of a bomb that could still
expose hundreds of thousands of people to death or radiation sickness. With
nine countries now believed to have nuclear weapons, including North Korea,
Pakistan, India and Israel, the world does not need America's encouraging
the idea of more usable bombs."[11]

The Bush administration is also developing a new generation of large
A-bombs -- called bunker busters -- intended to penetrate deep into the
ground before exploding. "Just imagine launching nuclear bunker busters
based on weapons intelligence as unreliable as that circulating before the
Iraq war," says the Times editorial. "Even if underground sites were
accurately identified, the resulting nuclear explosions could spread the
blast, radiation and toxins over populated areas." As an alternative, the
Times favors conventional ways of dealing with underground fortresses --
like blocking air supplies or cutting off external energy sources.

The normally-staid editors of the Times call Mr. Bush's new A-weapons
programs a "different and dangerous direction" for U.S. policy, a "reckless
folly" that "boggles the mind."[11]

Even some Republicans are dismayed at these policy shifts. Rep. Joel Hefley
(R-Colo.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, told the San
Francisco Chronicle, "We don't need new weapons, and in fact we cause more
harm than good in our relations with other countries in our moral position
on nuclear proliferation. I think they're almost obsolete. I'm not convinced
that we have to have that capability."[10]

Even inside the Pentagon some argue there is no need for a new generation of
nuclear weapons. A classified study by the Defense Science Board, leaked in
November 2003, stated, "Current [Department of Defense] structure provides
neither clear requirements nor persuasive rationale for changing the nuclear
stockpile."[10]

Strangely, this is an issue that divides Democrats from Republicans:
"Traditionally, Democrats have viewed nuclear weapons as nearly unusable, a
deterrent of last resort," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of
the libertarian Lexington Institute and an opponent of such new nuclear
research. "Republicans, on the other hand, particularly since the Reagan
years, have sought to integrate nuclear weapons into the broader arsenal of
war-fighting tools, to treat them simply as a more powerful version of
conventional weapons."[12]

This is precisely President Bush's approach -- to treat small A-bombs as if
they were simply more powerful versions of conventional weapons. But of
course they will leave radioactive fallout and long-term radiation sickness
in their wake, and so, if used, they will send shockwaves of anger and
outrage throughout the world. After the U.S. unleashed a small A-bomb or a
larger atomic bunker buster, many small countries could become convinced
that there's no reason why they shouldn't have their own A-bombs. Terrorists
would no doubt redouble their efforts to retaliate in kind, eager to deliver
an A-bomb by boat to the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate Bridge. An
effective A-bomb could enter U.S. waters in a "conex" shipping container and
be detonated before passing through customs. Such an attack would be
extremely difficult to prevent. [1; and see Rachel's #749.]

A tiny one-kiloton A-bomb (1/20th the size of the Hiroshima bomb) set off in
New York City would probably kill 20,000 people immediately. In the next few
days, tens of thousands more would die from third-degree burns and radiation
sickness. The cloud of radioactive fallout would injure many more in the
Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, or New Jersey -- depending upon the wind.[1]

President Bush's new policy is to fight arms of mass destruction with arms
of mass destruction -- something approaching a modern version of an eye for
an eye -- except that Mr. Bush has announced he may be willing to take the
first eye. As the Times reported a year ago, "diplomacy and arms control,
for now, have taken a back seat to muscle flexing."[13]

Others are itching to flex back. CIA director George Tenet said more than a
year ago, "The desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge among small
countries, confronting the world with a new nuclear arms race that threatens
to dismantle more than three decades of nonproliferation efforts.... We have
entered a new world of proliferation," he said.[14]

And the U.S. is making very deliberate and systematic contributions to
arming this new world with A-bombs.

I keep asking myself, "What would possess President Bush to do such a
thing?"

How could the President or his core supporters in the Republican party
imagine that they -- or anyone else -- might benefit from a world awash in
A-bombs?

Some possible answers next time.

[To be continued.]

--Peter Montague

======

[1] Bill Keller, "Nuclear Nightmares," New York Times Magazine May 26, 2002.

[2] Peter Slavin, "U.S.-Russia Plutonium Disposal Project Languishing,"
Washington Post May 10, 2004, pg. A17.

[3] Peter Slevin, "Sounding the Alarm on Nuclear Proliferation," Washington
Post June 1, 2004, pg. A21.

[4] Watthew L. Wald and Judith Miller, "Energy Department Plans a Push to
Retrieve Nuclear Materials," New York Times May 26, 2004.

[5] Anonymous, "Update: Abraham Announces Plan to Cut Nuclear Threat," Dow
Jones Newswires May 26, 2004.

[6] Joel Brinkley and William J. Broad, "U.S. Lags in Recovering Fuel
Suitable for Nuclear Arms," New York Times Mar. 7, 2004.

[7] John J. Fialka, "U.S., Russia Will Seek Return of Nuclear Fuel," Wall
Street Journal May 26, 2004.

[8] Jodi Wilgoren, "Kerry Promises Speedier Efforts to Secure Nuclear Arms,"
New York Times June 2, 2004.

[9] "Editorial: A Real Nuclear Danger," New York Times May 28, 2004.

[10] James Sterngold, "New era of nuclear weapons: Bush's buildup begins
with little debate in Congress," San Francisco Chronicle Dec. 7, 2003.

[11] "Editorial: The Wrong Proliferation Message," New York Times June 8,
2004.

[12] Robert Schlesinger, "Senate OK's repeal of 'mininuke' ban," Boston
Globe May 21, 2003.

[13] William J. Broad, "Chain Reaction: Facing a Second Nuclear Age," New
York Times August 3, 2003.

[14] Walter Pincus, "CIA Head Predicts Nuclear Race," Washington Post Feb.
12, 2003.

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is a publication of the Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160; Phone:
(732) 828- 9995; Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org. Back issues
available by E-mail; to get instructions, send E-mail to INFO@rachel.org
with the single word HELP in the message. Subscriptions are free. To start
your own free subscription to Rachel's, send a blank Email to:
join-rachel@gselist.org NOTICE: Environmental Research Foundation provides
this electronic version of RACHEL'S DEMOCRACY & HEALTH NEWS free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce
it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help
by making a tax-deductible contribution(anything you can afford, whether
$5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax- deductible contribution to:
Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ
08903-0160. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For
further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by
credit card please use the Donate Now button on the home page of our website
http://www.rachel.org. --Peter Montague, Editor

----------
*****************************************************************
 15 Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 3
 
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:39:16 -0600 (CST)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

Rachel's Democracy & Health News
http://www.rachel.org

Newletter #794 June 24, 2004

Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 3.

In this series, we are searching for answers to the question, "Why is the
U.S. failing to stop, and in some cases actually promoting, the spread of
nuclear weapons worldwide?" (See Rachel's #792 and #793.)

Answers to this question will help us understand President Bush's philosophy
of environmental protection -- or perhaps the philosophy of his core
supporters in the Republican Party on whom he is depending in the 2004
election.

President Bush has made it clear that he understands the threat posed by
nuclear weapons, materials and know-how in the wrong hands. He has said, "We
will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes and terrorists to
threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."[1]

This was not an isolated statement. In two key White House policy documents
published in 2002, the Bush administration concluded that, "The threat of
weapons of mass destruction is the highest priority for the United States
and should be for other countries."[2,3]

The President has spoken out strongly and repeatedly on the matter and has
even said that failure on this issue will be judged "harshly" by history.

When the White House published its National Strategy to Combat Weapons of
Mass Destruction in Dec., 2002, the President said, "The gravest danger
facing the Nation lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our
enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass
destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with
determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed....
History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to
act."[3]

Yet the evidence is overwhelming that the U.S. is failing to act on this
growing threat. (See Rachel's #792, #793.) Indeed, the Bush administration
is actively engaged in spreading nuclear technology and know-how into the
hands of potentially-unstable nations.

On June 20, 2004, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a
96-page report agreeing with the Bush administration that, "Terrorist
acquisition of nuclear weapons poses the greatest single threat to the
United States."[4, pg. 25].

However, the Carnegie report points out, "The [Bush] administration has not
put money or significant political effort behind [its] proposals."[4, pg.
13]

According to the Carnegie report, the President's proposed budget for 2005
actually reduces the funds available for U.S. efforts to curb the spread of
weapons-grade plutonium and uranium world-wide, and reduces the U.S.
financial contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
"whose responsibilities have greatly increased while its budget has stayed
flat."[4, pg. 13]

Nuclear-armed terrorists are the No. 1 threat to the U.S., and the No. 2
threat is nuclear-armed states like Pakistan and North Korea. As the
Carnegie report says, "National instability or a radical change in
government could lead to the collapse of state control over weapons and
nuclear materials and the migration of nuclear scientists to other nations
or to the service of other groups."

However, instead of trying to keep nuclear technology and know-how out of
the hands of such states, the Bush administration is actively encouraging
U.S. corporations to sell their nuclear hardware and know-how abroad. On a
recent trip to China, Vice-President Cheney was peddling Westinghouse
nuclear power plants, even though China has announced that it intends to
transfer nuclear technology to Pakistan.[5]

These contradictory facts are deeply perplexing. I have been reviewing the
available literature on this subject for the past two years, trying to
answer the question, "Why is the Bush administration promoting nuclear
weapons, materials and know-how world-wide?"

Naturally, all my answers are merely hypotheses because I have no special
knowledge of what motivates the President, the Vice-President, their core
supporters in the House and Senate, and their advisors in the Pentagon. I
only know what's in the public record.

So let us begin. In the remainder of this series, I will examine the
following hypotheses:

Hypothesis #1: Simple incompetence and confusion among the nation's defense
agencies. Perhaps they actually want to curb the spread of nuclear
technologies but just can't manage the task.

Hypothesis #2: Perfectly normal corporate profit goals combined with the
ever-pressing need for re-election campaign contributions. Perhaps the
administration is promoting nuclear power to reward potential campaign
contributors in the nuclear business, such as Westinghouse, General
Electric, Framatone (formerly Babcock & Wilcox), Bechtel, Halliburton, Brown
& Root, and other large-scale construction firms that build nuclear power
plants and the infrastructure they require (roads, power lines, special
docks at seaports, fuel processing plants, security apparatus and training,
and so forth.)

Hypothesis #3: Nuclear power is needed now to prevent nations and regions
from "going solar." Because each nuclear power plant requires an investment
measured in billions of dollars, and because nuclear power plants are
dangerous, they require (and thus maintain) the highly-centralized,
top-down, quasi-military social structure that modern transnational
corporations provide. The "military-industrial" complex that President
Eisenhower warned us about in 1961 is epitomized by nuclear technologies.

Solar power on the other hand can be small-scale, locally-controlled,
definitely not dangerous, much less subject to terrorist disruption,[6] and
therefore much more compatible with an open, democratic social structure
that might, as time passes, erode corporate control. Therefore, in a sense,
solar power is dangerous and even subversive because it could subvert
"business as usual."

Hypothesis #4: Just as nuclear power plants require and promote a
centralized, quasi-military, corporatized social structure, so also does a
world awash in weapons-grade uranium and plutonium.

So long as a there is a thriving black market in weapons-grade nuclear
materials. then we can more easily justify a $450 billion annual military
budget, a network of U.S. espionage agencies active now in 80 countries,[7]
and pre-emptive wars such as the one now in Iraq (and others reportedly
being readied now by the Pentagon against Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran,
Somalia, and Sudan[8]).

Whether your job is military, civilian, or somewhere in between, if you're
in the business of fighting the nation's perceived enemies, and you want
your business to thrive, then enemies armed with small nuclear weapons may
be the best kind of enemies to have. Everyone will support your work against
such enemies. They will even follow you into war against such enemies.

Hypothesis #5: Now we enter the realm of realpolitik, the kind of world that
Henry Kissinger inhabits, where thinking the unthinkable is routine.[9]

Is it possible that some people within the Bush administration, (or among
groups whom the Bush administration considers essential to its electoral
success in 2004), might imagine benefits from a rogue nation or group
detonating a small nuclear weapon in Jerusalem or even New York?

Here are some crackpot speculations perhaps worth considering:

a) Maybe detonation of a small nuclear weapon would serve to remind the
current generation how dangerous nuclear technology really is. A rogue
nuclear detonation would quickly bring the civilian nuclear power industry
to an end. It might also spur the international community to quickly sweep
up the tons of weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium lying about in
40-or-so nations.

b) A rogue nuclear detonation would almost certainly spell the end of
democracy as we know it. Major portions of the bill of rights would probably
be canceled within hours.

Recall that the Bush adminstration saw the mass murders on 9/11 as
sufficient reason to scrap the legal doctrine of habeas corpus which was
formalized in English law in 1679 and was embodied a century later in the
U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that `[t]he writ of habeas
corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom
against arbitrary and lawless state action.'[10]

A writ of habeas corpus is a judge's mandate to a prison official ordering
that an inmate be brought before the court so the court can determine
whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or
she should be released from custody. Without habeas corpus, people can be
imprisoned forever without any recourse whatsoever. Even the fact of their
imprisonment can be kept secret. This is what the Bush administration has
said it aims to do at Guantanamo Bay and perhaps at other quasi-military
prisons the U.S. maintains around the world.

Seeing the right of habeas corpus repealed in response to the mass murders
of 9/11, everyone has to be impressed by the fragility of what seemed like
the immutable underpinnings of democracy and indeed civilization itself. The
enemies of democracy -- inside the U.S. and outside -- can see as well as
anyone that a nuclear detonation in New York would almost surely end the
American experiment in self-rule.

c) There is a growing movement in the U.S. to erase the barrier that
separates church and state, to replace our secular government with a
religious government.[11] We can see the beginnings of such thinking in the
Texas State Republican Party Platform for 2004, which says, "The Republican
Party of Texas affirms that the United States of American is a Christian
nation." And: "The Party understands that the Ten Commandments are the basis
of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of Western legal tradition." And:
"Our Party pledges to exert its influence to restore the original intent of
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and dispel the myth of
the separation of Church and State."[12]

By removing the Constitutional wall that separates church and state, some
people merely hope to get a free handout from Washington for their religious
group (the President's "faith-based initiative" gave $1.1 billion of
taxpayer funds to religious organizations during 2003).[13]

Others have much larger goals, hoping to institute a fully theocratic order
in which their idea of Christian Biblical law replaces our secular
democracy, essentially repealing the enlightment and returning the world to
the 17th century.[11]

d) There is a different, and much larger, group of Christians who say they
believe that their personal salvation depends upon the return of Christ to
Earth and that this second coming of Christ requires a specific series of
events to unfold in the Middle East, including the battle of Armageddon,
which many interpret to mean a nuclear World War III.

These believers in Armageddon theology include the Reverend Billy Graham,
the Reverend Pat Robertson, the singer Pat Boone, the Reverend Jerry
Falwell, Ralph Reed, Jr., Gary Bauer, Republican strategist Ed McAteer,
advice columnist Laura Schlessinger, writer Hal Lindsey ("The Late, Great
Planet Earth"), the Reverend Tim LaHaye (co-author of the 11-volume "Left
Behind" series), House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Tex.), U.S. Senator
James N. Inhofe (R-Ok., Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment
and Public Works), Attorney General John Ashcroft, and many others in top
leadership positions within the Bush adminstration.

Author Grace Halsell -- herself a born-again Christian from Texas -- toured
the Holy Land in the Middle East twice with followers of the Reverend Jerry
Falwell. Halsell then wrote a book about her experiences. In "Prophecy and
Politics," which she subtitled, "Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear
War," Halsell wrote, "I have heard Falwell preach on nuclear Armageddon, and
I saw his face turn radiant at the thought." [14, pg. 197] --Peter Montague

[To be continued.]

====

[1] President Bush quoted in Dafna Linzer, "Report Faults U.S. Action on
Nuclear Proliferation," Washington Post June 21, 2004.

[2] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Sept.,
2002), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

[3] National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (December,
2002), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/WMDStrategy.pdf

[4] George Perkovich and others, Universal Compliance; A Strategy for
Nuclear Security (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, June, 2004). Draft available at http://www.ceip.org/strategy .

[5] H. Josef Hebert, "Cheney to shop Westinghouse nuke technology to China,"
Salt Lake City (Utah) Tribune April 10, 2004.

[6 Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, Brittle Power; Energy Strategy for
National Security (Brown House Publishing: Andoiver, Mass., 1982).

[7] Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, "Bush Awaits History's Judgment; President's
Scorecard Shows Much Left to Do," Washington Post February 3, 2002, pg. A1.

[8] General Wesley R. Clark, "The Clark Critique," Newsweek Sept. 29, 2003,
pg. 31, which is an excerpt from Clark's book, "Winning Modern Wars: Iraq,
Terrorism, and the American Empire" (Public Affairs, 2003; ISBN:
1586482777).

[9] See the video, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, based on the book of the
same title by British journalist Christopher Hitchens (Verso paperback,
2002; ISBN: 1859843980); for the video, see
http://www.thetrialsofhenrykissinger.com/trials.html

[10] Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992).

[11] See, for example, Frederick Clarkson, "Theocratic Dominionism Gains
Influence," Public Eye Magazine Vol. 8, Nos. 1 and 2 (March and June, 1994).
Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=400 . And see Joan
Bokaer, "The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party," available
in text format (no pictures) at
http://www.rachel./org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=407 and in a 2 megabyte PDF
file at http://www.rachel./org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=407 or you can find
start reading the 19-page web document at http://www.4religious-right.info/
*****************************************************************
 16 Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 4: GOD TOLD ME TO STRIKE,
 
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:40:27 -0600 (CST)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

Rachel's Democracy & Health News
http://www.rachel.org

Newletter #795 July 08, 2004

Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 4:

GOD TOLD ME TO STRIKE,

In this series (see Rachel's #792, #793, #794), I am trying to discover
reasons why the U.S. is pursuing contradictory and seemingly
self-destructive nuclear policies, including:

(1) President Bush stresses again and again that the two greatest dangers
facing the U.S. are the spread of nuclear materials and know-how into the
hands of (a) terrorists and (b) erratic and belligerent countries.

(2) Meanwhile Vice-President Cheney and the Commerce Department are
promoting the sale of nuclear power plants around the world even though it
is widely acknowledged that nuclear power provides a sure path to nuclear
weapons for any country so inclined. Witness the recent experience of India,
Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.

(3) President Bush has initiated a "second nuclear age," ordering up a new
generation of small atomic bombs which are needed because they are "more
usable" than older, larger A-bombs. And Mr. Bush has announced provocative
new war policies, including the threat of pre-emptive nuclear strikes
against America's enemies, even enemies without nuclear arms.

(4) Meanwhile the U.S. is deliberately dragging its feet in efforts to
secure thousands of loose nuclear weapons in countries of the former Soviet
Union, and is failing to retrieve tons of weapons-grade uranium and
plutonium that were given or lent to 40 or more countries under the "atoms
for peace" program begun by President Eisenhower.

It's as if U.S. leaders -- or the political supporters to whom they are
beholden -- believe that the rogue detonation of a nuclear device in some
key city like Jerusalem or even New York is inevitable and can't be stopped,
or perhaps might even be beneficial in some way and therefore should be
enabled.

In Rachel's #794, we examined half a dozen hypotheses that might explain the
deep inconsistencies in U.S. policies toward rogue nuclear detonations. I
don't think we can rule out any of these hypotheses. To one degree or
another, all of them may be affecting President Bush's nuclear policies.

However, to me the most compelling hypothesis, the one with the broadest
explanatory power, is this: certain fundamentalist Christian leaders within
the U.S. say they believe that World War III is inevitable (some even say
desirable) because it is part of God's plan, and those same Christian
leaders control the political agenda of the Republican Party, which in turn
controls the Congress and the Executive Branch.

These fundamentalist Christian leaders are, therefore, in the best position
to promote the spread of nuclear technologies abroad, and to slow U.S.
efforts to retrieve and secure weapons-grade nuclear materials. Many of them
also preach that a fiery conflagration is required to defeat the armies of
the Antichrist and thus usher in Christ's thousand-year reign of peace. This
hypothesis, and its attendant theology, also may clarify some of President
Bush's other policies, such as those on taxation, science, education,
women's issues, Middle East policy, and the environment.

This is a complicated story and I must emphasize at the outset that it is
not a story about Christianity or about fundamentalist Christians or about
Republicans. This is a story about a few fundamentalist Christian leaders
who decided 20 years ago to take "working control" of the Republican Party,
and a few Republican political strategists who sought the support of
fundamentalist Christians to increase the numerical strength of the
Republican Party.[1]

By 1994, both groups had succeeded -- fundamentalist Christians had gained
working control of the Republican Party, and the Republican Party had
achieved electoral majorities that would have been impossible without the
organized support of Christian fundamentalists and their evangelical
followers.

Christian fundamentalists first appeared on the national political scene
when the Reverend Jerry Falwell and the Reverend Tim LaHaye organized the
Moral Majority in 1979-80. Ten years later the Reverend Pat Robertson formed
the Christian Coalition for the purpose of influencing state and national
elections. In 1992, he told the Denver Post, "We want as soon as possible to
see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family
Christians."[2] By 1994, the Coalition had succeeded.

The Christian Coalition rates members of Congress according to their votes
on issues, giving us a way to measure the influence of conservative
Christians within the Republican Party. Here are the ratings of the 10 most
powerful Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. (Following each
person's Christian Coalition [CC] rating, I have added the person's rating
by the League of Conservation Voters [LCV] to show how Republican Christian
leaders vote on environmental matters.)

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.): CC: 100%, LCV: no data; Majority Leader
Tom DeLay (Tex.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%; Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.): CC: 92%,
LCV: 0%; Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (Va.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%; Republican
Conference Chair Deborah Price (Ohio) CC: 58%, LCV: 4%; Republican
Conference Vice-Chair Jack Kingston (Ga.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%; Republican
Conference Secretary John Doolittle (Calif.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%; Republican
Policy Committee Chair Christopher Cox (Calif.): CC: 100%, LCV: 14%;
National Republican Congressional Committee Tom Reynolds (N.Y.): CC: 92%,
LCV: 18%; Chairman of the Republican National Leadership Rob Portman (Ohio):
CC: 100%, LCV: 18%.

And here are the Christian Coalition (CC) and League of Conservation Voters
(LCV) ratings for the 7 most powerful Republicans in the U.S. Senate:
Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%; Assistant Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.): CC: 100%, LCV: 4%; Republican Conference Chair
Rick Santorum (Pa.): CC: 100%, LCV: 4%; Republican Conference Vice Chair Kay
Hutchinson (Tex.): CC: 100%, LCV: 4%; Republican Policy Committee Jon Kyl
(Ariz.): CC: 100%, LCV: 4%; National Republican Senatorial Committee George
Allen (Va.): CC: 100%, LCV: 0%.[3]

This tally clearly reveals the power of fundamentalist Christians to control
the agenda of the Republican Party, and their consistent hostility to
environmental protection.

President Bush is now entirely beholden to evangelical Christian leaders
because evangelicals provided about 40% of the votes cast for Mr. Bush in
2000, according to the New York Times.[4] As Newsweek said in 2003,
evangelical Christians now "form the core of the Republican Party....
Bible-believing Christians are Bush's strongest backers and turning them out
in even greater numbers is the top priority of the president's political
adviser Karl Rove."[5]

The Republican Party, and the Bush family, discovered the importance of the
evangelical vote in 1988 when George H.W. Bush (father of current President
Bush) was running for president. According to Doug Weed, political advisor
to both father and son, in the 1988 presidential election, "We lost as we
always do the Jewish vote, the Hispanic vote and all those folks. We lost
the Catholic vote. We were the first modern presidency to win an election --
and it was a landslide -- and not win the Catholic vote." Mr. Weed goes on,
"[In 1988] the message did come home -- by God, you could win the White
House with nothing but evangelicals, if you could get enough of 'em, if you
could get 'em all."[6]

George W. Bush and the Republican Party have been wooing, relying on, and
taking direction from, evangelical leaders ever since.[7]

The mass media tend to use the label "evangelical" when referring to all
fundamentalist Christians, as if all evangelicals were fundamentalists. They
are not. Furthermore, the media assume that all evangelicals share one set
of political and theological beliefs. This is another serious error. There
is a very broad spectrum of political and theological beliefs among
evangelicals -- at least 10% are liberals.[8] An estimated 15% of
evangelicals are African-Americans and, of those, 75% are staunch
Democrats.[9] However, among the fundamentalist Christians who have taken
working control of the Republican Party, the spectrum of beliefs is much,
much narrower and definitely not liberal.

What is fundamentalism?

Religious historian George W. Marsden begins his book, Understanding
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, this way: "A fundamentalist is an
evangelical who is angry about something."[10] The Reverend Jerry Falwell
has on occasion used Marsden's definition to describe himself and his
millions of followers. Fundamentalists are pugnacious evangelicals who are
willing to take a stand and fight against liberal theology, changing
cultural values, and secular humanism. Fundamentalists are very clear about
their goals. They see themselves as Christian soldiers engaged in a "culture
war," a crusade against the dominant liberal culture, which they consider
evil. Their stated goal is to win the culture war and to impose what they
believe are Christian standards of behavior on everyone, in short, a
theocracy.[11]

In sum, the goal of fundamentalist Christian leaders is to take dominion
over American society -- a goal that the Reverend Pat Robertson stated
explicitly as early as 1984.[12]

Christian fundamentalist leaders are much further along toward their goal of
dominion than most people realize. They control the Congress and the White
House, and they are now working methodically to take over the courts.
Perhaps because religious beliefs are considered to be a private matter in
the U.S., the mass media have largely ignored this, the most important
political story of our time.

Evangelicals tend to hold a common set of core beliefs, including these:

(1) the Bible is the infallible ("inerrant") word of God;

(2) the salvation of lost and sinful people (which includes all humans at
birth) is only possible through regeneration by the Holy Spirit -- a deeply
personal experience of being "saved" that many liken to being "born again"
at the moment when they accept Christ into their hearts;

(3) all who do not accept Christ as their personal savior (including
Muslims, Jews, atheists and agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, and all other
non-Christians) will be resurrected into damnation when they die and will
spend eternity suffering unspeakable agonies in the fires of hell;

(4) Because the stakes are so high, those who have been saved by accepting
Christ into their hearts have an obligation to try to persuade others to
accept Christ by spreading the "gospel," which is also called the "good
news." (The word "evangelicalism" comes from the Greek word evangelion,
meaning "the good news.")

(5) Christ will eventually return to Earth in power and glory.

Within the group of all evangelicals, there is a somewhat smaller group
called "premillenial dispensationalists" or more commonly, "rapture
Christians." They accept the five basic tenets described above, and more.

What Do Dispensationalist Leaders Believe?

Dispensationalist leaders believe that before Christ returns to Earth he
will physically transport to heaven ("rapture") all those who have been
saved, whether they be dead or still living. As the Reverend Billy Graham
wrote in 1984, "The day is fast approaching when Jesus Christ will come back
to 'snatch away' His followers from all the graveyards of the world, and
those of us who are alive and remain will join them in the great
escape!"[13]

The rapture entered U.S. evangelical theology in the 1860s and has been
widely accepted since then.[14] Today dispensationalist views are taught at
over 200 institutions of higher learning, such as the Dallas Theological
Seminary, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the Moody Bible
Institute. Dispensationalist views are also reflected in the notes
accompanying popular study Bibles, such as the Schofield Reference Bible and
the Ryrie Study Bible.

The vast majority (perhaps all) of the evangelical leaders visible on the
political scene now are dispensationalists. The Reverend Jerry Falwell
boasts that he can mobilize 70 million dispensationalists (36% of all U.S.
adults); others say the true number of dispensationalists is no more than 40
million (20% of all adults).[15] Either number is politically significant
because only 50.99 million people voted for Al Gore in 2000 and even fewer
voted for George W. Bush.

Dispensationalist leaders believe the rapture will be followed by a
seven-year period of "tribulation" during which those who are "left behind"
(not raptured) will be afflicted with terrible calamities including
earthquakes, locusts, scorpions and boils. During the tribulation, everyone
left behind will have another chance to accept Jesus into their hearts.
Dispensationalist leaders believe the tribulation years will see mounting
chaos, crime, blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality and other evidence of moral
decay. During this period, the Antichrist, a diabolical dictator, will
appear, offering solutions to all the world's problems. The Antichrist will
try to organize a one-world government something like the United Nations or
perhaps the World Trade Organization.

At the end of the seven-year tribulation, Christ will lead his armies of
compassion against the Antichrist's armies of evil-doers in the cataclysmic
battle of Armageddon, after which Christ will reign over the Earth during a
thousand years of peace (the millenium).

Based on their reading of the Book of Revelation in the Bible,
dispensationalist leaders believe that the "end times," leading to the
millenium, must unfold in a particular sequence.

First, the Jews must return to, and take control of, the "covenant lands" --
lands given by God to the children of Abraham, as recorded in Genesis 15:18.
Then a temple must be built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which happens
to be occupied today by the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a shrine that Muslims believe is
among the two or three most sacred spots on Earth.[16, pg. 109] After the
Mosque is removed, the temple will be built and animals will be sacrificed
within it. Then the rest of the "end times" can unfold -- the rapture, the
tribulation, the Antichrist, Armageddon, and the thousand years of
peace.[17, pgs. 88-116]

Many dispensationalist leaders believe that the end times were set in motion
by the creation of Israel in 1948 and were accelerated by the six-day
Arab-Israeli war of 1967 in which Israel doubled the territory it controls
by occupying Palestinian lands known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

However, according to Genesis, the "covenant lands" stretch from the
Euphrates River (in central Iraq) west?ward? to "The River of Egypt" which
dispensationalist leaders interpret to mean the Nile. If you look at a map,
you can see that the existing state of Israel -- even if you include the
occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza -- does not presently
encompass anywhere near all the "covenant lands." So some Christian
fundamentalist leaders, such as Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader in
the U.S. House of Representatives, insist that Arabs and others should be
forcibly removed from those lands to make way for Christ's return. A year
ago, when President Bush proposed his "road map" plan that could eventually
create an independent Palestinian state on a portion of the covenant lands,
Mr. DeLay made a special trip to Israel to stir up opposition to the "road
map."[18] Mr. Bush subsequently stopped promoting his peace plan.

Israeli occupation of the "covenant lands" is exceedingly important to
Christian dispensationalist leaders. For example, the 1967 Arab-Israeli war
was a turning point in the life of the Reverend Jerry Falwell. According to
his biographers, prior to 1967 Mr. Falwell said he believed preachers had no
business in politics. But Mr. Falwell saw the rapid victory of the Israelis
in the "six day war" of 1967 as clear evidence of "the intervention of God
Almighty."[17, pg. 72] Mr. Falwell soon visited Israel to meet Menachim
Begin, then leader of the conservative Likud Party, and subsequently
energized a powerful political movement in the U.S. known as "Christian
Zionism" -- Christians eager to help Israel take and maintain control over
the covenant lands, as a necessary step toward the second coming of Christ.

The Reverend Mr. Falwell is on record saying that Israel should seize
portions of present-day Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan,
plus all of Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait.[17, pg. 141] An effort to forcibly
remove tens of millions of Muslims from their homelands would almost
certainly lead to World War III but there are many in the U.S. who might
say, "Bring it on." Shortly after 9/11, neoconservative polemicist Ann
Coulter wrote in the National Review, "We should invade their countries,
kill their leaders and Christianize them."[19] The Reverend Mr. Falwell
himself asserts that God favors war: "God is pro-war," he reportedly said
earlier this year.[20] Other fundamentalist Christian leaders agree. The
Reverend Charles Stanley, a former president of the Southern Baptist
Convention -- the largest fundamentalist Christian sect in America, with 16
million members -- reportedly said last year, "God favors war for divine
reasons and sometimes uses it to accomplish His will."[20]

For people holding such views, the present U.S. invasion of Iraq may hold
special meaning because it can be seen as an essential step toward the
second coming of Christ. Indeed, President Bush describes his own role in
the Iraq war in deeply religious terms. When the President visited the
Middle East a year ago, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which is owned by the
New York Times, reported that the President said, "God told me to strike at
al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam,
which I did...."[21]

[To be continued.]

--Peter Montague ============

[1] I am indebted to Joan Bokaer, director of Theocracy Watch (a project of
the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell
University) whose work helped me make sense out of an amazingly large number
of threads that make up the complex tapestry of this story. Her 20-web-page
document, The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party, is
essential reading for anyone who wants to really understand the influence of
the religious right on American culture and politics. See
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=411 or
http://www.4religious-right.info/ . I am also indebted to Sr. Miriam
MacGillis, a member of the Dominican Sisters in Caldwell, N.J., who
introduced me to Ms. Bokaer's work.

[2] Quoted in Joan Bokaer, "The Rise of the Religous Right in the Republican
Party -- Introduction," available at
http://www.4religious-right.info/introduction2.htm .

[3] Data from Joan Bokaer, "The Rise of the Religous Right in the Republican
Party -- Government," available at
http://www.4religious-right.info/govern.htm .

[4] Elizabeth Bumiller, "Evangelicals Sway White House on Human Rights
Issues Abroad," New York Times Oct. 26, 2003.

[5] Howard Fineman, "Bush and God," Newsweek, March 10, 2003. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=419

[6] Doug Weed appeared on the Frontline program, "The Jesus Factor"
broadcast nationwide on PBS April 29, 2004. Available online at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/view/ .

[7] See, for example, Alan Cooperman, "Churchgoers Get Direction from Bush
Campaign," Washington Post July 1, 2004. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=420 And David D. Kirkpatrick,
"Party Appeal to Churches for Help Raises Doubts," New York Times July 2,
2004. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=421

[8] Don Wagner, "Beyond Armageddon," The Link Vol. 25, No. 4 (Oct.-Nov.,
1992). Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=392

[9] Stanley B. Greenberg and others, "Evangelicals, Born Agains, and
Fundamentalist Christians in Election 2004," May 26, 2004. Available at
www.cnionline.org/hearings/armageddon/Evangelical-stats.ppt
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=417 and see "America's
Evangelicals; Key Survey Findings," Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, May,
2004, available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=388

[10] George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eeerdmans Publishing Co., 1992). ISBN
0802805396. And see George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1980). ISBN 0195030834. And see Nancy
Tatom Ammerman, Bible Believers (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University
Press, 1987). ISBN 081351231X.

[11] Michelle Cottle, "Team Bush is on a Crusade," New Republic June 4,
2004. And see David Gates, "Religion: The Pop Prophets," Newsweek Mar. 24,
2004. And, David D. Kirkpatrick, "The Return of the Warrior Jesus," New York
Times April 4, 2004, Week in Review section. See especially Note 20, below.

[12] The Reverend Mr. Robertson quoted in Joan Bokaer, "The Rise of the
Religous Right in the Republican Party --Introduction," available at
http://www.4religious-right.info/introduction2.htm . And see Robert Kuttner,
"America as a One-Party State," American Prospect Vol. 15, No. 2 (Feb. 1,
2004). Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=404

[13] Billy Graham, Peace with God (Nashville, Tenn.: W Publishing Group,
1953; revised edition, 1984), pg. 256. ISBN 0849929911.

[14] Larry Eskridge, "Defining Evangelicalism," (undated) available at
http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html . Accessed June 16,
2004.

[15] Jeremy Leaming, "Religious Right Leaders Press For Passage Of U.S. Rep.
Jones' Church Electioneering Bill," Church and State magazine Feb. 2004.
Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=422

[16] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, Mich:
Zondervan, 1970); ISBN 031027771X.

[17] Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics; Militant Evangelists on the Road
to Nuclear War (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill & Co., 1986). ISBN
0-88208-210-8.

[18] David Firestone, "DeLay Is to Carry Dissenting Message On a Mideast
Tour," New York Times July 25, 2003. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=409

[19] Ann Coulter, "This is War," National Review Sept. 13, 2001. Available
at http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulterprint091301.html

[20] John F. Sugg, "America The Theocracy," Weekly Planet (Tampa, Fla.)
March 2004, quoting the Reverend Mr. Falwell and the Reverend Mr. Stanley.
This is a clear explanation of the goals of Christian fundamentalists in the
U.S. It is available at http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2004-03-25/cover.html
and at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=418 .

[21] Arnon Regular, "'Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells
Hamas," Haaretz June 24, 2003. Original is available at
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml
?itemNo=310788, and a PDF version is available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=416 .

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is a publication of the Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160; Phone:
(732) 828- 9995; Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org. Back issues
available by E-mail; to get instructions, send E-mail to INFO@rachel.org
with the single word HELP in the message. Subscriptions are free. To start
your own free subscription to Rachel's, send a blank Email to:
join-rachel@gselist.org NOTICE: Environmental Research Foundation provides
this electronic version of RACHEL'S DEMOCRACY & HEALTH NEWS free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce
it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help
by making a tax-deductible contribution(anything you can afford, whether
$5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax- deductible contribution to:
Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ
08903-0160. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For
further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by
credit card please use the Donate Now button on the home page of our website
http://www.rachel.org. --Peter Montague, Editor

------------
*****************************************************************
 17 Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 5: A Marriage Made in Heaven
 
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:42:18 -0600 (CST)

X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127

Rachel's Democracy & Health News
http://www.rachel.org

Newletter #796 July 22, 2004

Fiery Hell on Earth, Part 5:

A Marriage Made in Heaven,

We began this series seeking an explanation for America's contradictory and
self-defeating nuclear policies. We end by seeking explanations for
larger -- but equally perplexing --U.S. environmental policies.

The stated goal of U.S. nuclear policy is to keep weapons-grade nuclear
materials out of the hands of terrorists and hostile, unstable nations.

Yet in actual fact the U.S. (1) is failing to sweep up weapons-grade nuclear
materials that are lying around loose in 40 countries, and (2) has opened "a
second nuclear age" by creating a new generation of smaller, "more usable"
A-bombs, and (3) despite the terrors of 9/11 the U.S. government is still
peddling Westinghouse nuclear power plants to countries like China that have
announced plans to pass along the latest nuclear technology to countries
like Pakistan. (See Rachel's #792, #793, #794, #795.) In the hands of any
willing nation, nuclear power equals nuclear weapons, as we know from India,
Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, among others.

As I said in Rachel's #795: It's as if U.S. leaders -- or the political
supporters to whom they are beholden -- believe that the rogue detonation of
a nuclear device in some key city like Jerusalem or even New York is
inevitable and can't be stopped, or perhaps might even be beneficial in some
way and therefore should be enabled.

I'd prefer to explain these bizarre U.S. nuclear power policies as ordinary
corporate/politico shenanigans -- the Vice-President hawking Westinghouse's
nuclear wares in return for a generous campaign contribution. I'd like to
believe that U.S. nuclear weapons policy is nothing more than the muddled
work of neoconservative eggheads who think the world will be safer for
democracy if theater commanders can call up a small nuclear strike against
any enemy at any time.[1] In this view, the fanatics in Falluja might think
twice about shooting at our soldiers (and thumbing their noses at us) if
they really believed we were ready to nuke their children.

But these "rational" explanations aren't persuasive to me. If such rational
considerations are really controlling U.S. nuclear policy, why aren't we
scooping up all the weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from around the
world as quickly as possible? What is to be gained by allowing a "black
market" in weapons-grade nuclear materials to continue? And how "rational"
is it for the U.S. to continue spreading atomic power plants and nuclear
know-how into a post-9/11 world? Here I have to wonder whether something
else might be at work. Could the spiritual beliefs of the people who control
the U.S. be influencing U.S. nuclear policies and, indeed, the nation's
other environment-related policies?

As we saw in Rachel's #795, we do know that a small number of fundamentalist
Christian leaders now controls the Republican Party. We also saw that
Republican political operatives believe they can only keep their electoral
majorities by retaining the support of evangelicals. To hear them tell it,
Republicans have now put most of their electoral eggs in this particular
Easter basket. This gives fundamentalist leaders decisive political
influence over the Republican agenda.

Furthermore, we know that these same fundamentalist leaders believe that a
cataclysmic battle of Armageddon is required to pave the way for Christ's
return to Earth. These particular Christian leaders find nuclear war
foretold in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. So for 20 years they have been
preaching, promoting, and selling Americans on the idea of building more
bombs and using them to fulfill God's plan. In this "end times" scenario,
these particular Christian leaders believe they will not personally
experience Armageddon because they will be "raptured" (physically
transported) to heaven before it happens. The formal name for this rapture
theology is "premillenial dispensationalism." (See Rachel's #795.)

This dispensationalist "end times" scenario is an abstract idea with real
consequences. For example, leading members of the U.S. Congress work hard to
derail peace negotiations between Arabs and Israelis because they believe
Israel must expand its territorial control to fulfill God's plan for the
Second Coming of Christ. In this dispensationalist reading of Genesis 15:18,
God made a "covenant" giving land to the children of Abraham, and Jews must
occupy those "covenant lands" before Christ can return to Earth. So, for
example, Senator James Inhof (R-Ok.) says, "I believe very strongly that we
ought to support Israel -- because God said so. Look it up in the Book of
Genesis. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether
the word of God is true."[2] If you think an uncompromising Biblical
interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict can't have real consequences,
read the 9/11 Commission Report.[3]

Leaders of the conservative Likud Party in Israel[4] and U.S. fundamentalist
Christian leaders have different reasons for wanting to drive Muslims from
the "covenant lands" but they work effectively together toward that goal.[5]

It is worth noting that fundamentalist Christian support for Israel's
territorial expansion is not quite the same thing as support for the Jewish
people. According to Biblical prophecy, as interpreted by fundamentalist
leaders like Hal Lindsey, when the "end times" scenario unfolds, at least
two-thirds of all Jews will be killed and will be resurrected into an
eternal agony of fire. In his best-selling book, The Late Great Planet
Earth, Mr. Lindsey describes this holy pogrom in a section titled, "A bright
spot in the gloom."[6, pg. 167, citing Zechariah 13:8,9.] Before he was
President, Mr. Bush himself told a newspaper reporter that no Jews can enter
heaven.[7] And in fundamentalist theology there is only one other place to
spend eternity -- in a lake of fire.

If the return of Christ and the battle of Armageddon are prophesied in the
Bible and are therefore inevitably going to happen, how should individual
Christians respond? Should they obey Christ's Sermon on the Mount (Matthew
chapters 5-7; Luke 6:20-49) and work for peace, justice, and mercy in this
world, even though this could be interpreted as working against the "end
times" prophecy? Or should they try to provoke chaos and violence, hoping to
accelerate the "end times" calendar, even at the risk of igniting nuclear
World War III? Fundamentalist Christian leaders are divided on this question
but many --perhaps a majority -- say that preaching peace is heresy because
God's plan requires an endless battle against evil, culminating in World War
III.

The Reverend John Hagee, a televangelist and pastor of the 17,000-member
Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Tex. is typical when he says the current
wave of Palestinian and Israeli terrorism in the Middle East will "produce a
third world war. And that will be the coming of the End Times. That will be
the end of the world as we know it," he says.[8] He sees this as a good
thing. Such views are mainstream among fundamentalist Christian leaders,
including those who are consulted on a regular basis by the White House.[9]

The Reverend Billy Graham's son, the Reverend Franklin Graham, says he
believes Christians and Muslims are destined to do battle against each other
until the Second Coming of Christ.[10] The Reverend Mr. Graham believes
Christians have an obligation to battle Muslims because, he says, Islam is a
"very evil and very wicked religion."[11] The Reverend Mr. Graham is widely
respected within the Republican hierarchy. He led the prayer at President
Bush's inauguration in 2001,[12] and last year, just as the Iraq war was
getting under way, the Pentagon selected him to deliver a Good Friday
message to the world.[12]

In a recent radio interview, Wayne Slater, Austin (Tex.) bureau chief for
the Dallas Morning News, explained how such fundamentalist views play out in
the real world: "I was down in Georgia the other day talking to some pastors
and when I talk to them about the war in Iraq they understand fundamentally
in ways that George Bush does not talk about that this is part of a
millenial crusade. Bush got in trouble using the word crusade. You talk to
some pastors in suburban Atlanta, they understand that this war is against
the Muslims, against the infidel, in a way, fundamental ways, that hasn't
changed in a thousand years. They see that this is, the president is,
engaged in something bigger than just this moment."[13]

It was President Ronald Reagan who first brought Armageddon theology deep
into the White House. Mr. Reagan said in 1976 that he had had a "born again"
experience, and while he was President he said publicly on a half-dozen
occasions that he believed that nuclear Armageddon was imminent. His close
friend and adviser, the Reverend Billy Graham, agreed with him.[14, pg. 28]
President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger affirmed, "I have
read the Book of Revelation, and, yes, I believe the world is going to end
by an act of God, I hope but every day I think time is running out."
President Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, questioned the
need for environmental protection because, he said, "I don't know how many
future generations we can count on until the Lord returns."[8]

If you think -- even hope -- that the world will soon end, then it may seem
logical to conduct policy as if there's no tomorrow.[15] Within a millenial
framework, fiscal conservatism -- or any other kind of real conservatism --
may appear foolish or simply irrelevant. What does it matter if we bequeath
a mountain of debt to our children? The Reverend Jerry Falwell believes that
the Second Coming is so imminent that, "I don't think my children will live
their whole lives out."[14, pg. 35] Such a view may clarify the Republican
Party's environmental agenda.

The current administration's environmental goals and policies have been
thoroughly cataloged in a new book by Robert S. Devine.[16]

Since taking office in 2000, Mr. Bush has reversed hundreds of regulations
intended to protect the environment and human health. For example, a plan to
reduce toxic mercury emissions from power plants has been delayed by 10
years or more. The Kyoto Protocol to limit global warming has been
abandoned. The cost of cleaning up chemical "Superfund" dumps has been
shifted from industry to taxpayers, and cleanup funds have been drastically
cut. Mr. Devine's list of Bush administration regulatory reversals and
rollbacks is detailed and long.

Mr. Devine summarizes three effects of Republican environmental rollbacks:
(1) to favor private industrial activity over protection of the commons (the
natural resources that we all inherit together and none of us owns
individually, like air and water), (2) to favor the interests of the wealthy
over those of the middle and working classes, and (3) to "favor the present
over the future."[16, pg. 18] Among Republican leaders, the future counts
for little.

The Bush administration's most inventive and pioneering environmental
policies derive from a unique perspective on science. As many scientists
have noted, within the Bush administration science is routinely manipulated
until it gives the desired answer. Last month 4000 scientists, including 42
Nobel laureates, complained publicly that the administration has been
distorting science for political purposes.[17] Even the editor of Science
magazine, voice of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
has complained publicly about Mr. Bush's misuse of science.[18]

However, it is important to note that the Bush administration's approach to
science is not whimsical. It has real philosophical roots.

Traditionally, policies to protect the environment are based on
environmental science. The bedrock of environmental science is evolutionary
biology, the concept of ecosystems that are constantly evolving.

Fundamentalists like Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.)
deny the basis of modern environmental science. Mr. DeLay argues that
evolution does not occur -- and has never occurred -- because there has been
no need for it. He reasons that, "God is perfect, so He would not make
something imperfect" that needed to change via evolution.[19] This is a
logically consistent and essentially irrefutable position, if one accepts
the initial premises.

Of course science is not the only way of knowing about the world, and
spiritual knowledge is very important. The great value of science as a way
of knowing is that it allows people of different cultures to reach agreement
about important aspects of reality. No matter where you live, no matter what
your spiritual beliefs, water at sea level boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
When one's commitment to science as a way of knowing is weak or
non-existent, then agreement is all but impossible to achieve on complex
problems like environmental deterioration and associated threats to human
health.

For his part, President Bush says "the jury is still out" on evolution,[20]
so it seems safe to say that the President is not fully committed to
environmental science as the basis for policy. Within such an uncertain
intellectual framework, verifiable facts of a scientific nature have little
persuasive power, and the uncertainties inherent in all scientific inquiry
may be used to "prove" that scientists cannot be trusted. In contrast, to
those who accept its premises, fundamentalist theology offers absolute
certainty.

Many fundamentalist Christian leaders have been taught -- and now teach --
that there cannot ever be any environmental problems because "Christians
know that God has made the earth sufficiently large, with plenty of
resources to accommodate all the people He knew would come into existence...
Our world has plenty of room and plenty of natural resources."[21] In such a
world, there's no need to fret. If one place seems depleted, crowded, or
contaminated, there's always a sparkling new place just over the horizon.
"...[T]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited, and that
there is no shortage of resources in God's earth. The resources are waiting
to be tapped."[21]

So, within dispensational theology, as interpreted by political leaders, we
find four separate rationales for Bush administration environmental policy:

(1) Humans have a God-given duty to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the
earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28) And after the Flood, God said to Noah
and his family, "The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every
beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth
upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; unto your hand are they
delivered." (Genesis 9:2) Taken literally, such language seems to invite --
even demand -- domination and exploitation, not stewardship.

(2) The world is already perfect because God would not create an imperfect
world;

(3) Resources, including places needed for discarding wastes, are
inexhaustible because God made the world abundantly adequate for all human
needs; and

(4) Environmental problems, if any were to appear, wouldn't matter because
the Second Coming of Christ will sweep away this corrupt world.

Rational debate and a few more facts are not going to overcome arguments
like these. Against the self-assured certainty expressed by our
fundamentalist political leaders, traditional "environmentalist" arguments
are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

Notice, too, that all four fundamentalist Christian arguments support basic
laissez faire "free market" economics and the kind of "hands off"
environmental policies favored by the corporate leaders who make up the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and who form the other major constituency within the
Republican Party. To some, this confluence of interests between worldly
corporate leaders and their fundamentalist counterparts will seem a cynical
marriage of convenience; to others, it seems a marriage made in
heaven. --Peter Montague

==========

** My thanks to Jim Compton-Schmidt for providing me during the past two
years with numerous E-mails, citations, and copies of articles about
premillenial dispensationalism and its consequences in the real world.

[1] The neoconservative Project for a New American Century has been
advocating U.S. nuclear rearmament for several years. See their web site,
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ and read criticisms of their ideas at
http://www.pnac.info/ .

[2] Senator Inhof quoted in Allen C. Brownfield, "Strange Bedfellows: The
Jewish Establishment and the Christian Right," Washington Report on Middle
East Affairs (August 2002), pgs. 71-72. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=389

[3] Thomas H. Kean and other, The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington, D.C.
July 22, 2004). Full report (7.5 megabytes) available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=423 . For example, on pg. 147,
the Commission describes the motivation of Kahlid Shaikh Mohammed [KSM], the
man who dreamed up the 9/11 attacks and then persuaded Osama bin Laden to
organize them: "By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States
stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his
violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."

[4] See Ian S. Lustick, For the Land and the Lord; Jewish Fundamentalism in
Israel (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1988). ISBN 0876090366.
Lustick describes pugnacious ultraconservative Israelis who share the
"covenant land" territorial goals of Christian fundamentalists, though the
two groups have little else in common.

[5] Margot Patterson, "Will fundamentalist Christians and Jews ignite
apocalypse?" National Catholic Reporter Oct. 11, 2002. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=383. See also, Margot
Patterson, "Hebron: A West Bank Magnet for Trouble," National Catholic
Reporter Oct. 18, 2004. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=384. And see Margot Patterson,
"Americans in every aspect of Mideast conflict," National Catholic Reporter
April 12, 2002. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=386 And see
Jeffery L. Sheler, "Odd Bedfellows; Evangelicals support Israel, but some
Jews are skeptical," U.S. News & World Report August 12, 2002. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=424

[6] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan,
1970); ISBN 031027771X.

[7] Tom Hamburger and Jim VandeHei, "Chosen People: How Israel Became a
Favorite Cause of Christian Right," Wall Street Journal May 23, 2002, pg.
A1. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=425 And Howard Fineman,
"Bush and God," Newsweek, March 10, 2003. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=419

[8] Nancy Gibbs, "Apocalypse Now," Time July 1, 2002. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=394

[9] Rick Perlstein, "The Jesus Landing Pad," Village Voice May 18, 2004.
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=426 And: Elizabeth Bumiller,
"Evangelicals Sway White House on Human Rights Issues Abroad," New York
Times Oct. 26, 2003.

[10] Andrew Gumbel, "Evangelical Crusaders Prepare to Fight Islam with Aid
and a Bible," The Independent (UK) April 22, 2003.
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=427 And be sure to read
Nicholas Kristof, "Jesus and Jihad," New York Times July 17, 2004.
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=434.

[11] David Rennie, "Bible Belt Missionaries Set Out On a 'War for Souls' in
Iraq," London Telegraph (UK) Dec. 27, 2003.
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=428 And see Maureen Dowd, "A
Tale of Two Fridays," New York Times April 20, 2003.

[12] Martin E. Marty, "The Sin of Pride," Newsweek Mar. 10, 2003.
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=429

[13] Terri Gross's "Fresh Air" radio program, "The Jesus Factor," on WHYY
(Philadelphia) April 29, 2004. Available for listening at
http://freshair.npr.org/week_fa.jhtml

Recently two leading neoconservatives acknowledged that the Iraq war has
religious as well as "geopolitical" motivations. Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz, and Daniel Pipes, whom President Bush appointed to the board
of directors of the US Institute for Peace, have both said the ultimate
purpose of the "war on terror" is an "Islamic reformation," the
"modernization" of Islam, or "religion-building" rather than
"nation-building," as they put it. See Jim Lobe, "US: From nation-building
to religion-building," Asia Times April 9, 2004.
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=435

[14] Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics; Militant Evangelists on the Road
to Nuclear War (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill & Co., 1986). ISBN
0-88208-210-8. Essential reading.

[15] Economist Paul Krugman has noticed that the Bush administration
"governs like there's no tomorrow" but he makes no theological connection to
this observation. See "Looting the Future," New York Times Dec. 5, 2003.
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=430

[16] Robert S. Devine, Bush Versus the Environment (New York: Anchor Books,
2004); ISBN 1400075211.

[17] Andrew Buncombe, "The defiance of science," Independent (UK) June 29,
2004. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=431

And see Scientific Integrity in Policymaking; Investigation into the Bush
Administration's Misuse of Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned
Scientists, February 2004). And see Scientific Integrity in Policymaking;
Further Investigation... (Cambridge, Mass.: Union of Concerned Scientists,
July 2004), both available at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/
rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449.

[18] Donald Kennedy, "Editorial: An Epidemic of Politics," Science Vol. 299
(Jan. 31, 2003), pg. 625. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=432

[19] Peter Perl, "Absolute Truth," Washington Post Sunday Magazine May 13,
2001, pg. W12. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=433

[20] Nicholas D. Kristof, "The God Gulf," New York Times Jan. 7, 2004.

[21] Mark A. Beliles and Stephen M. McDowell, America's Providential History
(Charlottesville, Va.: Providence Foundation, 1989), pg. 197. ISBN
1887456007. This is a textbook aimed at teenagers that falsifies American
history to make it appear that the founding fathers intended the U.S. to be
a Christian theocracy, despite the absence of evidence in the Constitution.

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is a publication of the Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160; Phone:
(732) 828- 9995; Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org. Back issues
available by E-mail; to get instructions, send E-mail to INFO@rachel.org
with the single word HELP in the message. Subscriptions are free. To start
your own free subscription to Rachel's, send a blank Email to:
join-rachel@gselist.org NOTICE: Environmental Research Foundation provides
this electronic version of RACHEL'S DEMOCRACY & HEALTH NEWS free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce
it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help
by making a tax-deductible contribution(anything you can afford, whether
$5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax- deductible contribution to:
Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ
08903-0160. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For
further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by
credit card please use the Donate Now button on the home page of our website
http://www.rachel.org. --Peter Montague, Editor

----------
*****************************************************************
 18 Op Ed News: What Fate Awaits NSA Spying Whistleblower

  January 1, 2006

by David Swanson   

Can there be any doubt that if the White House finds out who
leaked the story of its illegal spying, fierce retribution will
follow? 

Another way of asking that question is: Should auld acquaintance
be forgot and never brought to mind?

Remember what happened to Ambassador Joseph Wilson? The White
House leaked to the media his wife's identity as an undercover
agent for the CIA, putting her life and those of her colleagues
in danger and ending her career.

And let us recall what became of General Eric Shinseki, Chief of
Staff of the U.S. Army, who dared to accurately predict how many
troops would be needed to occupy Iraq. Defense Department
officials leaked the name of his replacement 14 months before
his retirement, rendering him a lame duck commander and
embarrassing and neutralizing the Army's top officer.

We should also bring back to mind the fate of Major General John
Riggs. He told the Baltimore Sun that the Army needed at least
another 10,000 soldiers because it was being stretched too thin
between Iraq and Afghanistan. General George W. Casey told Riggs
to "stay in your lane" and not discuss the troops. Riggs
retired and was denied his full rank, officially for "minor
infractions."

Does anyone remember Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, a 31-year-old
member of a Tennessee National Guard unit? After asking Donald
Rumsfeld why vehicle armor was still scarce nearly two years
after the start of the war, Wilson was trashed as an
insubordinate plant of the "liberal media."

We can't forget former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill.
He was punished twice by the Bush Administration, once for
opposing Bush's tax policy, for which he was forced to resign in
January 2003, and later for providing a first hand account of
the Administration's decision-making process in the lead up to
the Iraq war. The Administration sought to discredit him by
launching an investigation into his use of classified documents
and whether he shared them with 60 Minutes in his interviews.
The investigation did not uncover any improprieties. The White
House also sought to discredit O'Neill through numerous
anonymous comments in the press.

Let's remember former senior White House economic adviser Larry
Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey angered the White House in September 2002
when he made a prescient prediction that a war with Iraq would
cost between $100 billion and $200 billion, an estimate
Administration officials at the time insisted was too high. In
December 2002, the White House requested that Lindsey resign
from his post.

And we should keep in mind the smear campaign against Richard
Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar who published a book
recounting how the Bush Administration had been fixated on
invading Iraq. Dan Bartlett, White House communications
director, dismissed Clarke's accounts as "politically
motivated," "reckless," and "baseless." Scott McClellan,
President Bush's spokesman, portrayed Clarke as a disgruntled
former employee: "Mr. Clarke has been out there talking about
what title he had . . . He wanted to be the deputy secretary of
the Homeland Security Department after it was created. The fact
of the matter is, just a few months after that, he left the
administration. He did not get that position. Someone else was
appointed." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice alleged
that: "Dick Clarke just does not know what he is talking about.
He wasn't involved in most of the meetings of the
Administration." Vice President Cheney stated that Clarke
"wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff . . . It
was as though he clearly missed a lot of what was going on."

The media ate that stuff up, but it was pretty tame compared to
the attacks on Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan, who managed to
find a voice in the media for expressing opposition to the war.
Fred Barnes of Fox News labeled Sheehan a "crackpot."
Conservative blogs then started talking about Sheehan's divorce,
her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops,
her incendiary sloganeering and her association with known
ticket-stub-carrying attendees of Fahrenheit 9/11. Rush Limbaugh
said her "story is nothing more than forged documents – there's
nothing about it that's real. Bush himself declared Cindy
unrepresentative of most military families he meets, and labeled
anti-war protestors as dangerous isolationists who embolden
terrorists.

And what about members of the media who reported unpleasant
truths? Well, let's bear in mind the tale of Jeffrey Kofman, an
ABC reporter. On July 15, 2003, one week after Donald Rumsfeld
told certain troops they would be going home, Kofman covered a
story in which American soldiers in Falluja described low moral
in Iraq and spoke angrily of how their tour of duty had been
extended yet again. The White House retaliated, using Matt
Drudge. His Drudge Report website posted the headline: "ABC News
Reporter Who Filed Troops Complaint Story -- Openly Gay
Canadian." When asked about the story, Drudge pointed to the
White House as his source.

And then there's Jose Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat and former
director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), which oversees the destruction of two million
chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world's chemical weapon
facilities. The Bush Administration attacked and ultimately
ousted him for failing to cooperate with the Administration's
decision to attack Iraq. 

The Bush Administration also sought to undermine the IAEA and
its Director General Mohammed ElBaradei as retribution for
revealing the Niger documents (allegedly evidence of an Iraqi
nuclear program) to be forgeries. Cheney denounced the IAEA on
television, and the White House made a push to oust ElBaradei
from the agency. The Administration's retaliation campaign
included a complete halt of intelligence-sharing with the
agency, recruitment of potential replacements and eavesdropping
on his calls in search of ammunition to use against ElBaradei
and the IAEA. 

There are so many people to remember, but let's not leave out
Bunnatine Greenhouse, the chief contracting officer at the Army
Corps of Engineers. In October 2004, Ms. Greenhouse came forward
and revealed that top Pentagon officials had shown improper
favoritism to Halliburton when awarding military contracts.
Greenhouse stated that when the Pentagon awarded Halliburton a
five-year $7 billion contract, it pressured her to withdraw her
objections, actions which she claimed were unprecedented in her
experience. The Army demoted Ms. Greenhouse, removing her from
the elite Senior Executive Service and transferring her to a
lesser job in the corps' civil works division.

The Bush Administration also undermined and used the CIA and its
analysts as a scapegoat for its own failings. Among other
things, the White House blamed the CIA and George Tenet for the
Niger reference in the State of the Union address after the CIA
had sought to modify, if not delete, the reference. Tenet was
gone by early 2004. 

The Bush Administration also retaliated against two officials
who sought to provide accurate information regarding the
Administration's inappropriate reliance on the Iraqi defector
known as "Curveball" and his alleged statements regarding mobile
chemical weapons laboratories. The first is "Jerry," who led a
CIA unit that went to Iraq and found Curveball's claims to be
blatantly false and misleading. After he did so, he was
chastised and transferred. According to The Los Angeles Times:
"Back home . . . Jerry was 'read the riot act' and accused of
'making waves' by his office director, according to the
presidential commission. He and his colleague ultimately were
transferred out of the weapons center."

Another victim was David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group,
which found the Bush Administration's WMD claims to be
inaccurate, including its reliance on Curveball. "In December
2003," according to the LA Times, "Kay flew back to C.I.A.
headquarters. He said he told Tenet that Curveball was a liar
and he was convinced Iraq had no mobile labs or other illicit
weapons. C.I.A. officials confirm their exchange. Kay said he
was assigned to a windowless office without a working telephone.
On Jan. 20, 2004, Bush lauded Kay and the Iraq Survey Group in
his State of the Union Speech for finding 'weapons of mass
destruction-related program activities. . . . Had we failed to
act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction program would
continue to this day.' Kay quit three days later and went public
with his concerns."

In spring 2001, according to the New York Times, an informant
told the CIA that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its
nuclear weapons program. However, according to a CIA officer,
the agency did not share the information with other agencies or
with senior policy makers. The officer, an employee for the
agency for more than 20 years, including several years in
intelligence related to illicit weapons, was fired in 2004. In
his lawsuit, the officer states that his dismissal was
punishment for his reports questioning the agency's assumptions
on a series of weapons-related matters and with the agency's
intelligence conclusions.

Each of these cases of retribution for truth-telling is
discussed and documented in Congressman John Conyers' report,
"The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and
Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in
the Iraq War." See pages 113 – 133.

http://www.davidswanson.org 

DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer
and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He
is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and
serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore
Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter
and as a communications director, with jobs including Press
Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign,
Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications
Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform
Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the
University of Virginia in 1997. 

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2005     
*****************************************************************
 19 Physics Today:  Discussing (or Not) Our Nuclear Future - 

Jan 2006
 
A potentially enormous change in the way the US manages its
nuclear weapons program is playing out with very little
discussion. 

Several books have been published this year on Robert
Oppenheimer and Los Alamos. They remind us that even when
Manhattan Project scientists were working flat out to develop
and build the bombs, most of the scientists kept discussing the
larger issues of national policy and how the bombs were to be
used. Contrast that with today. 

At present the major medium of discussion of the future of the
Los Alamos National Laboratory and by implication the nation's
nuclear weapons program seems to be the LANL blog
(http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/). Discussion there of
the impending change in laboratory management ranges from
apprehension about benefits to character assassination of those
figuring in recent Los Alamos controversies. Few comments have
addressed the larger issues, and responses to them have ranged
from nonexistent to derisive. 

Few people now working at the lab recall, or know those who
recall, the Manhattan Project and the dispirited days after
World War II. Fascinatingly, some of the blog blather resembles
withdrawal behaviors that were manifested 60 years ago in
reaction to the new and dreadful reality of the bomb. 

Most of today's adults were born and educated without having to
learn to dive under their desks in case of nuclear attack,
during which time we could contemplate the futility of that
little action in the face of megaton weapons. Understanding of
the danger of nuclear weapons is being lost as they are being
conflated with chemical and biological agents as weapons of mass
destruction. The reality is that there are nuclear weapons and
then there is everything else. 

The management of one of the nation's design laboratories by a
private contractor reflects a change in US nuclear weapons
policy. The possibility of a private contractor directing
nuclear weapons design work was a subject of intense discussion
at various times during the history of the weapons laboratories.
It is now a done deal. 

Other changes may follow. The reliable replacement warhead is
under consideration for funding by Congress. The Overskei
Report1 describes one possible future: a single-site weapons
development and manufacturing complex, with decreased
competition between the design laboratories. 

During the Manhattan Project, Los Alamos had a single,
clearly-defined purpose. It then went through a period of drift
and confusion until the decision was made to develop
thermonuclear weapons. During the latter part of the cold war,
additional projects were accreted without adequate planning. As
a result, Los Alamos now comprises many kinds of scientists and
engineers doing many kinds of research and development.
Consequently, there are many voices—and those voices need to be
talking to each other and asking the big questions. How might a
profit-making, business-expanding mindset affect the nation's
nuclear policies? Conversely, can such a mindset support
necessary basic research? 

Los Alamos and the physics community should be engaging the
nation in discussing those questions. What kind of nuclear
future do you want? 
Reference
 
  1. 1.Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Recommendations for
the Nuclear Weapons Complex of the Future, final report, US
Department of Energy, Washington, DC (13 July 2005), available
at [LINK]. 

Cheryl Rofer (crofer@gmail.com) Santa Fe, New Mexico     

Copyright© 2005 by the American Institute of Physics
All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 20 RIA Novosti: Russia takes on G8 presidency
 
01/ 01/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, January 1 (RIA Novosti) - Russia took on the year-long
presidency in the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations,
replacing Britain, January 1. 

Russia has already highlighted the main issues on the informal
club's agenda for this year, which is dominated by global energy
security issues. 

President Vladimir Putin said in December 2005 that Russia was
preparing a series of initiatives in the energy sector for the
G8 summit, due in St. Petersburg in July. Putin is expected to
urge joint efforts to ensure traditional fossil fuels supplies
"on the terms beneficial for both producers and consumers." 

He said diversifying energy resources and ensuring the safety of
their storage and transportation, developing nuclear power
energy, and searching for new technology and environmentally
friendly sources of energy, which was the focus of last year
under the previous G8 chair country, were central on the agenda. 

"We plan to put forward specific initiatives and proposals on
all those issues by the G8 summit in St. Petersburg," Putin
said, adding that Russia was looking forward to participating in
practical cooperation in the sphere. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov said following the G8
summit in June that Russia would uphold the traditions developed
within the G8. 

In 2006, the forum will continue to address burning issues of
global politics and economics, and demographic crises, as well
as to take measures to curb AIDS, TB, and other diseases. The
U.S., Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Canada, Italy, and the
EU, which holds a limited status in G8, will also focus on
anti-terrorist measures, non-proliferation issues, regional
conflicts, aid to "third world" countries, and other acute
problems.
 
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 21 BBC: Former Russian minister charged
 
Last Updated: Saturday, 31 December 2005
 
[Yevgeny Adamov]                                

Yevgeny Adamov has denied the charges against him                                                             

Russia's former nuclear energy minister Yevgeny Adamov has been 
charged with fraud and abuse of office by the authorities in 
Moscow. 

He was formally charged after being extradited from Switzerland - 
where he has been held since May - on Friday. 

The Supreme Court in Switzerland this week overturned an earlier 
decision to extradite him to the US, where he is wanted on 
embezzlement charges. 

It is not clear if the charges in Russia relate to the US 
allegations. 

The US accuses Mr Adamov of embezzling up to $9m (Ј5.2m) it gave 
to improve security at Russian nuclear facilities. 

Washington said it was disappointed with the Swiss decision and 
called on Russia to see "justice is done". 

Appeal bid 

Mr Adamov was flown to Russia from Zurich airport aboard a 
specially chartered Russian jet late on Friday, and taken to a 
Moscow prison. 

"Adamov was charged with large-scale fraud and abuse of office in 
the presence of his lawyer," the Prosecutor-General's Office 
press secretary Natalia Vishnyakova told Interfax news agency. 

She said he would remain in custody. 

The former minister's lawyer, Timofei Gridnev, said he would 
appeal for his client to be freed from custody pending trial, 
Itar-Tass news agency reported. 

Mr Adamov had been held in Bern on a US warrant since May. 

Moscow had filed its own extradition request shortly after the 
US, fearing Mr Adamov's detailed knowledge of the country's 
nuclear weapons programme could fall into US hands. 

The nuclear physicist, who was Russia's atomic energy minister 
from 1998 to 2001, has accepted his extradition to his homeland 
but continues to deny the charges. 

*****************************************************************
 22 BBC: Russia takes over G8 leadership
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 1 January 2006
 
By Damian Grammaticas BBC News, Moscow   

[Russian President Vladimir Putin]                              

President Putin is seeking to restore Russian prestige                                                            

Russia has taken over the chairmanship of the G8 group of nations 
for the first time. 

It will provide President Vladimir Putin with an opportunity to 
emphasise Russia's role in international affairs. 

But some critics have said Russia is not a fit country to head 
the group, which brings together the world's leading 
industrialised democracies. 

Global energy supply is set to be a big issue, with Russia 
seeking to show the importance of its oil and gas reserves. 

Mr Putin will want to emphasise to G8 members like the US, Japan 
and Germany, that their economies may be far bigger than 
Russia's, but they need his country because it has enough oil and 
gas to keep them supplied for years to come. 

Mr Putin has made restoring Russian prestige central to his 
presidency. 

Many Russians still feel keenly their nation's loss of influence 
following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now Mr Putin will be 
able to say Russia is back, and with a real say at the top table. 

Criticism 

Mr Putin will also press for co-operation against terrorism. And 
where Tony Blair put African development at the heart of 
Britain's chairmanship of the G8, Mr Putin will say that poverty 
in former Soviet states should be given an equal priority. 

But Russia's chairmanship will face criticism too. Some US 
Senators have argued that Russia should not be a member of what 
is a club of developed democracies, let alone be allowed to head 
the organisation. 

Russia was originally admitted as an observer to encourage it to 
reform its economy and develop democratically. 

But Russia is still not one of the world's leading economic 
powers. And Mr Putin has been criticised for prosecuting 
political opponents, clamping down on the media, and tolerating 
human rights abuses by his military in Chechnya. 

He has supported repressive regimes like that in Uzbekistan, and 
continues to help Iran develop nuclear power. 

So Russia's time at the head of the G8 will raise Russian 
prestige, but raise uncomfortable questions too.                                                         
*****************************************************************
 23 BBC: Energy and the new world power play
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 1 January 2006
 
By Paul Reynolds World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website   

[Russia's Vladimir Putin]                               

Russia now heads the G8, for whom security of energy supplies 
tops the agenda                                                
		
The row between Russia and Ukraine over natural gas is the result 
of a powerful combination of world energy concerns and Russia's 
desire to exert its influence in its own back yard. 

It is ironic that as Russia takes over the 12 months
chairmanship of the G8 industrial countries, at the top of whose
agenda is security of energy supplies, it chooses to reduce the
security of its neighbour's natural gas imports. 

The Russians say this is all a question of economics and that if
Ukraine chooses to turn to Western ways, then it will get them -
the market will rule and it will lose the old favouritism still
shown to Russian friends like Belarus. 

The Russians also point out that they have never stopped the
supply of gas to Western Europe, which started in the days of
the Soviet Union and has continued right through the upheavals
that followed. 

New world 

Ukraine fears that it is being none too subtly punished for the
Orange Revolution and for its pro-Western policies. 

[Pipelines near Kiev]                           

The West is watching the Russia-Ukraine row closely                                                              

Whatever the cause, the case illustrates the new world we are 
entering, one in which new sources of energy became new sources 
of potential tension and conflict. 

Of course, there is nothing strange about energy being at the
centre of diplomacy and world policies, even war. The Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor had its origins, at least in part, in a
decision by the United States to limit oil exports to Japan in
1941 in response to the Japanese invasion of China. 

Oil played its part in a 1953 coup in Iran - organised by the US
and Britain. They overthrew an elected prime minister, Mohammed
Mossadegh and installed Shah Reza Pahlavi instead, a move that
still reverberates in relations with Iran. 

The West became interested in the Arab world not because a few
diplomats fancied themselves as latter-day Lawrences of Arabia
(although some did). It wanted its main source of oil to be
secure. 

We learned from British archives released a couple of years ago
that in 1973, the US drew up a plan to seize oilfields in Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi in response to the Arab oil
embargo. 

For decades the aim of securing oil has been realised. 

It is only now, with the drying up of oil a prospect over the
next decades, that new worries are coming to the fore. 

China growth 

With the rapid growth of China in particular, but also of India
and a whole raft of middle-sized economies, the rush for the
world's remaining oil is under way. 

[Pipeline in Kazakhstan]                                

The Central Asian "stans" - such as Kazakhstan - are energy rich                                                          

China's need for oil is already influencing its foreign policy. 
It gets oil in Sudan, therefore anyone wanting sanctions against 
Sudan over Darfur has to reckon with China. The same goes for 
Iran, where China is also a buyer. 

The US government's Energy Information Administration tracks the
world's energy supplies and needs and has this to say about the
European Union: 

"The EU is a net importer of energy. According to a report
published by the European Commission, (European Union Energy
Outlook to 2020), two-thirds of the EU's total energy
requirements will be imported by 2020. Eurogas expects that the
EU will also import up to 75% of its natural gas requirements by
2020." 

No wonder the EU is looking at the argument between Russia and
Ukraine with concern. 

Such concern has meant that world attention has turned to some
previously obscure parts of the globe. 

The Arctic is one example. The melting of the ice cap is now
well under way and this means a new gold rush - for "black gold"
and other minerals. Land is being claimed, borders are being
contested and new tensions are developing. 

Energy diplomacy 

In 1996, the British government despatched Prince Charles to
several of the Central Asian "stans" which used to be part of
the Soviet Union - Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan. All
just happened to be energy rich, in either oil or gas. He also
went to Kyrgyzstan but it has no oil or gas, so he just visited
an army veterans' home. 

It was a trip he did not enjoy (apart from the pleasures of
viewing the Silk Road remains) but his enjoyment was not the
point. Diplomacy was. Energy was. 

The fact is that Britain's own supplies of gas from the North
Sea are not what they were. New horizons have to be opened up.
Soon, for example, the sight of huge liquefied natural gas (LNG)
ships from Algeria and Venezuela will become familiar in UK
ports. That, too, will have an impact on British diplomacy. 

And the future of nuclear power is now back on the agenda. This
means that those countries with big uranium deposits, such as
Australia and Kazakhstan, are going to find they have many new
friends if governments choose to take the nuclear track. 

Many will, although some countries - Germany and Sweden among
them - are closing their nuclear stations after public pressure.
Others, such as Finland, are rebuilding. 

In Britain, the debate has just been reopened. In France it was
ended 30 years ago. France has been 80% nuclear since deciding
not to be a potential hostage to an oil embargo. It now sells
its spare capacity to its neighbours, including the UK, using a
line across the Channel paid for by the original British
European budget rebate. 

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
*****************************************************************
 24 WorldNetDaily: Islamic back-scratching

  SATURDAY DECEMBER 31 2005           
        
[Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] 

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com 

Fifteen years ago – on the eve of the disintegration of the
Soviet Union – Congress authorized financial and technical
assistance to the Russians to help them secure, store and
dismantle excess Soviet nuclear weapons and to peacefully
dispose of the excess weapons-grade materials recovered thereby. 

Furthermore, under the 1997 U.S.-Russia Trilateral Agreement
with the International Atomic Energy Agency, we are committed to
dispose of our excess weapons-grade plutonium and to pay the
Russians to peacefully dispose of theirs. 

The Russians intend to dispose of theirs as uranium-plutonium
mixed-oxide power plant fuel (MOX), and to, thereafter, continue
making MOX – under IAEA supervision – using plutonium recovered
from "spent fuel." 

A nuclear fuel element is typically left in a conventional
water-moderated water-cooled nuclear power plant for four or
five years. About 3-5 percent of a new enriched-uranium fuel
element is "fissile" and will "burn." Additionally, in the
"burning" of fissile-uranium, fissile-plutonium is "bred" from
the non-fissile uranium. 

Hence, when the typical fuel element is removed from the power
plant, about two-thirds of its uranium-plutonium
fissile-material (and virtually all its uranium non-fissile –
but "breed-able" – material) remains "unburned." 

Hence, the spent-fuel element is still worth – as fuel – about
two-thirds as much as was the original fuel element. 

Hence, in Europe and Russia, spent-fuel elements are chemically
reprocessed and remaining uranium-plutonium fissile material –
as well as the very large amount of breed-able uranium – is
recovered and incorporated into new fuel elements. 

Since enriched uranium is needed only for the original uranium
fuel-element, the need for uranium-enrichment services – and for
new supplies of "yellowcake" – will be drastically reduced once
the MOX fuel cycle is fully implemented. 

What has all this got to do with current Israeli and neo-crazy
threats to destroy the Russian-built IAEA Safeguarded nuclear
power plant now nearing completion at Bushehr, Iran? Or to
destroy the IAEA Safeguarded uranium-enrichment facility barely
under construction at Natanz, Iran? 

Well, the rest of the world – concerned about nuke proliferation
– also concluded long ago that if the Russians are willing to
burn up their weapons-grade plutonium as MOX, then they are
willing to help them, financially and technically. 

Even though MOX is barely cost-effective now, it undoubtedly
will be very cost-effective in another 20 years or so when the
world's current supply of cheap yellowcake is near exhaustion. 

Now, spent fuel contains appreciable fractions of Pu240 and
Pu241. The radioactive properties of these higher plutonium
isotopes are such that, a) the recovery of the plutonium from
the spent fuel, b) the manufacture of the MOX-fuel elements, and
c) the installation of the MOX in the power plant needs to be
well coordinated, with the time interval between each step
essentially minimized. 

So, the Russians intend to build (with international financial
assistance) humongous spent-fuel storage facilities and MOX-fuel
fabrication plants. The Russians will then charge the rest of
the world annual fees for storing their spent fuel and for
fabricating new MOX fuel. 

The Russians intend to build several dozen reactors – in Russia
and elsewhere – specifically designed to run efficiently on MOX
fuel. Meanwhile, existing water-moderated water-cooled reactors
are already operating – with relatively modest modifications to
the plant and to operating procedures – on MOX fuel in Russia,
Japan and elsewhere. 

So, what should the Iranian mullahs do, if they're smart? 

Forget about enriching uranium. 

Have the Russians make – before it begins operation – certain
modifications to the Bushehr power plant so that it can use
Russian MOX fuel. 

But how can the Iranians be assured of a Russian fuel supply in
future? 

They can't. The Iranians haven't got anything the Russians need. 

But the Iranians do have something the Pakistanis (and the
Indians, and the Chinese) need. And need badly. 

Natural gas. 

Now, the Pakistanis have uranium-enrichment facilities, and for
at least the last 15 years have been offering uranium-enrichment
services. 

Furthermore, IAEA Safeguarded facilities employ efficient
super-sonic second-generation gas-centrifuges. 

However, the uranium-enrichment facility the Iranians had been
planning to construct at Natanz will use unreliable much-less
efficient first-generation gas-centrifuges, essentially obtained
second-hand from Pakistan. 

So, why doesn't the Islamic state of Iran cut a deal with the
neighboring Islamic state of Pakistan to obtain from them a
guaranteed contingent supply of enriched uranium in return for a
guaranteed supply of Iranian natural gas? 

Well, recall that Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki did recently
meet with his Pakistani-counterpart "to bolster defense, trade
and cultural ties." 

They reportedly focused on the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India
natural gas pipeline, but at a joint press conference
afterwards, Foreign Minister Kasuri made it clear that
nuke-armed Pakistan would oppose any use of force against Iran's
IAEA Safeguarded nuclear fuel-cycle programs.
 

Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy
implementing official for national security-related technical
matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr.
Prather also served as legislative assistant for national
security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate
Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had
earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National
Laboratory in New Mexico. 

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. 
webmaster@worldnetdaily.com
*****************************************************************
 25 Japan Times: Testing times for Japan, China

Saturday, December 31, 2005   
  
 By BRAD GLOSSERMAN

 HONOLULU -- Taro Aso's recent comment in plain words about the
"threat" posed by China's military modernization effort is as
remarkable as the supposed threat itself. The readiness of a
Japanese Cabinet official, and a foreign minister no less, to
publicly acknowledge and criticize China's military buildup
marks a profound departure from past practice.

 His comment underscores the fact that two processes are
occurring simultaneously in East Asia -- the "rise of China" and
the evolution of Japanese security policy. These changes are
pushing Asia into uncharted territory. Never before has the
region had to accommodate two "rising powers" at the same time.

 Development has stoked understandable and justifiable pride in
China, fueling both a heady nationalism and a defense
modernization effort that unnerves many foreign observers.
Seventeen years of double-digit defense spending increases,
steady expansion of ballistic-missile inventories,
nuclear-weapons development, and the pursuit of a blue-water
navy all appear disproportionate to any security threat that
China may face.

 Chinese assurances that there's no need to worry, explained
most recently in "China's Peaceful Development Road," a white
paper by the State Council, have not been convincing.

 Chinese foreign-policy makers and experts are equally
disconcerted by trends in Japan. Since the 1991 Persian Gulf
War, Japan has slowly shed its reticence about involvement in
international security affairs. This process has proceeded from
authorization of participation in United Nations peacekeeping
missions to the revitalization of the security alliance with the
United States, and now includes a domestic political debate
about the constitution and a fundamental alteration of the terms
upon which Japan engages the world.

 Many factors are behind this evolution, but a key component of
this shift is a generational change in Japan and a growing
consensus that Japan should be judged by its contributions to
international peace and security since the end of World War II
rather than the abuses committed by the Imperial regime during
the first half of the 20th century. This record affords Japan
the right to challenge the security policies of its neighbors,
as Aso has done, and to honor the Japanese who died fighting for
their country. But as Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has
repeatedly explained, in keeping with Japan's new outlook, that
remembrance honors their sacrifice, not the policies of the
government that forced them to fight.

 Yet in every trip through the region that I have taken in the
last two years, Chinese anger at Japanese policy has been
palpable -- and it's mounting. In Shanghai earlier this month,
at least half of the time that was supposed to be spent
discussing U.S. interests in East Asia was taken up with
complaints about Japanese behavior. Similar concerns were on
display at a recent multilateral security conference in Jakarta.

 What should be most troubling to Japan is that Chinese (and
Korean) anger is now matched by bewilderment in the rest of the
region. Governments and publics don't understand why Tokyo seems
intent to go out of its way to antagonize Beijing. They are
ready to accept a larger regional security role for Japan -- and
even welcome it as a balance against China -- but they don't
want a new Cold War in Asia and certainly don't want to be
forced to choose between the region's two giants. 

In Shanghai and Southeast Asia, there was suspicion that the
U.S. is pleased by this situation and might even be encouraging
Japan. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Japan is
isolated within the region, the Japan-U.S. alliance is
diminished. That explains rising concern among U.S. diplomats
and observers about Japanese behavior.

 It is unclear how far relations between Japan and China will
deteriorate. There are reports that Beijing has given up on
Koizumi and that the Chinese leadership will wait until he
leaves office before it makes any further overtures to Japan.
This assumes that the relationship can be managed reasonably
well at lower levels and that "hot economics" will prevent any
sharp downturn in the relationship. Those are dangerous
assumptions.

 The deteriorating relations highlight two points:

 * Asia faces a new and unsettling situation. The simultaneous
transformation of China and Japan is unprecedented. Never before
have the two countries had to deal with each other as equals. In
addition, both societies are in transition. This novel political
environment puts a premium on creativity when responding to
problems. Regional experts insist that Asia has studied history
and its future will not be Europe's past. That assertion will be
put to the test.

 * Particularly troubling, given the first point, is that key
actors in Asia have tunnel vision; they cannot see events from
their partner's perspective. They're quick to voice their own
grievances but can't understand why their own assurances are not
accepted. Views are becoming more rigid and ostensibly
diplomatic language is becoming increasingly righteous, both of
which make compromise more difficult.

 Japan and China must find common cause to deal with the many
concerns they share and the problems that affect them both.
Strategic dialogue and military transparency is an obvious
focus: any forum that brings together the two security
establishments for serious, structured discussions is to be
encouraged.

 Another focus of cooperation or competition will be energy.
Here, creativity will be at a premium. The two countries could
devise a win-win response that embraces joint projects that
split development costs of East China Sea resources, shares the
resources produced and has Japan provide at concessionary prices
"green," energy-efficient technologies that help cut China's
demand.

 In addition to addressing a host of issues -- territorial
disputes, energy supply and demand, pollution, technology
transfers -- it allows the two countries to begin building the
trust and confidence that is the bedrock of a sustainable
partnership.

 That may not sound like much, but given the growing antagonism
between the two countries, small steps may be all that is
possible right now.

 Brad Glosserman, a contributing editor to The Japan Times, is
executive director of Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based think
tank. He can be reached at:  <FONT
COLOR="BLUE">bradgpf@hawaii.rr.coma</FONT>

The Japan Times: Dec. 31, 2005
(C) All rights reserved 

*****************************************************************
 26 AFP: India and Pakistan swap list of nuclear facilities 

 Sun Jan 1, 4:48 AM ET 		 	 

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Nuclear-armed rivals Pakistan and India have
exchanged lists of their nuclear facilities in line with an
agreement to swap such information annually on New Year's Day,
the foreign ministry said. 

 which is divided between them and claimed in full by both. 

After coming close to another war in 2002, in January 2004 they
began talks to resolve all their disputes including the Kashmir
issue. 

They are scheduled to begin the next round of official-level
peace talks from January 17-18 in New Delhi. 

The peace process has so far produced a number of largely
symbolic steps, including cross-border bus services and the
resumption of sporting ties, but progress has been sluggish on
central issues. 

Last year in October the two countries formalised an agreement
on pre-notification of ballistic missile tests. They have also
set up a telephone hotline to prevent accidental nuclear
conflict. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 27 Guardian Unlimited: French accused of Pacific nuclear cover-up
 

High cancer rates in Polynesian islands are blamed on 30 years of 
test explosions at Mururoa          
 		
Lindsay Vincent Papeete
Sunday January 1, 2006
The Observer 		
 		
French politicians ate the fish and declared they were good. Now, 
10 years after the televised, stage-managed exit from atomic 
sites on the atoll of Mururoa, France is facing possible payback 
for its notorious South Pacific nuclear testing programme.

This month an all-party French Polynesia Assembly committee will 
publish findings into claims that atomic explosions, conducted 
over 30 years, caused fatalities and severe long-term health 
problems. The tests, the last of which was in 1996, numbered 
almost 200.

Local opponents of France have consistently blamed nuclear tests 
for the region's chronic levels of leukaemia and other cancers. 
They believe they will be vindicated by the forthcoming report 
and establish that France, for years, has engaged in an elaborate 
cover-up. They also claim Paris was aware of the health risks 
when testing began in 1966.

Strong evidence has emerged to support this assertion. But
France, which teamed up last summer with Assembly supporters in
an abortive challenge to the legality of the all-party inquiry,
continues to deny it is culpable.

'We are now getting more than 600 cases of cancer a year and
more than 250 deaths because of these tests,' says Roland
Oldham, president of Mururoa e Tatou, the association of former
Mururoa workers. He told The Observer that, historically,
accurate data has been hard to come by. 'There are 31 possible
cancers linked with nuclear matter and some can take 20 to 30
years to develop. This is why they are showing up now. Research
in Japan even suggests that some cancers can be transmitted
genetically,' he says.

Oldham's group is working in league with Aven, a Paris
organisation for French nationals, both military and civilian,
who also worked on nuclear sites in the region. 'Four of their
veterans have won court cases for cancer compensation and two
more are facing appeal. It is hard for us Polynesians to take
our case to a French court because we don't have access to the
right papers. Polynesians didn't keep papers.'

But the French military did. In 1998, in circumstances that
turned farcical, a Paris journalist was given authorised access
to military archives. 'He photocopied documents before it became
known he was doing research in classified sections. Panic set in
and he was kicked out.' A subsequent TV programme revealed,
among many other things, that the military urged evacuation from
Mangareva, 300 kilometres (186 miles) from the above-ground test
on Mururoa in 1966, when strong winds blew the nuclear cloud
eastwards, instead of westwards as had been expected. 'The
[government] reply was: "No evacuation for political and
psychological reasons." Ten days later the army went to measure
radiation levels and they were so high that people were poisoned
by vegetables and fish. They were evacuated to hospitals in New
Zealand.'

Hospitals in Auckland were for years the preferred place to
treat French Polynesian cancer sufferers. However, adverse local
publicity - particularly after French agents sank the Greenpeace
protest vessel Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour in 1985 -
brought a change in policy. They are now treated in France.

Oldham says: 'Because of the nuclear problem, there is a lot of
suspicion here of doctors and they are not trusted. Three years
ago a former Mururoa worker was told he had diabetes and his toe
was amputated. Two months later, his testicles started to swell
and he was told he would have to be operated on in France, where
he also underwent therapy. There, he was told he had cancer
related to radiation.'

For the electorate, the all-party report will prove an important
test for the credibility of Oscar Temaru, president of the
pro-independence Tavini Huiraatira party. Temaru heads a
coalition that, in 2004, ended the long-standing dominance of
the Tahoera'a Huiraatira party, led by Gaston Flosse. Flosse, a
lifelong supporter of French patronage, and all things Gallic,
has strong support in three of the five archipelagos of French
Polynesia, especially in the remote northern Marquesas group,
where the population of around 10,000 receives generous French
aid, indirectly funded by Brussels.

In the main group, the Society Islands, independence flags may
be commonplace, particularly in Tahiti and its capital, Papeete,
but there is growing suspicion that Temaru is becoming
susceptible to French persuasion. Since being elected, Temaru
has disappointed supporters by saying independence could yet be
20 years away. Moreover, he now plans to replace the Pacific
franc with the euro.

France provides an economic lifeline for the region and its
200,000 inhabitants. Last year aid levels amounted to upwards of
$180 million.
 	
 	 	
Media
Le Monde
Le Figaro
Lib&#233;ration
Les Echos
L'&#201;quipe

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 28 London Times: Blair is fading away to a dubious place in history - 

Comment -

By longevity in office in the post-war period, two premierships
stand out: Blair’s and Margaret Thatcher’s. During Blair’s
sojourn in 10 Downing Street Thatcher has been the house ghost.
Blair has been haunted, inspired or repulsed by her record.
Inevitably, historians will compare the two. 

Blair’s most unambiguous achievement occurred mainly before he
became prime minister. He transformed the Labour party. When he
entered parliament in 1983 it was seriously questioned whether
Labour could ever govern again; 14 years later he had
transferred that doubt to the Tories. 

One of Blair’s predecessors as party leader, Neil Kinnock,
deserves some credit too. But Blair is the hero for pursuing
“the project” single-mindedly and even ruthlessly. He bludgeoned
his party’s backwoodsmen, inspired recruits to Labour and
charmed the media. 

I remember the day Thatcher won power. There was excitement
certainly, not least about the election of a woman premier. But
there was little goodwill towards the new government. By
contrast, when Blair reached Downing Street the country was
elated by a sense of renewal. For many who have been
disappointed the memory of that bliss and that dawn is now
painful. Still, by making Labour electable and enthusing the
nation Blair demonstrated his rare political gifts, for which he
will be justly remembered. 

The same talents enabled him to pull off the Good Friday
agreement in Northern Ireland. Thatcher made war on the IRA with
as much determination as Blair later made peace, and both were
necessary phases. However, we should not make simplistic
distinctions between the two premiers based on Ulster. Thatcher
was no stranger to compromise. She gave independence to Zimbabwe
and Hong Kong to China. She signed the Anglo-Irish agreement and
the Single European Act, and she took Britain into the
exchange-rate mechanism. But whereas she had little enthusiasm
for those deals and repented most of them, Blair’s settlement in
Northern Ireland owed much to his visionary quality. A peace
depending largely on his charisma exemplified his political
strengths, even if such reliance on him was a weakness in the
deal. 

Despite that success, it is doubtful that “peacemaker” will be
the first word that springs to mind when we look back on Blair.
He has led Britain to war in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan
and Iraq. Both Thatcher’s wars in the Falklands and against Iraq
were a response to invasion by a nationalist dictator. The
motivations for Blair’s wars have been more complex, and
justifying them has been tougher. Thatcher’s wars were quick and
once won were over. Blair ’s campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq
have been prolonged and messy. 

Nothing illuminated the nature of these prime ministers’
relations with America so tellingly. Thatcher’s fleet set sail
against Argentina before President Ronald Reagan had decided
whether he was backing us or them. She had to fight for
America’s support and against its plans for shabby compromise.
When Saddam attacked Kuwait, Bush the elder needed Thatcher to
persuade him to take up arms. By contrast, Blair has never been
able to shed his image as George W Bush’s poodle. 

No one could be easier to get on with than Blair, and few more
difficult than Thatcher. We gawped in wonder when Blair
befriended Bush as warmly as Bill Clinton. Blair can be pals
with anyone. But to what avail? His special relationship with
the White House has failed to refine any American foreign
policy. 

Yet despite her abrasiveness Thatcher often won diplomatic
battles. Most spectacularly she turned Reagan when, during the
1986 Reykjavik summit with Mikhail Gorbachev, he came close to
agreeing the destruction of all American and Russian nuclear
weapons. The sometimes tense relationships that she built with a
few counted for more than the agreeable amities that Blair
cultivates with everyone. In Europe, especially, he has
discovered that mere bonhomie easy comes and easy goes. He now
has as many enemies as she did. Last month’s European summit
showed that Britain is no more at the heart of the union now
than it was under Thatcher, even though Blair has surrendered
part of her famous rebate. 

Great times call forth great leaders. Thatcher was lucky to live
during a momentous period and she will be recognised for her
significant contribution to ending communism in Europe. Perhaps
Blair’s role in Iraq will in time come to be seen as presaging
an equally important sweep of democracy through the Middle East.
History might just view it that way but Blair can hardly count
on it. 

In domestic policy he is already regarded as having thrown away
his opportunities. But his government did one important thing
when it gave independence to the Bank of England. It was Brown’s
doing not Blair’s, but still this prime minister has presided
over continuous economic growth. Few predecessors can claim as
much. Thatcher’s economic management produced volatile inflation
and high interest rates. 

Nonetheless she led an economic revolution. She humiliated the
trade unions, cut income tax and privatised state industries.
What can be said for Blair, and it is saying a lot for a Labour
leader, is that he preserved her legacy. But in her day her
ideas were revolutionary. Britain was in the vanguard of liberal
economic reform. By Blair’s time such policies were commonplace.
He had merely to plough along Thatcher’s furrow. 

Neither Thatcher nor Blair had much idea what to do with public
services. For all the talk of cuts, public expenditure on health
rose under the Tories much as it had under her Labour
predecessors. The leap in spending has come under Blair (Brown,
really). The prime minister will get some credit for that.   	 		

But not much. The extra money has not produced a proportionate 
leap in the quality of service. The British people inconsistently 
oppose change in health and education yet long for improvement. 

Since Labour, unlike the Tories, is trusted with public services 
it has a duty to reform them. Blair has lacked the imagination to 
do so. His best ideas are reheated Thatcherism. At her eleventh 
hour she devised grant maintained schools. In his twilight Blair 
has conjured up trust schools.

Regarding his record on public services, the comparison that 
Blair should fear is not with Thatcher but with Clement Attlee, 
Labour prime minister after the second world war. In his first 
five years he created the National Health Service and 
nationalised the commanding heights of the economy.

Attlee's policies are no longer fashionable but his achievements 
reproachfully signal to Blair the scale of what a Labour premier 
with a large majority could accomplish in just one term.

Blair risks being classed alongside Wilson, that consummate but 
slippery communicator who managed his party well but achieved 
little else. Labour backbenchers might ruefully recall one 
difference between the two. Wilson kept Britain out of America's 
wars and during the debacle in Vietnam stood aloof.

Sixteen years ago today I was honoured to be a guest in that 
loveliest of country houses, Chequers. I joined the convivial 
Thatcher family lunch on her 11th New Year's Day in office. I 
failed to guess that it would be her last. The Blairs chose to 
greet 2006 in Sharm el-Sheikh. It may be just as well. Perhaps 
that way they will feel less the pain of losing Chequers. 


, The Times and The Sunday Times. 

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 29 FT.com: Brussels briefing - Dispute likely to boost arguments for nuclear power

By Thomas Catan

Published: January 2 2006 17:20 | Last updated: January 2 2006

[Graphic] RussiaвЂ™s row with Ukraine has triggered fresh
concern over the security of EuropeвЂ™s energy supplies and some
see nuclear power as the biggest beneficiary.

With no oil or gas of their own, many big European economies
have long been almost wholly dependent on imports to meet energy
needs. Germany, France and Italy are all big importers of
natural gas, something that has rarely been a cause for concern
in the past.

However, the situation is set to get more acute, with Europe
projected to become far more dependent on imported Russian gas
in the next 15 years or so. Britain, for example, is turning
from being an exporter of natural gas into a major importer as
its supplies from the North Sea run out.

According to the EU, two-thirds of its total energy requirements
вЂ“ and three-quarters of its gas вЂ“ will be imported by 2020.
Much of that will be provided by RussiaвЂ™s state-controlled gas
monopoly, Gazprom. A study commissioned by the EU last year
warned that, with the arrival of the new eastern European
members, EU reliance on Russian gas would increase further.

вЂњThe vulnerability of the EU to a disruption of gas supplies
is growing, partly because of the increased gas imports in
general and partly because of the high dependence on a single
source, Russia, of the new member states,вЂќ the study found.

вЂњThe ability to diversify...is limited due to the fixed
infrastructure and the organisation structure of the gas
industry in Russia.вЂќ

Russia has become increasingly explicit about its intention to
use its energy reserves as a foreign policy tool. The question
now is whether Europe should work harder to reduce its reliance
on imported energy.

One of the few options available to European countries would be
to build more nuclear power stations. After the oil shocks of
the 1970s, France embarked on a massive nuclear programme, and
today, more than three-quarters of its electricity comes from
nuclear power.

By contrast, around 20 per cent of BritainвЂ™s power is
generated with nuclear power and that proportion is set to fall
sharply. Unless new nuclear plants are built, Britain says it
will rely on gas to generate 70 per cent of its electricity by
2020 вЂ“ with the vast majority coming from Russia.

The UK government is poised to make a decision in the next six
months on whether to allow a new generation of nuclear plants in
Britain.

Germany, the largest consumer of Russian gas, has promised to
close all its nuclear power stations by 2020. But many analysts
believe the new government will agree to extend the lives of
many reactors when the political climate is right.

If the countryвЂ™s energy supplies are threatened by RussiaвЂ™s
spat with Ukraine, however, that moment could come sooner rather
than later. 

вЂњIt makes countries a little bit more nervous about using gas
where they have other options, so it must directionally favour
the prospects for nuclear power,вЂќ said Graham Weale, director
of the European energy service for Global Insight, the
consultants.

In recent years, many European nations have promoted renewable
energy sources such as wind or wave-power. But those sources are
not large or reliable enough substantially to reduce energy
imports. Countries such as Germany and Spain still have coal,
but any remaining deposits are expensive to mine and heavily
subsidised.

New вЂњclean coalвЂќ technologies can help deal with the
additional pollution caused by burning coal instead of gas. But
these, too, come at a high cost. 

As Russia becomes more assertive about using its vast energy
reserves to promote its foreign policy, it needs to be careful
about overplaying its hand. In the 1970s, oil prices soared as
the newly-formed oil cartel, the Organisation of Petroleum
Exporting Countries, asserted its control.

The resulting price spike hurt the world economy and caused a
crash in oil demand. It also spurred the development of a host
of alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power, further
reducing demand for oil. For those reasons, Saudi Arabia has
been restrained about the way in which it wields its power since
the 1970s, using it instead to enforce stable prices. Russia may
find it has to do the same.

Russia has the worldвЂ™s largest gas reserves within pipeline
distance of one of the worldвЂ™s largest regional gas markets.
But as it takes the reins of the Group of Eight industrialised
nations this month, it will have to be careful that its fight
with Ukraine does not end up permanently denting its reputation
as a reliable energy supplier.  
  
В© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 30 Independent:  Cost of cleaning up after nuclear power stations are closed 
down rises to Ј70bn 

By Andy McSmith 

Published: 03 January 2006 

The projected cost of cleaning up the sites of Britain's old
nuclear power stations is likely to leap to more than Ј70bn when
new figures are published early this year. 

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), set up last April
to supervise state-owned nuclear plants, said it was "almost
certain" that its initial estimate of Ј56bn - itself the
equivalent of a charge of Ј800 for every adult and child in the
country - would have to be revised upwards. 

Inflation alone is likely to push the costs up to almost Ј58bn -
but a closer look at conditions in some of the older nuclear
sites, particularly Sellafield and Dounreay, has convinced
inspectors the figure published in the NDA's strategy document
last year was too low. The Ј56bn figure is itself only an
estimate of the costs of clearing up the former state-run civil
nuclear programme. It does not include the weapons establishment
at Aldermaston, run by the Ministry of Defence, or
privately-owned nuclear plants such as Sizewell B. 

Previously unpublished figures for individual sites, supplied by
the NDA, show that Sellafield, Britain's largest nuclear
complex, is currently estimated to cost another Ј31bn before it
is finally closed down - a figure that is likely to increase
drastically. Commercial operations at the site are due to end in
2016, but it will be another 134 years before the site is
finally made safe. 

One of the biggest decisions facing the Government in 2006 is
whether to order the building of a new generation of nuclear
power stations, as the last of the old state-owned plants goes
out of action. Supporters of the nuclear industry say their case
has been strengthened by global warming and by the rising price
of gas, because nuclear power will give Britain a domestic
source of energy that does not emit carbon dioxide. They also
say new stations will be built with decommissioning in mind,
leaving behind lower long-term costs. 

But opponents say that building new power stations does not make
economic sense. "The cost is just absolutely astronomical," the
former environment minister Michael Meacher said yesterday. "I
wouldn't be surprised if it was somewhere of the order of Ј70bn
or Ј80bn. OK, so it's over a long period of time, but it's still
going to have to be paid. 

"It's financially insane, unless there is absolutely no
alternative - and the truth is that the alternative is there. It
is renewable energy, like wind, and solar energy and tidal
power. People talk about this as if it is something a bit exotic
and marginal, but that is because it has not had investment
anything like the amount that has been poured into nuclear
power." 

Tony Blair warned in his new year's message last week that
energy policy would be one of the "big choices" the Government
would face this year. The Prime Minister sought to take a world
lead during 2005 in the campaign to prevent global warming, but
had to face the embarrassing fact that emissions of carbon
dioxide have been increasing in Britain, making it very unlikely
that the Government would meet its self-imposed target to cut
CO2 emissions by 2010 to 20 per cent below the 1990 level. That
alone is thought to have convinced Mr Blair of the case for
reverting to nuclear power. 

Brian Wilson, a former energy minister and advocate of nuclear
power, said that the current crisis in the Ukraine was a warning
of the consequences of depending too heavily on imported fuel.
He pointed out that by 2020, 70 per cent of the UK's electricity
would come from gas, and 90 per cent of that would be imported.
The Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, is more sceptical
of the case for nuclear power, arguing that it would be
impossible to build new power stations and have them producing
electricity soon enough to help the Government meet its 2010
target for CO2 emissions. 

The Environment minister, Elliot Morley, is another sceptic. He
told a recent seminar: "I don't think nuclear development is
economically viable, and since no one is offering to pay, it
would certainly need to have financial support from the
Government." 

© 2005 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 31 APP.ccom: Wind power offers cost-effective choice 

| Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
by the Asbury Park Presson 01/2/06                                                 

I read with amusement the Dec. 21 article about the testimony of 
experts on a blue ribbon panel claiming windmill power could be 
costly to New Jersey. "Costly" compared to what? Oil, natural 
gas, nuclear, coal? America leans on the quicksand of the Middle 
East to keep the oil flowing to our shores. What is the cost of 
defending our "freedom" to acquire Middle Eastern oil?

Windmill power is costly compared to natural gas? Isn't the
price of natural gas (a finite, nonrenewable resource) climbing
higher this winter? What will the price of natural gas be in 10
years?

Is wind power more expensive than the cost of thousands of years
of monitoring the nuclear waste generated by a nuclear power
plant?

Coal is certainly cheap, until you factor in the acid rain it
produces and the carbon dioxide/greenhouse-producing gases
generated by the burning of coal.

What about the consumption cost of fossil fuels adding to
unnaturally high greenhouse gas production that many scientists
around the globe believe is dangerously heating our planet?

The ultimate cost of our present forms of "inexpensive" energy
should be considered by the state when thinking of alternatives
such as wind power. If our energy sources today are reasonably
priced but will be paid for again and again by future
generations, then what does "costly" mean? It will be costly to
build windmills, but what will it cost if we don't?

Windmill construction would require bold thinking on the part of
politicians. Unfortunately, the only boldness New Jersey
politicians embrace is the lining of their pockets and the
pandering to those who might vote for them. Politicians are
incapable of thinking about the future. New Jersey is not
progressive enough to adapt and accept windmill power as a first
step in a new direction.

Richard Oates

MARLBORO

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 32 APP.COM: NRC dismisses state's concerns 

| Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Back Issues:Sunday, January 1, 2006

How sad that nuclear proponents think it is worthwhile to go on 
producing hundreds of tons of deadly, vulnerable nuclear waste 
and risking all of our lives in the process in Ocean County by 
the continued operation of the aged Oyster Creek nuclear reactor 
in Lacey.

How sad that when serious concerns are raised by the state
Department of Environmental Protection and citizen groups
regarding license renewal for Oyster Creek that these concerns
are negated, not by nuclear engineers but by tortuous legal
maneuvering of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

How ridiculous that the NRC can say "high-consequence,
low-probability events" are beyond its purview, when the
agency's founding mission is to protects citizens from negative
effects of a radiological event.

How dishonest that the NRC does not admit that New Jersey's
concern is for a high-consequence, high-probability terrorist
event — if all the warnings for vigilance by all levels of
government since 9/11 have any validity at all. How dishonest of
the NRC when a recent National Academy of Science report
identified Oyster Creek as especially vulnerable.

We need our state legislators and entire (not just Ocean
County's) congressional delegation to demand that the NRC do its
job by considering all aspects of public safety in reviewing the
status of the Oyster Creek plant. We need an independent review
of the NRC's study to assure that public safety is the primary
concern, not — as it seems to be now — the welfare of Exelon and
its stockholders.

Paula Gotsch

GRANDMOTHERS, MOTHERS AND MORE

FOR ENERGY SAFETY (GRAMMES)

BRICK

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 33 toledoblade.com: Grand jury decision on Besse may come soon

Article published Saturday, December 31, 2005
 
By BLADE STAFF WRITER

Ohio residents are expected to learn next month whether criminal
charges will be filed against any current or former FirstEnergy
Corp. employees linked to the near-rupture of Davis-Besse's old
nuclear reactor head in 2002.

 The reactor head became so dangerously thinned out by
uncontrolled acid that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
repeatedly called it an avoidable safety lapse that posed the
greatest risk to the public since the partial meltdown of the
Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979.

U.S. Attorney Greg White earlier this week told The Blade that
by middle to late January he expected to make a major
announcement about the findings of a grand jury in Cleveland
that spent two years considering evidence compiled by the U.S.
Department of Justice and the NRC's Office of Investigations.

And in a 19-page order filed on Dec. 22, the NRC's Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board said it has been told by the Justice
Department and NRC staffers that any indictments being handed
down will come before Feb. 1. The NRC was instructed by that
board to have its staff file a status report if no decisions
have been announced by Jan. 23.

The Dec. 22 order was based on a Dec. 15 hearing at the NRC's
headquarters in Rock-ville, Md. According to a 97-page
transcript of that hearing, NRC attorney Sara Brock told the NRC
licensing board she also believes decisions will be finalized by
Feb. 1.

"I think they'll be done. I think there's a lot of reasons why
it will be done, and I think that there's a pretty specific plan
now," Ms. Brock was quoted as saying.

But the grand jury's status is unclear.

According to the hearing transcript, it was empaneled in
November, 2003. That means its term would have expired Nov. 30,
unless it was a special type of grand jury that was given more
than the customary 18 months and a one-time extension of up to
six months.

Billie Pirner Garde, a Washington attorney representing former
Davis-Besse engineer Andrew Siemaszko, said last night it's
possible that Mr. White could be sitting on a sealed document
and be in the process now of negotiating with affected
FirstEnergy employees.

Or he may have already put together a new grand jury.

Judge Lawrence McDade, chairman of the NRC's Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, was quoted in transcripts from the Dec. 15
hearing as saying that "it would appear just from the rules that
it must have been referred to a different grand jury for
investigation or for the return of an indictment."

The grand jury investigation has drawn the NRC licensing board's
interest, because it is hearing Mr. Siemaszko's appeal of that
agency's proposed sanctions against him.

Records show Mr. Siemaszko tried to get FirstEnergy to hold off
on restarting Davis-Besse long enough during the plant's 2000
outage to do an adequate job of cleaning rust from the reactor
head, as well as identifying leaks or other problems that needed
to be fixed.

The utility spent a day on maintenance for a job that Mr.
Siemaszko said should have taken weeks, if not months.

FirstEnergy officials, though, have said they did nothing wrong.

They have said that Mr. Siemaszko should not have signed a
document authorizing restart if he had reservations.

Mr. Siemaszko has said he feared he would be terminated if he
didn't sign off on the work.

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 34 Xagena: Chernobyl legacy sheds light on link between thyroid cancer and
radiation exposure

Xagena.net

Study results have provided further valuable insights into
certain genetic mutations which occur in childhood thyroid
tumours and their link to both radiation exposure and patient
age.
 
The unique circumstances of this study were provided for by the
legacy of the radioactive accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Power
Plant in April 1986. Exposure to radioactive fallout led to a
large increase in the incidence of papillary thyroid cancer (
PTC ), which was particularly pronounced in those who were
children at the time of the accident. In normal circumstances,
thyroid cancer is rare in children under the age of sixteen.
 
The Chernobyl Tissue Bank was established in 1998 to collect
biological samples from those aged under 19 at the time of the
accident who subsequently developed thyroid tumours and were
resident in the areas of Ukraine and Russia contaminated by the
radioactive iodine ( 131-I ) fallout.
 
Radioactive iodine 131-1 has a short half-life of seven days and
quickly dissipates in the environment.

 The investigators were aware of the fact that the incidence of
thyroid cancer had dropped down to normal occurrence rates in
those children born 9 months after the Chernobyl accident.
 
The continued collection of material by the Tissue Bank gave the
investigators a unique opportunity to compare the samples
gathered from children who experienced the Chernobyl accident
with those born nine months after the incident whose thyroid
cancers were unlikely to arise from exposure to 131-I.
 
The overall aim of the study was to compare the genetic
mutations found in childhood thyroid cancer sufferers born
before and after the accident – and assess the link to radiation
exposure or patient age at diagnosis.
 
Overall, 52 cases of papillary thyroid cancer were studied,
using tissue obtained from the Chernobyl Tissue Bank.

 These cases were split into four groups matched according to
age, sex and place of residence.

 Two groups of 13 cases were from the areas of Ukraine most
heavily contaminated with radioiodine – one group of 13 born
before the accident and the other born after the 1st January
1997, and therefore spared exposure to radioiodine.

 The two other groups of 13 cases were from other areas of the
Ukraine which were not exposed to significant radioiodine
fallout – again consisting of one group of children with PTC
born before the accident and one group born after 1st January
1987.
 
Molecular biology studies found no difference with respect to
type or overall frequency of a particular genetic mutation,
known as ret rearrangement, between any of the groups – despite
the fact that ret rearrangement had been thought to be a
potential marker of radiation exposure. This study therefore
shows that, contrary to other reports in the literature, there
is no association between ret rearrangement and radiation
exposure.

 Rather, the study investigators believe that the real link
between the patterns of molecular biological alterations
observed post-Chernobyl in thyroid cancer might actually be
related to the age of the patients under study, rather than
radioiodine exposure.

 Only one child out of the 52 studied had a specific gene
mutation, known as BRAF, which is typically present at higher
levels in adult thyroid cancer sufferers. In contrast, 58% of
adult thyroid cancer patients in the Ukraine show this mutation.
 
Overall, the insights provided by the study of Chernobyl
children with thyroid cancer suggest that age at diagnosis of
cancer should be taken into account before drawing conclusions
about any link between the specific molecular biology of the
cancer and radiation exposure – as this may actually have more
significance.
 
Principle study investigator, Gerry Thomas from the South West
Wales Cancer Institute, UK commented, " The investigation of the
molecular biology of thyroid cancer has shown that thyroid
cancer in children is very different from that in adults.
Attention is turning to the effect that age of the patient may
have on other types of cancers. A better understanding of the
biology of cancer will help us tailor treatments to different
groups of patients in the future." 

" Through the catastrophic accident at Chernobyl we have been
able to glean further insight into the precise molecular link
between radiation and cancer," stated Thomas. " These study
findings may have important implications for other ongoing
investigations, such as those which are looking at the molecular
nature of breast cancer in women who have previously undergone
radiotherapy treatment for Hodgkin's disease. There is much
debate about whether we in Europe should reconsider nuclear
power as an option to meet our increasing energy demands. It is
important that we take the opportunity to study the consequences
of the Chernobyl accident in a proper scientific way, so that we
can balance the risks against the benefits of different
solutions to the energy problem in an educated way."
 
Source: Federation of European Cancer Societies, 2005
 
XagenaMedicine2005

Xagena News   

*****************************************************************
 35 Irish Examiner: Nuclear energy is our only option
 
02/01/06 

Nuclear energy is our only option IT should be obvious that
Ireland is facing an energy crisis. Energy demand for transport
is growing at 8% a year; world oil and gas reserves are
declining at 2% or 3% a year against an exponential growth in
energy demand. 

Without indigenous fossil fuel sources, we are heading for
disaster. And what is the Government’s answer? The construction
of peat-burning power stations creating pollution, acid rain,
global warming and turning peatland habitat into a lunar
landscape. 

Nor can subsidising motorists to burn biofuel change the
scientific fact that there is simply not enough arable land and
that huge amounts of energy, currently derived from fossil
fuels, are needed to produce biofuels. 

Wind turbines, hydroelectric and solar domestic heating should
be able to supply 30% of Ireland’s energy requirements, but it
is difficult to see how renewables could ever cope with the
growing transport demand. 


                              <img
src="http://www3.adireland.com/adview.php?what=zone:163&amp;n=a83
                   57c4e" border='0' alt=''>	
 

Cars alone would need about 50,000 wind turbines, not to mention
the infrastructure needed to produce hydrogen or for battery
storage. Coal can be imported but it is the worst culprit for
greenhouse gases and air pollution. 

Nuclear is the only option - France now derives more than 50% of
its energy from nuclear and the UK 30%. The objections to it owe
more to superstition than scientific fact. Of course there are
dangers, as in any technology, but they are insignificant in
comparison. 

For example, more people are killed every year by cars than have
been killed in the whole history of nuclear power, including
nuclear weapons. The production and use of fossil fuels results
in deaths, disease and injury at a rate several hundred times
higher per unit of energy than nuclear power does.

I can understand objections from those who would like to
de-industrialise down to a low-tech, Neolithic sort of existence
- an idea I find attractive, though unachievable, but it is
contradictory and hypocritical coming from those who cannot
accept that private cars have to be abolished before they
abolish us humans as well as other creatures with which we share
the planet.

The blind faith that ‘they’ will come up with a solution to the
energy crisis is just that - blind. The difficulties are not
technological, but scientific, and we cannot change the laws of
physics. 

Michael Job
Rossnagrena 
Glengarriff 
Co Cork   


[Back]     
  

        


      	
<span class="bntitle"><b>Ireland Latest</b></span>
 	  	 	6:03:15 PM
 
	<span class="bnheadline">Govts aim to re-establish Northern
Assembly in 2006</span>
 
 	 	<span class="bntitle"><b>Sport Latest</b></span>
 	  	 	10:55:20 PM
 
	<span class="bnheadline">Irish women's rugby fixtures move
to Donnybrook</span>
 
 	 	<span class="bntitle"><b>World Latest</b></span>
 	  	 	10:01:33 PM
 

	<span class="bnheadline">Ice rink death toll climbs to
five</span>
 
 	 	<span class="bntitle"><b>Business Latest</b></span>
 	  	 	10:28:44 AM
 
	<span class="bnheadline">Disaster planning 'should be top
resolution for businesses'</span>
 
 	 	<span class="bntitle"><b>Entertainment Latest</b></span>
 	  	 	11:53:37 AM
 
	<span class="bnheadline">C4 keeps Big Brother celebrities
under wraps</span>
 
 	 <span class="bntitle"><b>Latest Topics</b></span>


<span class="bntitle"><b>More<br><img
src="/breaking/images/breaking/spacer.gif" border="0" width="10"
height="20">Breaking News</b></span>

      




    
        SECTIONS       
    






    
        

ARENA
All the latest
sport

FARMING
The latest agriculture
news and views

FOOD
Let Darina Allen and
co tickle your palate
 

PROPERTY
We'll help you make
the move

       
    


<img
src="../../../../images/examiner_images/headings/bnewsad.gif"
width="125" height="125" border="0">  	     



    



        © Irish Examiner, 2005, Thomas Crosbie Media, TCH 
      
    



  
<img
src="http://www3.adireland.com/adview.php?what=zone:74&n=a0b1a433
" border='0' alt=''>    
<img
src="http://www3.adireland.com/adview.php?what=zone:88&n=a67dde2d
" border='0' alt=''>  




  
  Ireland | World | Sport | Business | Opinion | Breaking News|
                   Week In Ink | Week In News 
                                
  Arena | Farming | Food | GAA | Outdoors | Property | Travel 
                                
             Privacy Policy | Copyright Information 
                                c
              Terms and Conditions | Subscriptions 
                                
         Feedback | Contact Us | Advertising Information
                                
ignoreignore ignore ignore ignoreText Only | Site Map | Helpdmm 
                             ignore ignoreignore 
ignoreignore ignore ignore ignore ignore ignore ignore   


*****************************************************************
 36 Dallas Morning News: Europe warms up to nuclear power development
 
It's seen as an option as climate change worries grow, fuel
crunch looms 

12:00 AM CST on Saturday, December 31, 2005 

By TOD ROBBERSON / The Dallas Morning News 

LONDON  It's the core question radiating across Europe today:
How can governments fight global warming while continuing to
meet their populations' growing demands for energy?

Facing few viable answers, Europe's leaders are showing greater
willingness to buck the trend toward environmental correctness
and utter that politically unspeakable N-word: nuclear power.

The nuclear option, widely discarded only a year or two ago as
too unpopular and a surefire way to lose votes, is finding its
way into political discourse as European leaders scramble to
avert what they warn is a looming energy crunch. 

Environmental groups already are gearing up for battle, although
they admit the nuclear-power lobby has made tremendous progress
in advancing its cause  not only in Europe but also in the
United States, which is revisiting nuclear power after a 27-year
hiatus in new construction orders.

"There's very much a sense of reopening that debate," said
Russell Marsh, director of energy policy at the Green Alliance
environmental group in London. 

"It's clear that other governments are changing their positions
... and it's certain that the nuclear industry has been lobbying
quite hard across Europe recently."

Polls suggest Europeans' fears about nuclear plants' safety have
diminished since the 1986 explosion at the Soviet Union's
Chernobyl nuclear power station and the near meltdown at
Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island station in 1979. The nuclear
power industry insists its safety record by far surpasses that
of conventional-fuel plants, but anti-nuclear groups say other
important safety issues, such as the disposal of radioactive
waste, remain unresolved.

Climate change

Analysts say nuclear power's growing popularity is rooted,
ironically, in the successful campaign launched by major
environmental groups in recent years to draw attention to global
climate change.

After pressuring world leaders to adopt policies aimed at
sharply reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon
dioxide, environmental groups may have opened the door for the
nuclear power lobby to argue that its technology meets those
cleaner environmental standards.

"The issue back on the agenda with a vengeance is energy
policy," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a Nov. 29
speech. "Round the world, you can sense feverish rethinking:
Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate
change is producing a sense of urgency. I have no doubt where
policy is heading, here, in the U.S., across the emerging
economies of the world."

He added, "The future is clean energy. And nations will look to
diversify out of energy dependence on one source." But the
energy sources favored by environmental groups  wind, solar and
thermal  will not come close to filling the country's needs,
Mr. Blair said. He has ordered a policy review that "will
include, specifically, the issue of whether we facilitate the
development of a new generation of nuclear power stations."

Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of Britain's total
energy needs, but most of the country's 23 nuclear reactors are
due for decommissioning over the next 15 years. Europe's 204
nuclear power plants account for more than half of the world
total.

Likewise in Germany, a nuclear power debate that seemed to have
been put to rest long ago has rekindled. The nation has been
decommissioning all of its nuclear power plants with a goal of
becoming nuclear-free by 2020. Now, however, the conservative
government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, who took office last
month, says it wants nuclear power back.

"In my view, an ideologically motivated nuclear phase-out does
not reflect economic demands," Mrs. Merkel was quoted as saying
this year. She has been particularly mindful of neighboring
France, which relies on nuclear power for almost 80 percent of
its generating capacity and is the world's largest exporter of
electricity.

"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," Mrs. Merkel said.

Alternatives fall short

Alternative energy sources have failed to make up for the energy
deficit created by Germany's nuclear-plant decommissioning,
which has forced the country to purchase electricity from its
neighbors in Eastern Europe and France. Much to the
environmental movement's frustration, those neighbors have
excess generating capacity largely because they rely heavily on
nuclear power.

Environmental groups say that nuclear power plants are too
expensive and that the industry has no permanent solution to the
disposal of nuclear waste, which can remain radioactive for
thousands of years. Further, they assert, nuclear power plants
could be vulnerable to attack by terrorists.

But Ian Hore-Lacy, spokesman for the World Nuclear Association,
says nuclear power plants are more cost-efficient than
conventional plants and produce only about 2 percent of the
carbon dioxide emissions created by coal-fired power plants. 

Dwindling supplies of natural gas and a growing concern about
the instability of fuel sources in the Middle East also support
the nuclear power argument, he added.

"In Eastern Europe, there's been no negative nuclear sentiment
at all. In France, there's never been much negative sentiment,"
Mr. Hore-Lacy said. "In Germany, it [pro-nuclear power
sentiment] is strengthening; and in the U.K., it's strengthening
dramatically."

Feelings in Europe

Polls across Europe suggest that the public is amenable to a new
discussion of nuclear power. In March, a European Union poll
among 24,700 citizens in its 25 member states found that more
than 60 percent agree that nuclear power would help diversify
Europe's energy resources, would be a viable way of reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions and would help reduce Europe's reliance
on imported oil.

But most respondents agreed with the environmental lobby's claim
that the storage and transport of radioactive waste is risky and
potentially dangerous to the environment and public health. 

Three-quarters of respondents described themselves as not
well-informed about nuclear energy. Environmentalists say
ignorance makes the public vulnerable to the nuclear power
industry's arguments at a time when renewable energy sources
appear to be falling out of favor.

In recent years, European governments invested billions of
dollars on renewable "green" energy technologies such as wind,
solar and thermal power. But the technologies have yet to prove
reliable or yield high enough output to be viable replacements
for conventional power plants.

The countryside across many European nations, particularly
Germany, Spain and Denmark, is dotted with large wind farms, the
source of complaints from local groups that call them eyesores.

That negative attitude "is not very helpful because it plays
into the hands of those who argue against renewables," said Mr.
Marsh, of the Green Alliance.

Other missteps by environmentalists may have boosted publicity
for the nuclear power lobby. Just before Mr. Blair delivered his
Nov. 29 speech, two protesters from Greenpeace climbed above the
podium and unfurled posters declaring, "Nuclear: Wrong answer."
Their presence forced Mr. Blair to relocate the venue for his
wide-ranging speech, which contained only two sentences directly
referring to nuclear power. 

The resulting uproar over the protesters helped turn those two
sentences into front-page, banner-headlined articles in all
major British newspapers the next day. 

E-mail trobberson@dallasnews.com

© 2005 The Dallas Morning News Co.   
*****************************************************************
 37 CTK: Activists block Czech-Austrian border crossing over Temelin 

11:53 - 02.01.2006 

WULLOWITZ- Austrian opponents of nuclear energy have blocked the
Wullowitz-Dolni Dvoriste crossing on the Czech border with Upper
Austria after a longer time at 10:30 a.m. 

The activists gave as a reason for the blockade their
dissatisfaction with the implementation of the safety measures
at the Czech nuclear power plant in Temelin, south Bohemia, on
which the two countries agreed earlier. 

They announced that they are considering further blockades. 

It is not yet clear how long the current blockade will last. Its
initiators from Stop Temelin, supported by other opponents of
nuclear energy from Upper and Lower Austria, said that the
action will probably last "a few hours." 

Traffic has been rerouted to other border crossings. Vehicles
coming from the Czech Republic are allowed to cross the border,
but must park their vehicles right after they cross it.         

 copyright 2005 CTK 
*****************************************************************
 38 Webindia123.com: Underwater turbines can harness equivalent energy of a nuke plant 

Washington | December 31, 2005 10:08:48 AM IST
 
Scientists have said that underwater generators based on wind
energy could be used for harnessing enough energy to supply
residents of the UK with power equivalent to a nuclear power
station. 

Researchers have said that the TidalStream system built to
harness the power of deep, fast-flowing tidal waters would
produce somewhere between 20 to 40 percent of Britain's energy
requirements, and provide the power capacity of a 1200-megawatt
nuclear plant, enough energy for over a million households.

"If the U.K. were able to tap all of the tidal energy available,
it would probably produce somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of
all its energy requirements. Even extracting a fraction would
produce a useful contribution," Discovery News quoted ocean
engineer Julian Wolfram, soon-to-be appointed visiting professor
at the University of Edinburgh as saying.

Being developed by John Armstrong, former technical director of
the Wind Energy Group at Taylor Woodrow, and Mike Todman, former
chief engineer at Rolls Royce Marine, the system involves
installing and maintaining underwater turbines in rough seas and
deep waters, technically very challenging and expensive. 

The logistical needs of installing them require them to be
secured to the seabed with large, stable foundations that
prevent the strong currents from toppling over the structures.
(ANI)

 
- Webindia123.com  
 	 
© 2000-2005 Suni System (P) Ltd. 
*****************************************************************
 39 Guardian Unlimited: Russian gas row reignites nuclear debate
 
Domestic bills likely to be forced up          
 		
Terry Macalister Monday January 2, 2006 The Guardian            
 		
A Russian gas supply crisis triggered warnings last night that UK 
householders will face further significant price increases in 
2006. Growing unease over future energy security in Britain also 
led to calls for a quick decision on a new generation of nuclear 
power stations. Analysts predict that, as things stand, by 2020 
almost 70% of Britain's electricity generation will be reliant on 
gas imported from countries such as Russia.

Many homeowners began the new year yesterday with a 14.5% rise in 
their bills, but British Gas said a 40% increase in wholesale 
prices since September made further rises inevitable.

The latest energy scare came yesterday when Russia cut its 
supplies of gas to Ukraine in a row over pricing. The shortages 
and accompanying political row threatened to spill into 
continental Europe, which gets a quarter of its gas from Russia 
via a pipeline through Ukraine. A spokesman for British Gas, 
which controls 55% of the UK residential market, said: "No 
decisions have been made yet, but across the industry suppliers 
are looking at their pricing because of steep increases in 
wholesale costs in the last quarter.

"Most suppliers recognise that they [the price increases] will
feed through to the retail market to some degree," he added,
arguing that his company's residential energy business made a
financial loss in the last six months.

British Gas lost 1 million customers in 2004 and 670,000 in 2005
on the back of a 14.2% rise in bills from September 2005, plus a
12.4% hike in September 2004. There was also a 5.9% rise in
January of that year. Yesterday, rival Scottish &Southern Energy
put an extra 13.6% - around Ј50 a year - on domestic gas bills,
while npower put up its prices by 14.5% for gas, the equivalent
of around Ј58.

The consumer group, energywatch, warned suppliers that there was
"no excuse" to use the Russian problems as a reason to unleash
another round of price rises during 2006. "We don't draw very
much gas at all, well none, from that part of the world, and
there are lots of other sources of gas for us. However, it might
put a bit of pressure on prices there and, sadly, the gas and
oil companies are always looking for excuses to ramp up prices,"
energywatch's chief executive, Allan Asher, told the BBC.

Energy minister Malcolm Wicks said the dispute posed "no
immediate threat" to UK supplies but he conceded it could impact
on gas prices. "There is no immediate threat to gas supplies in
the UK; none of the UK's gas is imported directly from Russia."

British Gas admitted that the Russian problems had not had any
discernible impact yet on British prices, but said a range of
other earlier problems had already made its business
unprofitable. These included the rundown in UK North Sea
supplies, a lack of sufficient existing infrastructure to import
liquefied natural gas, plus the stranglehold of large French and
German monopolies controlling pipelines in mainland Europe.

The crisis in Ukraine has highlighted the need for Britain to
have indigenous supplies, such as nuclear, the former UK energy
minister Brian Wilson told the Guardian yesterday.

"This [crisis] could have a short-term impact on gas supplies
and prices in the European Union but long-term it points up a
more serious issue of Britain's reliance on imported gas," he
said. By 2020, 70% of UK electricity will come from gas and 90%
of that will have to be imported. A substantial amount - at
least a third - will come from Russia and confidence in that
must depend on Russia honouring its contracts."
 	
 	 	
Useful links
Itar-Tass news agency
Moscow Times
Russia Today
St Petersburg Times
Caucasian Knot

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 40 toledoblade.com: Area cities seek safeguard from nuclear threats

Monday, January 02, 2006 

GRASS-ROOTS CAMPAIGN
 
  [Photo] 
Phineas Anderson: "The public needs to be educated." 

By ELIZABETH A. SHACK BLADE STAFF WRITER

Although nuclear terrorism might not seem like a problem that can 
be tackled by a city council, local politicians are taking part 
in a grass-roots campaign to bring national attention to the 
issue.

 Area cities are adopting resolutions urging the federal
government to make protecting the nation from terrorist attacks
with nuclear weapons the country's top security priority. That
includes working with the United Nations and other countries to
keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.

The effort, spearheaded by Perrysburg resident Phineas Anderson,
is designed to show the federal government that people think
preventing nuclear terrorism is important and to inform citizens
about the issue.

"The public needs to be educated," said Mr. Anderson, retired
head of Maumee Valley Country Day School in Toledo, who has
worked at the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Washington.

It's an issue that he says should concern people.

Perrysburg City Council President Liz Larson-Shidler said she
was shocked to find out how much nuclear material could be
easily stolen or lost.

"We just have to do some-thing better than what we've been doing
in terms of securing it," she said.

So far, Toledo, Perrysburg, and Sylvania have passed Mr.
Anderson's resolutions, and the Lucas County Commissioners
approved a letter of support. Mr. Anderson said he expects
Maumee to pass a resolution this month, and he plans to approach
other area cities.

The resolutions state that the councils believe "the threat of a
nuclear bomb being detonated by terrorists in an American city
is real and growing" and that the potential lives lost and
economic and psychological effects on the country would be "so
great that urgent steps must be taken to prevent such a
catastrophe."

The resolutions urge Congress to work with other countries and
the United Nations to "immediately implement actions that will
secure to a high standard fissile material and nuclear weapons
around the world."

Sylvania Mayor Craig Stough compared the resolutions to citizens
writing letters to their congressmen, encouraging them to take a
look at the issue.

"It's the business of the Congress, not our City Council," he
said.

"We just know there's a potential problem there that they need
to take care of."

Mr. Anderson said the resolutions are not meant to criticize
President Bush, although he believes the President and Congress
have not done enough to protect the country.

At the state level, Ohio Sen. Randy Gardner (R., Bowling Green)
and Rep. Bob Latta (R., Bowling Green) are organizing a letter
of support to be signed by state legislators from northwest
Ohio. Mr. Gardner said it would encourage Congress and the
President to act.

"It helps raise the profile of the issue so that those who
really can take significant action to be helpful know there's
support back home," he said.

In the next several weeks, Mr. Anderson plans to contact Ohio's
U.S. senators and representatives and arrange a meeting in
Washington, in hopes that they will then encourage their
colleagues to take up the campaign.

"The idea is to have the Ohio congressional delegation take the
lead in making this a true national first priority," he said.

Toledo City Council President Louis Escobar said that the
resolutions passed by local municipalities will help make
national lawmakers aware of the issue's importance.

"Those leaders are going to know that we're concerned and that
something needs to be done," he said.

The Lucas County commissioners thought they should ask the
federal government to do more about the threat, President Tina
Skeldon Wozniak said.

"We want our legislators to know … that we want this to be taken
seriously," she said.

Mr. Anderson became interested in the issue last spring when he
heard Graham Allison, author of Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate
Preventable Catastrophe, speak.

He invited Mr. Allison to speak to the Toledo Rotary and local
politicians in October. Mr. Allison has said he thinks that
without federal action, it is likely that a nuclear bomb will be
set off in an American city within a decade.

Mr. Anderson has enlisted Richard Anderson of The Andersons in
bringing the issue to the attention of state businessmen. He
also is working with families of people killed in the Sept. 11
attacks on a national campaign, which he hopes will be announced
in February.

He is speaking on the issue to the Maumee Rotary Club at noon on
Wednesday.

Contact Elizabeth A. Shack at: eshack@theblade.com or
419-410-5055.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 41 [NYTr] Are "Baghdad Boils" a Symptoms of DU Poisoning?
 
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:08:42 -0600 (CST)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
[Highly speculative stuff, but interesting.-NY Transfer]

sent by Don Stacey - Dec 31, 2005     

Uruknet/Iraq-war.ru - December 23, 2005
iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/74482

Iraq: Depleted Uranium aka Baghdad Boils?!
jouna, iraq-war.ru

There's a possibility that the US Department of Defense (DoD) is 
hiding the US casualties under a disguise of 'Baghdad Boils', a disease 
plaguing the US troops in Iraq, claimed to be caused by the sand fly 
bites, but possibly by depleted uranium (DU) radiation. To explore this 
issue I've forwarded the following article to DU experts in the world to 
have it checked and I'm now publishing it as a preliminary announcement 
here in iraq-war.ru. I'll keep you updated on this as soon as I hear of 
them (if confirmed you can't miss the fat mainstream headlining).

DEPLETED URANIUM

Recent evidence proves that depleted uranium (DU) is the definite 
cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Fourteen years after its introduction, DU 
has revealed as a death sentence, lately brought forth by Leuren Moret 
(cf. e.g. http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml 
and the sources to this article).

The biological particulate effect targets the Master Code in the 
DNA and causes numerous diseases difficult to define, but in effect 
devastating the human body for example with multiple malignancies and 
developing cancers. Out of 580,400 soldiers in first Gulf War, 11 
thousand have died and already by 2000 there were 325,000 permanently 
disabled, the number increasing by 43,000 every year.

Besides, DU has internally contaminated their sexual partners, who 
have developed endometriosis and have been forced to have hysteroctomies 
due to health problems. 67 percent of a test group of 251 soldiers have 
had babies with severe birth defects (missing members, organs, immune 
system diseases).

The United States has deliberately developed the DU in order to 
utilize the deadly properties of the DU and contaminated not only 42 
states in United States, Sinai in Yom Kippur war (1973), Yugoslavia, 
southern Iraq (and areas nearby) in the first Gulf War and from 2003 on 
again in Iraq.

One of the reasons that the US deploys it allies in the southern 
parts of the Iraq, because it does not want to expose its own troops to 
the deadly radiation there from the first Gulf War. Thus the British, 
and the other coalition troops have been generously given the 
responsibility of the southern Iraq.

BAGHDAD BOIL

In a story 'Skin ulcers plague men from N.C. unit' (cf. 
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/13454217.htm ) 
we are told:

"In addition to the combat casualties suffered during a tour of 
duty in Iraq last year, an N.C. National Guard brigade also had to 
medevac 13 men back to a U.S. hospital after volleyball games left them 
vulnerable to one of the Iraq war's most exotic hazards - an outbreak of 
skin ulcers that can grow for years.

The victims, all men from the same small unit, contracted 
cutaneous leishmaniasis, characterized by weeping sores that refuse to 
heal, said Lt. Col Tim Mauldin, the brigade's top medical officer.
The illness is nicknamed "Baghdad Boil." At the time the guardsmen 
contracted it last year, the only way to treat it was to fly them back 
to Walter Reed Army Medical Center for up to three weeks of intravenous 
treatments with a drug called Pentostam"

Using Pentostam in the treatment of sand fly bite is most curious 
for two main reasons:

(1) One is tempted to suspect the US diagnosis, because for 
leishmaniasis, phlebotomus argentipes (also known as Kala-azar), a 
disease indeed caused by the bite of sand fly, there is a new, oral drug 
(Miltefosine( is now available. The medicine is effective (cf. 
http://www.who.int/tdr/diseases/leish/press_release.htm ), which makes 
the US use of sodium stibogluconate (commercial names: Pentostam or 
Stibanate) instead very curious, until we read the comment of Lt. Col 
Tim Mauldin concerning the sores (rather: 'malignancies') known as 
Baghdad Boils: "No matter what you do, it just keeps getting bigger and 
bigger.")

(2) Pentostam is administered into veins and "results in a greater 
than 50% decrease in parasite DNA, RNA protein and purine nucleoside 
triphosphate levels" (cf. 
http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=2182, 
section 5, Pharmacological properties ). It is 
not immediately obvious how the bites of tiny sandflies could cause 
changes in the Master Code in the DNA?

(3) Although the sand flies are unlikely cause for the Baghdad 
Boils, we can seek a different, more natural explanation for the disease 
is from the the unit itself, to which all thirteen man belong. The 30th 
Enhanced Heavy Separate Brigade (Mech), "Old Hickory", has one battalion 
of M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and two battalions of M-2 Bradley 
Fighting Vehicles (cf. 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/30in-bde.htm ).

The main weapon of the M1A1 is the M256 120mm smoothbore cannon, 
designed by the Rheinmetall Corporation of Germany. Engagement ranges 
approaching 4000 meters were successfully demonstrated during Operation 
Desert Storm. The primary armor-defeating ammunition of this weapon is 
the armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot (APDS-FS) round, 
which features a depleted uranium penetrators (cf. 
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm ).

On the other hand, we know already from the first Gulf War that: 
"Soldiers who served in Bradley fighting vehicles, where it was common 
to sit on ammunition boxes where depleted uranium ammunition was stored, 
are now reporting that many have rectal cancer."

CONSEQUENCES:

Having recognized the previous facts we are left with the 
following consequences:

(1) Depleted uranium explains the changes in the Master Code in 
the DNA caused by Baghdad Boils much better than the 'sand flies' (if 
the sand flies are not simply considered as an army code word for 
'uranium particles' or alike). In fact, the diagnosis of Baghdad Boils 
as 'leishmaniasis' put forth in several connections by Dr. Roger Bate is 
itself highly suspicious as Dr. Bate is a visiting fellow at American 
Enterprise Institute, a front for international armed looting around the 
world.

(2) As the United States treats the cancer developing multiple 
malignancies of its tank crews with Pentostam (and not Miltefosine), 
this shows that the US Armed Forces and the Pentagon are indeed aware of 
the effects of the depleted uranium, which again shows that they are 
lying in their denials of its cancer-producing effect, thus giving a 
direct answer to "QUESTION 11. WHAT DOES THE U.S. GOVT. KNOW ABOUT DU?"
in http://traprockpeace.org/moret_25nov03.pdf. They know 
everything, even how to slow down the mutations caused by DU.

(3) More than 2000 U.S. service members have officially contracted 
the disease since the Iraq War began in early 2003, most of them in Iraq 
(though some also in Afghanistan). When these 'walking dead' are added 
to the current DoD casualty figure (2160) as soon to be dead, the US 
death toll tops 4,000 with a single jump. The entire US colonial 
expeditionary force, the 300,000 having served in Iraq are soon to be 
counted as US Casualties, either dead or disabled by DU.

(4) As the depleted uranium penetrators are the main rounds of the 
US M1A1 tanks, and the extra rounds for the tanks are carried in the M2 
Bradleys, there is no doubt, that after 1000 days of war, the entire US 
armored equipment in Iraq is totally contaminated making these vehicles 
literarily dead man's chests. Actually the US tank crews are more safe 
outside than inside of them, despite the current conditions in Iraq.

(5) As the US Armed Forces in Iraq are actually living dead, a 
zombie army soon to follow the destiny of the previous army in the First 
Gulf War and their Armored Vehiles hopelessly contaminated by DU, the US 
army actually has no troops nor tanks. This means that its fate is 
sealed. The United States has lost the war in Iraq as soon as the troops 
get the information of how they are and have been deceived by an enemy 
worse than that they face in Iraq, the US government.

(6) Despite of this we may have even more to worry: in her recent 
articles Leuren Moret tell that the US has used more DU since 1991 than 
the atomicity equivalent of 40,000 Nagasagi Bombs, making four nuclear 
wars together. This, according to her may be enough for a death sentence 
for all of us, who will die in silent ways. To prevent this from 
happening we must not listen to Mr. Bush, who claims that the future 
generations will be grateful for sacrifices in Iraq (cf. 
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3331907 ). The current 
deception of the US solders themselves by the US Government could not 
make the issue more clear: no matter whether you are friend or foe, 
there is nobody the Government of the United States wouldn't betray. To 
stop them all you have to do is pass this story to the US combat troops 
in Iraq. Explaining them what exactly stepping into US tanks means, will 
leave them unmanned. This in turn will stop the armoured brigades, which 
in turn stops the US divisions and armies - and in the end the US 
government war. As soon as the war is stopped, the entire human kind 
must step in and help the Iraqi people to clean the country from the 
depleted uranium.

I'm most thankful for your assistance in this already.

jouna, iraq-war.ru

Section I: Depleted Uranium
(more sources from articles themselves)

1. Depleted uranium: "Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: 
A death sentence here and abroad"
LINK: http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml

2. Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War
LINK: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm

3. QUESTION 11. WHAT DOES THE U.S. GOVT. KNOW ABOUT DU?
LINK: http://traprockpeace.org/moret_25nov03.pdf

4. A Monumental War Crime ... DU
http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/74185

5. Leuren Moret Speaking on Depleted Uranium
LINK: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Leuren-Moret21apr03.ht
m

6. Cancer Epidemic Caused by U.S. WMD
LINK: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cancer_epidemic_.html

7. Marin Depleted Uranium Resolution Heats Up GI's Will Come Home 
To A Slow Death
LINK: http://www.coastalpost.com/04/08/01.htm

8. The United States is Actively Engaged in War Crimes and 
Polluting with Deadly Nuclear Materials
LINK: http://www.albasrah.net/en_articles_2005/1205/HRA_141205.htm

9. New Information on Iraq
LINK: http://www.albasrah.net/en_articles_2005/1205/du_141205.htm

10. The UNITED STATES of MONSTERS: DEPLETED URANIUM
LINK: http://uruknet.info/?p=18218&hd=0&size=1&l=x

11. Iranian president calls for war crimes charges on US
LINK: http://www.iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/71438

12. Squeezed To Death
LINK: http://uruknet.info/?p=18640&hd=0&size=1&l=x

13. World Uranium Weapons Conference 2003
LINK: http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/speakers.htm

14. International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo
LINK: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tr
ibunal10mar04.htm

15. Leuren Moret: Depleted Uranium Is WMD
LINK: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00138.htm

16. Discounted casualties - the human cost of depleted uranium
LINK: http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html

17. Heads roll at Veterans Administration
Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed
LINK: http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml

18. Casualties in Iraq
LINK: http://democracyrising.us/content/view/46/74/

19. Pentagon Brass Suppresses Truth About Toxic Weapons
LINK: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pentagon_brass.html

Section II: Baghdad Boil
(some samples, google yourself for more hits):

Baghdad Boil to Return? (by Dr. Roger Bate, 05/13/2004)
LINK: http://www.techcentralstation.com/051304C.html

Topic: BAGHDAD BOIL: parasites infect many U.S. troops
LINK: http://knoxville.wate.com/sound_off/index.php/topic,132.0.html

Baghdad Boil' Afflicting U.S. Troops
LINK: http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Baghdad_boil_041804.htm

Soldiers, Civilians Returning from Middle East: Be Aware of 
"Baghdad Boil"
LINK: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27577

RELIEF FROM BAGHDAD BOILS
LINK. http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/1346/44/

:: Article nr. 18948 sent on 24-dec-2005 02:15 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=18948
:: The incoming address of this article is :
iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/74482

:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility 
of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================



 

*****************************************************************
 42 [ImpeachBushNOW] cancer? from DU?
 
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:56:25 -0800

<x-flowed>

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Carol Wolman
   To: voj
   Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 1:27 AM
   Subject: Fw: [ImpeachBushNOW] cancer? from DU?








                              PICO SEARCH:




                           Updated August 13, 2004








              AFP PRINT EDITION
               • 16 weeks for $17.76
               • 1 year for $59
               • 2 years for $99

               AFP ONLINE EDITION
               • 1 year for $39
               • 2 years for $69

               Special Online Gift Subscription, $25!

















              YOUNG AFP READERS





              Cancer Epidemic Caused by U.S. WMD

               M.D. Says Depleted Uranium Definitively Linked



               By Christopher Bollyn



               A growing number of U.S. military personnel who are serving, 
or have served, in Iraq or Afghanistan has become sick and disabled from a 
variety of symptoms commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome. Depleted uranium 
(DU) weapons have been blamed for many of the symptoms.

               “Gulf war vets are coming down with these symptoms at twice 
the rate of vets from previous conflicts,” said Barbara A. Goodno from the 
Department of Defense’s Deployment Health Support Directorate.

               A recent discovery by American Free Press that nearly half 
the soldiers in one returned unit have malignant growths has provided the 
scientific community with “critical evidence,” experts say, to help 
understand exactly how DU affects humans.

               One of the first published researchers of Gulf War Syndrome, 
Dr. Andrбs Korйnyi-Both, told AFP that 27 percent to 28 percent of Gulf War 
veterans have suffered chronic health problems, more than five times the 
rate of Viet Nam vets and four times the rate of Korean War vets.

               Korйnyi-Both said his son had recently returned from Iraq, 
where he had been part of the initial Gulf War II assault from Kuwait to 
Baghdad. From his unit of 20 men, eight now have “malignant growths,” 
Korйnyi-Both said.

               Korйnyi-Both is not an expert on DU but has written 
extensively about how the fine desert sand blowing around Iraq and the 
Arabian peninsula provides an ideal vehicle for toxins, increasing the 
range and effect of atomic, biological and chemical (ABC) agents, such as 
DU, that attach themselves to the particles.

               Korйnyi-Both described how, during the 1991 Gulf War, he and 
others had inhaled large quantities of sand dust that could have been laden 
with ABC agents. The dust “destroyed our immune systems,” he said.

               FULK’S THEORY

               Marion Fulk, a former nuclear chemical physicist at the 
Lawrence Livermore lab, is investigating how DU affects the human body. 
Fulk said that eight malignancies out of 20, in 16 months, “is 
spectacular—and of serious concern.”

               The high malignancy rate found in this unit appears to have 
been caused by battlefield exposure to DU weapons.

               According to Fulk, when DU, consisting mainly of 
uranium-238, decays, it transforms into two short-lived and “very hot” 
isotopes of thorium and protactinium, then undergoes further decay to 
another uranium isotope, giving off high-energy radiation at each stage of 
the process.

               Scientist Leuren Moret said: “We can expect to see multiple 
cancers in one person. These multiple unrelated cancers in the same 
individual have been reported in Yugoslavia and Iraq in families that had 
no history of any cancer. This is unknown in the previous studies of 
cancer,” she said, “a new phenomenon.”

               Goodno questioned Korйnyi-Both’s report that eight of 20 
recently returned soldiers from one unit had experienced malignant growths. 
Goodno and Korйnyi-Both did agree, however, that Iraqi ABC agents had not 
played a role in the 2003 invasion.

               This is significant because three factors have generally 
been blamed for causing Gulf War Syndrome: Iraqi chemical and biological 
weapons, the cocktail of vaccinations given to coalition soldiers and DU. 
The absence of any detectable Iraqi ABC agents during the 2003 invasion of 
Iraq narrows the potential factors for delayed illness or disability among 
veterans to prewar vaccinations and DU.

               While the number of disabled vets from previous wars is 
decreasing by about 35,000 per year, since the “war on terror” began in 
2001, the total number of disabled vets has grown to some 2.5 million—“more 
than ever before,” Brad Flohr of the Department of Veterans Affairs said. 
Asked if there are more disabled vets now than after World War II, Flohr 
said he believed so.

               Terry Jemison of the Department of Veterans Affairs told AFP 
that current statistics indicate that more than half a million veterans of 
the 14-year-old Gulf War I era are now receiving disability compensation. 
During this period, some 7,035 soldiers are reported having been wounded in 
Iraq.

               With 518,739 disabled “Gulf War I era veterans” currently 
receiving disability compensation, according to Jemison, the number of 
veterans disabled after the war is more than 73 times the number of 
wounded, in and out of combat, from the entire 14-year conflict with Iraq.

               DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS

               Last December, Dr. Asaf Durakoviae, a nuclear medicine 
expert who has conducted extensive research on depleted uranium, examined 
nine soldiers from the 442nd Military Police Company of New York and found 
that four of the men had absorbed or inhaled DU.

               Several of the men had traces of another isotope, U-236, 
which is only produced in a nuclear reactor.

               “These men were almost certainly exposed to radioactive 
weapons on the battlefield,” Durakovae said.

               “Due to the current proliferation of DU weaponry, the 
battlefields of the future will be unlike any battlefields in history,” 
Durakovae, then chief of Nuclear Medicine for the Veterans Administration, 
said after Gulf War I, in which he served.

               Since 1991, the U.S. military has used DU in munitions as 
penetrating rods, which destroy enemy tanks and their occupants, and as 
armor plating on U.S. tanks. When DU penetrating rods strike a hard target 
some of the radioactive and toxic uranium is vaporized into ultra-fine 
particles that are easily inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

               According to a survey of 10,051 Gulf War I veterans, 
conducted between 1991 and 1995 by Vic Sylvester and the Operation Desert 
Shield/Desert Storm Association, 82 percent of veterans reported having 
entered captured Iraqi vehicles. “This would suggest that 123,000 soldiers 
have been directly exposed to DU,” Durakovae said.

               “Since the effects of contamination by uranium cannot be 
directed or contained, uranium’s chemical and radiological toxicity will 
create environments that are hostile not only to the health of enemy forces 
but of one’s own forces as well,” Durakovae said.

               “Because of the chemical and radiological toxicity of DU, 
the small number of particles trapped in the lungs, kidneys and bone 
greatly increase the risk of cancer and all other illnesses over time,” 
said Durakovae, an expert of internal contamination of radioisotopes.

               According to Durakovae, other symptoms associated with DU 
poisoning are: emotional and mental deterioration, fatigue, loss of bowel 
and bladder control, and numerous forms of cancer. Such symptoms are 
increasingly showing up in Iraq’s children and among Gulf War I veterans 
and their offspring, he said.

               “Although I personally served in Operation Desert Shield as 
unit commander,” Durakovae said, “my expertise of internal contamination 
was never used because we were never informed of the intended use of DU 
prior to or during the war.”

               “The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors 
only get worse,” Robert C. Koehler of the Chicago-based Tribune Media 
Services wrote in his March 25 article on DU weapons, “Silent Genocide.”

               “DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of 
those who breathe it or touch it; the substance also alters one’s genetic 
code,” Koehler wrote. “The Pentagon’s response to such charges is denial, 
denial, denial. And the American media is its moral co-conspirator.”





   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImpeachBushNOW




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

     a..  Visit your group "ImpeachBushNOW" on the web.

     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      ImpeachBushNOW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
 43 [du-list] Uranium suspected in Iraq merc's death
 
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:56:28 -0800

<x-flowed>
Uranium suspected in Iraq merc's death

12/29/2005 (UPI)

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051228-094157-5463r

BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 -- The death of a Peruvian security guard
who had worked in Iraq may have been caused by exposure to
depleted uranium.

Wilder Gutierrez Rubio, 38, died a few hours after arriving
in Lima, Peru, on Dec. 6. Days before, he had been diagnosed
with severe leukemia at Ibn Sina Hospital in Baghdad and
immediately flown back to his home country, World Socialist
Web Site.Org reported Wednesday.

WSWS.org said Gutierrez was part of a 200-man Peruvian
contingent sent to Iraq in early October to provide security
for Baghdad's Green Zone. It is widely suspected in Peru
that Gutierrez's leukemia was the result of exposure to high
levels of uranium in Iraq, the site said.

Gutierrez was one of more than 1,000 Latin Americans
recruited by U.S. private security contractors to work in
different countries.

Since the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, about
20,000 people have been hired to work as private security
contractors, WSWS.org said. This figure represented one
private security guard for every seven uniformed American
soldiers in these regions. In all, $30 billion was spent by
the U.S. Government on private security contractors in 2004,
the Web site said.

-- 


Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~

NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net

Looking for solutions?
Here on Earth: http://prop1.org/prop1/
And in space:  http://www.peaceinspace.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~






To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
 44 [du-list] How THEY downplayed the DU issue
 
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:57:33 -0800

<x-flowed>
The PR Playbook
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/29/2005/main1171279.shtml

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  (AP / CBS)

Quote

News reporters hate to hear that their story is "old
news." It makes them want to drop the subject like a
hot potato. So when a news reporter calls you about a
potentially negative story — whatever it is — just say
"it's old news" even if it's not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) This column was written by CBS News
correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As someone who's done a fair amount of investigative
reporting, I've been encountering strikingly similar
tactics employed by many press agents for government
agencies (under both Democrats and Republicans),
corporations, plaintiffs' and defendants' lawyers,
non-profits and other entities when they perceive a
negative story is coming their way.

Recently, when comparing notes with fellow
investigative reporters, I learned I'm not the only
one noticing these common strategies. In short, they
seem to be operating from the same playbook. If there
were such a playbook, it might read something like
this.

2005 Top Ten Tactics to Influence Negative News: The
PR Playbook

1. "It's Old News"
News reporters hate to hear that their story is "old
news." It makes them want to drop the subject like a
hot potato. So when a news reporter calls you about a
potentially negative story — whatever it is — just say
"it's old news" even if it's not.

Useful phrases:
"There's nothing new here..."
"We just keep scratchin' our heads tryin' to figure
out what's new here..."
"This has all been widely reported before..."

2. The Mine and Pump Strategy
Without giving up one scintilla of information,
relentlessly "mine and pump" the news reporter for
what he knows, so that you have tools to attempt to
pre-empt a story and/or get a head start on damage
control. Tell the reporter you can't possibly agree to
an interview without knowing things like: Who else
will appear in the story? What are the names of all
the sources? What exactly did the sources say? What
pictures will be used in the story? Who made the story
assignment? Demand the news reporter put any questions
in writing. It doesn't matter that you have no
intention of providing answers or an interview.
Stringing along the news reporter may ensure you
receive the benefit of his information without giving
up any information in return.

3. The Interview Sidestep and Delay
There are a hundred ways to delay a story. If the
reporter requests an interview by Wednesday, tell him
he can't have it until Friday. When Friday comes, tell
him he'll have to wait until Monday. On Monday, tell
the reporter the key players are "out of town," "on
vacation," "sick," "lost their voices", "on a plane to
Europe" or are otherwise unreachable. Remember, any
delay works to your advantage: it buys you time to
spin your side of the story and to raise objections
with the news organization's executives. It also
increases the chance that bigger news will happen and
"your" story will get dumped.

4. Science Sleight-of-Hand
These tactics are specially designed for stories that
involve studies and science, but a caution: they're
only effective with reporters who don't understand the
intricacies of what they're reporting.

a. "That's purely anecdotal." If there's no firm
study, tell the reporter that his evidence is "purely
anecdotal." Hopefully, he will not understand that
anecdotal evidence is often some of the most powerful
evidence around (it's often the reason drugs are taken
off the market or how defects in products are
identified). This tactic can be more powerful when
used in conjunction with tactic "b" below.

b. "That's not real science." Of course there's no
standard definition for "real science" but when you
toss out the idea that any sort of evidence is "not
real science," it might resonate with an unknowing
reporter. Since "real science" is in the eye of the
beholder, you can claim most anything is "not real
science" whether it's anecdotal, or a study published
in a peer-reviewed journal.

c. "It's just one study." When a reporter has a
compelling study for evidence, use this strategy. Tell
him "it's just one study." Although a single study can
be powerful evidence, invocation of this phrase can
effectively undermine that study in the eyes of the
uninformed. If it turns out there's more than one
study, move onto tactic "d" below.

d. "It's not the 'definitive' study." What makes a
study "definitive" is subjective, but you can
sometimes get some traction by trying this argument.

e. "Twist the meaning of 'no evidence of a risk' into
'proof of no risk'." If a reporter has a documented
risk of some sort, counter it with a study that finds
"no evidence of a risk." Twist the meaning of that
study into "proof there's no risk" (which is actually
definitive and entirely different). A news reporter
who doesn't know better might be persuaded by your
spin. Be insistent and convincing.

5. Make it Tiny
Whether it's numbers of people hurt by a product, the
amount of lethal chemical in a compound, or adverse
events reported for a drug, there's always a way to
make the number look miniscule. Hopefully the reporter
doesn't know that only a fraction of adverse events
are actually reported, that teeny-sounding amounts of
many materials can poison or kill, that fractional
statistics can translate into hundreds or thousands of
injuries.

Useful Phrases:
"I mean we're talkin' parts per BILLION here…do you
know how tiny that is?"
"It's a small percentage of the total…"

6. "Most People Use the Product Safely"
With questionable products or drugs, try to get the
news reporter to focus on the people who aren't
injured rather than those who are. (The number of
people injured is always a small percentage). For
example, most people who smoke will never get lung
cancer. Play up that angle with the reporter as in,
"most people who smoke will never get lung cancer, so
how can you really be sure that cigarettes cause lung
cancer?"

7. The Cinch Connection
Hire away prominent, well-connected politicians to
handle your spin. Hire former network news producers
who are still connected to high-ranking news
executives to spin and intercept negative stories.
Hire "independent" doctors as speakers and
consultants, then get them to contact the news
reporter to give "independent" opinions on the issue.
Finance an "independent" non-profit, a blogger or an
academic group and get them to take your viewpoint.
Many reporters won't think to ask about a financial
connection.

8. Funding Fudge
If you're a non-profit or other organization that gets
funding from special interests, don't worry, reporters
usually don't dig that deep. But if they do, just
obfuscate. Here's an example:

Reporter: Do you receive any funding from the
company/agency/special interest?
Answer: I can't really say.
Reporter: You don't know?
Answer: I don't have that information.
Reporter: Can you get it?
Answer: I'm not sure I can put my hands on it.

If the reporter already knows your funding sources,
maintain stern vagueness.

Reporter: How much do you receive from the
company/agency/special interest?
Answer: I can't say.
Reporter: Just a ballpark — a little or most of your
funding?
Answer: Just a little, but I can't say exactly how
much. A small percentage I'm sure.
Reporter: One percent? Five percent? Any estimate will
do.
Answer: I don't have that information in front of me.
I'm not sure I can get it.
Reporter: If it's just a small percentage, would that
be hundreds or thousands of dollars?
Answer: I really can't say.

If the reporter chooses to disclose your funding
sources, be defiant and outraged. Act as though you've
been accused of some sort of crime and you don't like
it!

9. Fatigue Factor
Send letters of objection to the news reporter and his
bosses before the story airs, even though you have no
idea what the story is going to say, and even if
you've declined an interview and the opportunity to
provide information for the story. Save your most
complex or outrageous objection — one that would take
at least a few hours for the news organization to
refute — and send it to the news executives right
before air time in hopes of scaring them off from the
story. Once the story does air, send more objections
and be sure the "independent" non-profits, bloggers
and academics pick up on it. A news organization that
is not confident and committed may get tired of the
trouble and sniff elsewhere next time.

10. Final Tip
If it turns out the reporter knows better, then try
employing tactics one-through-nine with his bosses who
may be less familiar with the details of the story and
may just buy your arguments.





	

	
		
___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it





To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
 45 TODAYonline: Gulf War syndrome persists in US troops after 10 years - study 
    
Posted: 31-Dec-2005 06:07 hrs   
    
  A Kuwait City resident (C) hugs two members of the US Marine
Special forces 27 February 1991 after the Allied troops
liberated the capital of Kuwait. 'Gulf War syndrome', a
debilitating multi-symptom affliction identified in many
soldiers after the 1991 conflict in Kuwait, is likely to strike
US troops fighting in Iraq, a new study shows   
      

The debilitating, multi-symptom 'Gulf War syndrome' was still 
widespread among US troops 10 years after the 1991 conflict in 
Kuwait concluded, a new study shows..

The syndrome will also likely strike troops currently serving in 
Iraq, warned the study's lead author, Melvin Blanchard of the 
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri..

Blanchard's study will be published in January in the American 
Journal of Epidemiology..A comprehensive medical evaluation of 
some 2,189 Gulf War veterans between 1999 and 2001 found that 
28.9 percent of those deployed suffered from the affliction..

That's down from 45 percent of those surveyed in earlier studies, 
which indicates that many affected troops have recovered..The 
rate for soldiers not deployed to the Gulf War was 15.8 percent 
and their symptoms were not as severe.."It's not unique to the 
Gulf," Blanchard told AFP. 

"It probably means there is a baseline in the (general) 
population, and the non-deployed reflect what happens in the 
general population.".

The study's results suggest that soldiers fighting in Iraq today 
-- many of whose tours of duty are much longer than those in the 
previous war -- are likely to experience Gulf War syndrome as 
well..

"The military is trying to take better care of the soldiers' 
mental health in the field and that may have some bearing on the 
outcome, but I still expect to see CMI in those soldiers who are 
in Iraq now when they return," Blanchard said. 

The long-term impacts could be severe, the study said, because 
those suffering from the syndrome were twice as likely to have 
increased risk of heart attacks, diabetes and liver disease..Gulf 
War syndrome is the popular name for chronic multisymptom illness 
complex, or CMI. 

It was first identified by the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention in 1994 after thousands of returning troops complained 
of numerous unexplained symptoms..

It is defined as having symptoms that fall into two of the three 
following groupings for more than six months: fatigue, mood and 
cognitive symptoms and musculoskeletal pain..Blanchard said that 
a likely explanation for the illness is that the stress of combat 
released hormones that caused physiological changes..

Other high-stress situations such as divorce, job pressure or a 
death in the family could spark the syndrome, he said..Earlier 
studies of Gulf War syndrome have examined the possibility of 
wartime stress, oil well fires and depleted uranium from US 
munitions, and a drug given to US soldiers to protect against 
nerve gas as the cause..

Some 100,000 of the 700,000 US soldiers who took part in the 
campaign to oust Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 have complained of 
experiencing at least one of the symptoms. British, French and 
Canadian troops were also affected..

In November, a British tribunal recognized for the first time 
that a former soldier was suffering from Gulf War Syndrome and 
should receive an invalidity pension..

Blanchard's study is the most comprehensive study of Gulf War 
syndrome to date. Comprehensive examinations including medical 
and psychiatric histories, general physicals, and neurological, 
pulmonary, nerve conduction, neuropsychological and clinical lab 
tests were performed on 1,061 deployed and 1,128 non-deployed 
veterans in the study..

While there was no evidence of an association of the syndrome 
with kidney, liver or lung disease, thyroid problems, blood 
abnormalities or neuropathy, the authors found that veterans with 
the syndrome were two times as likely to have metabolic 
syndrome..

Metabolic syndrome is a group of health risks that increase the 
likelihood of developing heart attacks, diabetes and liver 
disease. They include high blood pressure, cholesterol, 
triglycerides, glucose and weight levels.

— AFP 
      
Copyright ©2005 MediaCorp Press Ltd | All rights reserved |
*****************************************************************
 46 Salt Lake Tribune: Metal Most Rare 

Article Last Updated: 01/01/2006 12:11:01 AM 

An operation in Delta, which might expand, is a vital link in 
beryllium's supply chain 

By Steven Oberbeck The Salt Lake Tribune 

Doug Murdock, Operations Manager at Brush Resources' beryllium 
plant in Delta, holds beryllium ore acquired from a stockpile 
maintained by the U.S. government. (Stephen Holt /The Salt Lake 
Tribune ) 

DELTA - Stopping at a pile of crushed rock sitting in the yard 
of the Brush Resources plant, Doug Murdock reached down and 
picked up a pale brown crystal that fit comfortably in the palm 
of his hand. 

Turning the crystal in the sunlight, the plant manager 
stared for a moment before throwing it back onto the mound where 
it disappeared amid a clatter of sliding stone. "I'm no 
geologist, so if you ask me, that stuff looks just like regular 
old rock," he said. 

In reality, the heap of stony rubble represented a tiny 
portion of the nation's strategic reserve of beryllium ore. 

Beryllium is a rare metal used in a wide range of high-tech 
applications. Its light weight, stiffness and ability to 
withstand vibrations and rapidly dissipate heat make it ideal 
for uses that include the internal components of cell phones and 
computers, targeting systems for tanks and jet fighters, and the 
mirrors of space telescopes. 

Workers Juan Lopez, left, and Mont Bradsfield suit up for 
their shift at the Brush Resources beryllium plant in Delta. The 
respirators protect them from beryllium dust. Brush Engineered 
Materials may bring more jobs to rural Delta with a possible 
addition of another plant. (Stephen Holt /The Salt Lake Tribune 

With the exception of a small amount of ore purchased 
internationally years ago as part of the country's strategic 
reserve program - the United States also maintains a stockpile 
of beryllium ingots - the bulk of the Western world's beryllium 
ore comes from a mine in Juab County. 

And all of the ore eventually winds up at the Brush 
Resources plant, 12 miles west of Delta. There it gets milled 
and refined into a beryllium hydroxide feedstock used to produce 
beryllium ingots, alloys and beryllia ceramics, which are used 
in laser tubes and other electronics applications. 

The Delta area has been at the heart of beryllium production 
since Brush Engineered Materials, then known as Brush Wellman, 
opened its mine in 1967 and established its mill two years 
later, said Alex Boulton, president of Brush Resources. 

"Depending on demand, the mine has 70 years or more of proven 
[ore] reserves," Boulton said, noting that unlike the rocky ore 
from the national stockpile, the Utah mine produces an ore that 
more closely resembles kitty litter. "It really is an incredible 
resource." 

Moreover, Utah's reputation as the beryllium capital of the 
Western Hemisphere soon may grow and take on an added dimension. 

The Cleveland-based Brush Engineered Materials in early 
December said it received a $9 million award from the U.S. 
Department of Defense to help it engineer and design a new plant 
for the production of refined beryllium metal. And that plant, 
which could cost as much as $60 million to build, will be 
constructed in either Delta or in Elmore, Ohio, about 100 miles 
west of the company's corporate headquarters. 

The proposed facility, which would employ approximately 25 
people, will replace an obsolete primary beryllium operation in 
Elmore that was closed five years ago, said Brush Engineered 
Materials spokesman Patrick Carpenter. 

"Right now we use the production from Delta to make our beryllium
alloys and ceramics," Carpenter said. "But since 2000 we've been 
meeting almost all of our metallic beryllium needs by purchasing 
ingots from the National Defense Stockpile." 

A Department of Defense report to Congress last year 
forecast the domestic stockpile of refined beryllium will be 
depleted between 2008 and 2011, or about the time Brush 
Engineered Materials expects to bring the new plant online. 

Boulton said both locations - Delta or Elmore, Ohio - have 
their advantages. "It is sixes either way." 

In Elmore, the infrastructure already is in place should the 
company want to build there. But putting the plant in Delta 
would fit in well with the existing feedstock production. 

If Brush decides to place the plant in Utah it would be a 
boon for Delta, which has a population of approximately 3,100. 
"It would bring us more stable employment and increase our tax 
base," Delta Mayor Gayle Bunker said. "And in my mind, placing 
the plant here seem more logical, since this is where the mine 
is located." 

In an effort to help convince the company to build another 
plant in Utah, the Governor's Office of Economic Development 
Board two weeks ago approved $700,000 in tax incentives over a 
10 year-period for the company. The plant is expected to 
increase state tax revenue by as much as $2.3 million over the 
same 10 years. 

The incentive award was based on the company providing 25 
new jobs that pay 200 percent of Juab County's median annual 
salary of $18,600. Brush Resources already employs 68 people at 
its plant outside of Delta. 

The company is expected to make a decision early this year, 
Boulton said. 

There are only a few beryllium mines throughout the world. 
"It is a difficult metal to find in any quantity," said Ken 
Krahulec, a minerals geologist with the Utah Geological Survey. 

Although it is found in a variety of mineral forms, most are 
difficult to deal with when it comes to extracting the metal. 
"In Utah, though, the beryllium is tied up in what is known as a 
bertrandite ore, which is the easiest to deal with. And Utah 
just happens to have the largest deposit of that kind in the 
world." 

В© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 47 JS Online: Funds for nuclear reprocessing set off debate 

By PATRICIA TOWNSEND

ptownsend@journalsentinel.com Last Updated: Jan. 1, 2006 

The recent signing of a bill by President Bush that provides $50 
million for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel has rekindled a 
highly charged debate on how to deal with nuclear waste. 

Reprocessing exacerbates the problem of nuclear proliferation,
is not economical and does not solve the problem of waste
disposal, said Allison Macfarlane, a research associate in the
Program in Science Technology and Society at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. 

In the meantime, new technology for reprocessing spent nuclear
fuel is being developed at a research center that is co-directed
by a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor. 

However, it will take at least five years to innovate a new
process for dealing with spent nuclear fuel. 

And then industry will need time to develop the process, said
Michael Corradini, a professor of engineering physics at
UW-Madison. 

Some are contending that Congress appears to have put the cart
before the horse in appropriating $50 million for reprocessing. 

The legislation states that the money is for selecting spent
fuel recycling sites by 2007 and for beginning construction of
one or more facilities by 2010. 

"I am nervous about any near-term plans to reprocess," said
Harold Feiveson, a senior research analyst and co-director of
the science and global security program at Princeton University. 

The existing reprocessing technique, known as PUREX, short for
plutonium and uranium recovery by extraction, creates a
plutonium stockpile that can be used to make nuclear weapons,
Macfarlane said. 

The stockpile is enough to make the equivalent of 30,000 nuclear
bombs. 

But because there is a huge amount of uranium in the world, it
is much more economical to mine more uranium than to reprocess
spent fuel, said Victor Gilinsky, an independent energy and
nuclear power consultant in Santa Monica, Calif. 

In Japan it costs five times as much to produce a plutonium fuel
rod as a uranium fuel rod because reprocessing is so expensive,
he said. 

In addition, reprocessing plants are expensive. Japan has been
building one reprocessing plant for the past 10 years at a cost
of $25 billion, Macfarlane said. 
Differing beliefs


Some believe reprocessing will reduce the space needed to store
nuclear waste, which led Republican Congressman David Hobson of
Ohio to initiate the funding for reprocessing. 

Macfarlane said reprocessing does not necessarily reduce the
required storage space. 

The heat production of the waste - not the volume - dictates the
size of the needed storage space. 

Reprocessing produces high-level waste, whose fission products
generate a lot of heat and therefore require more storage space. 

Also, reprocessing greatly increases the volume of low- and
intermediate-level waste, which must be stored as well. 

Reprocessing "does not make sense from any possible
perspective," said Ed Lyman, the senior staff scientist on
global security at the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Researchers are looking for alternatives, and Congress has
appropriated additional funding for research on "more advanced
recycling technologies." 

The Center for Advanced Nuclear Fuel-Cycles, co-directed by UW's
Corradini, aims to provide an alternative. The center began as a
joint venture between Big 10 universities and Argonne National
Laboratory, outside Chicago. 

The center seeks to modify the PUREX process so that the uranium
is separated and the plutonium remains mixed with the other
waste, making it difficult to use the plutonium for weapons,
Corradini said. 

"We will be killing two birds with one stone" by assisting other
nations with the disposal and processing of spent fuel and
preventing "mischievous action," Corradini said. 

However, it is questionable whether new technology will solve
the problem of nuclear proliferation, said Feiveson. 

Even if plutonium is mixed with other waste material, such as
neptunium and curium, the product still could be used to make
weapons, he said. 

The radioactivity of the plutonium mix from reprocessing would
only be a fraction of what it is in spent fuel and easier to
handle by those interested in making weapons, Feiveson said. 

In principle, new technology could reduce the need for waste
storage. 

For it to be feasible, a lot of construction would need to be
done in building reprocessing plants and 30 or so new reactors
that can burn the recycled fuel, Feiveson said. 

Those who are interested in reprocessing are "oblivious to the
dollar signs," said consultant Gilinsky. 

Corradini believes that there are considerations other than
economics. Spent nuclear fuel can be stored or buried, but it
may not be the best choice from an environmental perspective. 

Before any money is spent on research there needs to be a good,
plausible plan, said Frank von Hippel, a nuclear physicist and
professor of public and international affairs at Princeton
University. 
Storage not yet a problem


Feiveson and von Hippel both believe that it may be 50 years
before waste disposal becomes a problem. Spent fuel can be
stored in dry casks for decades, von Hippel said. 

Spent nuclear fuel is stored at each of the 103 reactors in the
U.S. In Wisconsin, 1,100 metric tons of spent fuel are stored at
two reactors at Point Beach and one at Kewaunee. 

The fuel is stored in specially designed pools or in leak-proof
steel casks that are housed in concrete vaults. 

Researchers agree that the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nev., waste
repository is the best solution, but the facility is yet to be
built. 

And if nuclear power expands in the long term, there will have
to be some planning on what to do with the waste, said Feiveson. 
   Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Jan. 2, 2006.
 Get the Journal Sentinel delivered to your home. Subscribe now.

2005, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. |
*****************************************************************
 48 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Did all that really happen?
 
Jan. 01, 2006

2005 featured its share of wackiness     
                
Oscar Goodman: Thumbs up!

Dema Guinn: Dawn's place is in the kitchen? 

Whew, 2006 already? That was quick. But before 2005 gets too far
in the rear-view mirror, let's remember that the past 12 months
featured more than their share of the nutty and wacky. Remember:
We are not making this stuff up. 

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, who made a career of keeping
killers and thugs out of jail, suggested that those caught
"tagging" local edifices have their thumbs cut off. ... The
Sierra Club agreed to drop its junk lawsuit gumming up the
expansion of U.S. Highway 95 in return for, among other things,
the creation of a taxpayer funded $50,000-a-year consulting
position to "help ensure that the redesign of Western High
School [as part of the freeway renovation] minimizes students'
exposure to possible air pollution." ... Rep. Jim Gibbons,
R-Nev., voted against trimming the Public Broadcasting
Corporation's budget because he didn't want to take "Big Bird
off the air." ... Pro "choice" advocates argued vehemently
against a proposal that would allow Nevada pharmacists to choose
whether to fill certain prescriptions. ... 

Rep. Gibbons, who professes to be a supporter of states' rights,
voted against a measure that would have prohibited the federal
government from spending tax money to prosecute medical
marijuana patients in states where voters have approved the
plant for such uses. ... The Legislature granted 20 percent
raises to the state's constitutional officers. ... The
California Supreme Court ruled a Nevada casino could be sued for
deceptive business practices after it advertised rooms for $50 a
night, plus tax, but then also tacked on a $3 "energy
surcharge." ... Lawmakers left Carson City having increased the
state budget by more than 20 percent over the next two years.
... Local public defenders complained because they claimed that
illegal aliens who commit crimes that would likely draw
probation for U.S. citizens were being sent to jail, instead.
... 

University Regent Douglas Seastrand applied for and received a
$105,000-a-year job at UNLV while he was still serving on the
board that oversees the institution. ... Mayor Goodman blew a
gasket when tickets to a free rock concert marking the Las Vegas
centennial celebration showed up for sale on eBay. ... A local
sand and gravel producer was forced out of business when federal
bureaucrats refused to let the company expand because of an
endangered weed in the area. ... A UNLV economics professor was
sanctioned for telling his class that homosexuals may lack
long-term financial goals because many do not have children for
whom to plan." ... 

Dema Guinn, wife of Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, criticized
Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons for seeking a congressional seat
because her husband, Rep. Jim Gibbons, is running for governor.
If they both were to win, Ms. Guinn opined, the people of Nevada
would be shortchanged because Ms. Gibbons wouldn't be able to
properly fulfill her duties as first lady. ... Democrats were up
in arms in several states about proposals to require that people
who show up at the polls to vote show identification. ... The
Boulder City attorney threatened to seize the home of a woman
who pleaded no contest to possessing six marijuana plants. ...
The state Ethics Commission levied fines of $15 against two
northern Nevada teachers who used class preparation time and
school equipment to campaign for a Democratic assemblywoman. ...
Inspectors for the state Public Works Board charged taxpayers
$1.4 million to "oversee" construction of new UNLV law school
buildings. ... Even though state law prohibits Millennium
Scholarship students from using their $10,000 stipend to pay for
remedial classes, a state attorney general's opinion stated this
year that students could still count the remedial classes toward
the scholarship's per-semester credit mandates. ... 

Jim Rogers, interim chancellor of the state university system,
recommended that the Clark County School District pay its new
school superintendent up to $600,000. ... In the meantime, the
Clark County School District granted 50 percent raises to the
two administrators selected to served as co-interim
superintendents during the search for a new honcho. ... Carlos
Garcia, who left as district superintendent in July after five
years, will receive a pension from Nevada taxpayers of $30,000 a
year for life as soon as he hits 65. ... An Anaheim, Calif., man
sued the comedian Gallagher after he smacked him upside the head
during a show in Laughlin. ... 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the president
a "liar," Fed chief Alan Greenspan a "political hack," and
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an "embarrassment" to the
high court. ... State Controller Kathy Augustine, was impeached
for using office equipment to benefit her re-election campaign.
... The Board of Regents named a search committee to whittle the
candidates seeking to replace the outgoing UNR president and
included regent and UNR professor Howard Rosenberg on the panel.
... The airport and Royal Links land deals -- enough said. ...
Critics said efforts to increase admission standards at UNR and
UNLV were discriminatory and unfair. ... "Hollywood Madam" Heidi
Fleiss announced she planned to open a brothel for women in the
small town of Crystal, about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
... The union representing Las Vegas police argued in court
filings that elected officials charged with budgeting local tax
revenues should have no say in officer salaries. ... 

The city of Las Vegas took down two pastel partial nudes that
were part of a City Hall art exhibit after officials received an
"anonymous" complaint. The art was later put back up. ... The
state Transportation board approved a $1 billion road
construction and maintenance program for the current fiscal
year, with only 47 percent of the money slated to be spent in
Clark County. ... An audit found that the Department of Energy
paid bonuses to a Yucca Mountain contractor for shoddy or late
work. ... An Oregon woman was bounced off a Southwest jet in
Reno for wearing a T-shirt that used an obscenity to describe
the president. ... 

Happy New Year. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 49 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: The mounting toll of tax cuts 

January 01, 2006 

Editorial: The mounting toll of tax cuts 
Bush's idea of promoting himself through tax cuts has sent the
country to the poorhouse; now the Pentagon wants to trim its
budget by cutting back on troops in time of war


 President Bush's tax cuts have so drained this nation
financially that the Pentagon is now considering cutting Army
and National Guard forces by 24,500 troops. The reason for the
proposal is that the Pentagon senses an urgent need to cut $11.1
billion from the Army's budget over the next five years.

 Looking at the depleted federal budget, the Pentagon is trying
to cut its spending every way it can, even if it means reducing
our already stretched-thin combat forces while fighting wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and fighting terrorism around the world.

 Bush came into office in 2001 buoyed by the notion that he
could buy the admiration of a majority of American taxpayers by
spending the surpluses generated during President Clinton's time
on tax cuts. Even though Bush's tax cuts benefited mostly the
rich and the super-rich, the tactic worked with enough
middle-class taxpayers to pull him through to a second term by a
narrow margin. Now, however, it should be clear to everyone what
the tax cuts actually bought the American people.

 The country is laden with debt that is costing taxpayers
increasing billions each year just to pay the interest on it.
The federal government does not have enough money to fix Social
Security and cannot hope to meet its financial obligations to
retiring Baby Boomers. It is being forced to cut tens of
billions in domestic spending in such critical areas as health
care and education. And since the first day of the Iraq war, our
fighting forces have been undermanned and underequipped.

 It's outrageous that troop cuts are now being considered,
especially in light of the fact that so many battle-weary
soldiers and Marines are having their tours of duty extended
because there are so few replacements.

 According to a report by Bloomberg News, the proposed savings
also include reduced spending on military equipment, including
armored vehicles. Again, outrageous. Improvised explosive
devices have killed or maimed thousands of our troops in Iraq, a
casualty rate that could have been greatly reduced if there had
been sufficient armor to protect them.

 In addition to cutting troops and equipment, the Pentagon is
considering saving another $11 billion by trimming benefits for
military retirees, Bloomberg reported.

 Most Americans have realized only a few hundred dollars from
Bush's tax cuts. They would likely give it all back to repair
the financial damage to our government and to support our troops.

 Would the rich and the super-rich, who have reaped millions, be
willing to do the same?

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 50 Salt Lake Tribune: 2005 wrap-up: Debates raged over taxes, nuclear
waste, schools, highway 

Opinion 

Article Last Updated: 12/30/2005 11:07:22 PM 

TOP CONTROVERSIES 

The 2005 Legislature predictably kicked off a year of 
public-policy discussion in Utah that has been marked by ongoing 
battles over nuclear waste storage and tax reform and the 
long-awaited settlement of a five-year fight over the 
construction of a portion of the Legacy Highway. 

Some of the year's controversies: 

Driver license bill: The Legislature voted to replace 
regular driver licenses for undocumented immigrants with driving 
privilege cards. We believe the bill was a reasonable measure to 
limit illegal aliens to the necessary ability to drive without 
implying the right to vote or other privileges that go with 
citizenship. 

It also put Utah in line with a federal law prohibiting 
states from issuing driver licenses to undocumented residents. 
The goal is to prevent illegals from using state driver licenses 
as identification to travel on airplanes or obtain other access 
granted only to citizens. Latino advocacy groups opposed the 
bill, saying it would dangerously identify undocumented 
residents and relegate them to lower-class status. 

Behind this controversy remains this country's failed 
immigration policy, which will undoubtedly continue to cause 
problems throughout the country. 

Tax reform: In May the state's Tax Reform Task Force, 
authorized by the Legislature, began hashing out proposals to 
overhaul Utah's outdated and sometimes unfair tax code, acting 
on ideas first addressed by a similar committee appointed by 
former Gov. Olene Walker in 2004. 

Over eight months, the group has discussed such things as 
eliminating the corporate income tax, making individual income 
tax rates "flatter" but retaining deductions for home mortgages 
and charitable contributions, overhauling the way sales taxes 
are distributed, and abolishing the sales tax on food. 

At the end of the year, the task force recommendations to the 
2006 Legislature are vague and without much meat. It will be up 
to lawmakers to polish them into substantive changes. We can 
only hope that legislators have the time during their brief 
session to salvage real reform. 

Nuclear waste: A battle over a federal plan to transport 
nuclear waste to the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation moved over 
several political switchbacks during 2005. Despite the efforts 
of Utah politicians to keep the waste out, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission approved a permit for the Goshutes and 
their business partners, Private Fuel Storage, to store it. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land 
Management still must sign off on the plan, and there are 
serious objections including the fact that, while Skull Valley 
is envisioned as a temporary lay-over for 44,000 tons of spent 
reactor fuel, delays to a permanent repository at Nevada's Yucca 
Mountain could mean the stuff stays in Utah indefinitely. Utah's 
Republican Sen. Bob Bennett, seeing the way the wind is blowing, 
has sided with Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid, the nation's highest 
ranking Democrat, on legislation to keep the waste on-site where 
it is produced. Sen. Orrin Hatch, to our dismay, has remained 
loyal to President Bush and his support for the doomed Yucca 
Mountain repository. 

Legacy Highway: We supported the deal reached by 
environmental groups and state highway officials that ended a 
five-year court battle and will allow the Legacy Parkway, the 
first stretch of the eventual Legacy Highway, to be built. 
Thankfully, the Legislature - with some members claiming duress 
- went along. Opponents of the settlement said the state caved 
to legal blackmail, but we disagreed. The highway still will be 
a four-lane, limited-access road. It still will follow the 
state's preferred route, but will include a larger wildlife 
preserve and cycling paths. Light- and heavy-rail transit and 
more commuter buses will be available sooner than they would 
have been under the original plan. Those are the benefits of the 
legal wrangling. A price inflated by about $250 million is the 
cost to taxpayers for overconfident politicians starting 
construction before litigation had been settled. 

Granite School District closures: The Granite Board of 
Education voted to close two elementary schools and redirect the 
mission of Granite High School after weeks of heated debate, 
pitting east-side against west-side parents. The district had no 
choice, given budget constraints. We believe closing schools on 
the east side of the huge district is necessary and sensible, 
since a population shift to the west has created below-capacity 
enrollments on the east and burgeoning west-side schools. 

We questioned, however, the reluctance of the board to add to 
its meager debt load to help avoid a budget shortfall and the 
perennial failure of the Legislature to fully fund education for 
all of Utah's growing school population. 

Real Salt Lake: Utah's new pro soccer team, Real Salt Lake, 
decided to build a $75 million soccer stadium in Sandy, after a 
yearlong competition among Murray, Salt Lake City and Sandy for 
the project. The tactics that made Sandy the winner, we believe, 
were a tad underhanded. 

It started with an agreement among the Legislature, Salt Lake 
City and Salt Lake County for an expanded downtown Salt Palace 
Convention Center and a parking garage for the South Towne Expo 
Center in Sandy. Salt Lake City put in $8 million as its share. 
Then out of the blue came House Speaker Greg Curtis with the 
idea that some of the $18 million set aside for the parking 
garage could instead go to the soccer project. Now the question 
is how much, if any, of the cost of the stadium should come from 
the public till. 

Our answer: none. 

В© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 51 Salt Lake Tribune: Delegation came together in Congress 

Article Last Updated: 01/01/2006 12:58:38 AM 

Ups and downs: Fighting a proposed nuclear waste dump keeps Utah 
lawmakers on their toes 

By Thomas Burr The Salt Lake Tribune 

Utah's congressmen had a roller coaster year in 2005, 
including major wins and losses in their attempts to prevent the 
state from becoming the nuclear waste capital of the nation. 

"I don't think it was a good year for the Bush 
administration," says veteran Utah pollster Dan Jones. "As far 
as our congressional delegation, they didn't hurt themselves." 

The delegation's biggest success came in December when 
Congress passed a defense bill with a provision creating a 
wilderness area in Utah's west desert in a move to block the 
rail transport of spent nuclear fuel rods to the Goshute Indian 
Reservation. Meanwhile, financial backing of Private Fuel 
Storage, the consortium of energy companies pushing the 
facility, appeared to be unraveling, raising questions about its 
future. And the Bureau of Land Management said it would reopen a 
comment period on the proposed rail line, further delaying the 
facility. 

But the delegation victories came in the wake of a big 
defeat. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in September approved 
a license for the facility designed to temporarily store 44,000 
tons of spent nuclear fuel in casks above ground. 

Still, Mike Lee, general counsel to Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman 
Jr., says that defeat can't be blamed on the delegation. "It was 
a loss for the state but not a loss for the delegation," Lee 
said. 

"That was expected. We were disappointed but that was 
expected," said GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch, who says he has been 
"working his guts off" to defeat the proposal. 

And Jones gives credit to Utah's representatives and senators 
for their work on the issue. 

"They are trying with a tremendous amount of dedication to 
prohibit nuclear waste coming into Utah," Jones says. 

Some of the recent moves in the PFS saga came after 
Republican Sen. Bob Bennett switched his position on Yucca 
Mountain, Nev., the proposed permanent repository for the 
nation's nuclear waste. Previously, Bennett and Hatch both voted 
to approve Yucca, but Bennett said he now opposes the plan. That 
action spurred help from Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of 
Nevada, who assisted Utah in getting the wilderness designation. 

That, says Lee, made the year exceptional. 

"I consider this wilderness legislation to be a huge, huge 
victory for the state," Lee says. "The fact that they were able 
to pull that off despite tough resistance from the nuclear 
industry is quite amazing." 

In another victory, the delegation, which also includes GOP 
Reps. Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon and Democrat Rep. Jim 
Matheson, worked to keep Utah's major military bases off the 
closure list. 

"No question, saving Hill Air Force Base was the top one," 
said Hatch. With nearly 50,000 jobs attached directly or 
indirectly to the base, "it was our biggest responsibility and 
our biggest success." 

Hatch credited the whole delegation with helping to keep the 
installation off the chopping block - an assessment seconded by 
Matheson, Utah's only Democrat in Congress. 

"Utah's delegation, while small in number, gets big results 
when we put up a united front," said Matheson. 

The delegation also can take credit for sending millions of 
dollars in appropriations to Utah governments, schools and 
businesses, and bringing in record millions for highway and 
transportation projects. In another victory, the plan to fund 
research of nuclear bunker busters was scrapped for the second 
time in two years. 

After winter floods ravaged southwestern Utah, Hatch and 
Bennett helped deliver $63 million in funding to help restore the
area. Matheson pushed through a measure to preserve military 
records of exposure to radioactive fallout. And Hatch's bill to 
expand the use of cord-blood stem cells passed the House and 
Senate unanimously during the session's final days. 

Hatch's other stem cell bill, though, still is waiting for a 
vote. That controversial bill, opposed by President Bush, would 
expand the ability to research on embryonic stem cells. On the 
flip side, Hatch's efforts to boost embryonic stem cell use got 
its own boost when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a medical 
doctor, signed on. 

The delegation pushed and received money and approval to move 
radioactive mill tailings from the banks of the Colorado River 
near Moab. And legislation passed by Congress moves forward the 
potential extraction of oil shale and tar sands in the West. 
Supporters of the extraction estimate there could be the 
equivalent of 1 trillion barrels of oil in the rock, leading to 
the nickname of the area as "Saudi Arabia of the Rocky 
Mountains." 

"It will make Utah one of the wealthiest places on Earth if 
we do it right," said Hatch. 

The delegation and their western colleagues, though, failed 
to push through other measures in a recent energy bill to move 
the development of oil shale further along. 

"It's not as far as we were hoping, but we got the ball 
rolling," said Cody Stewart, executive director of the 
Congressional Western Caucus. 

The caucus, with the Utah delegation's help, pushed for a 
historic level of federal payments to states with federal lands. 
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program aims to offset losses in 
property taxes for nontaxable federal land. Utah's share is 
nearly $20 million a year from the program. 

Still, the session didn't produce everything the caucus or 
Utah's delegation wanted, including approval to drill for oil in 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. 

"Generally speaking, when we look at Congress, it's not just 
one session," Stewart said. "In the first, you start to build 
coalitions; you build the groundwork. We have really prepared 
the way for next year for Western issues." 

Bennett's proposal to restructure the Social Security program 
got a boost when Bush, stumbling with his own proposed changes, 
encouraged Bennett to pursue his legislation. But the bill is 
still languishing in the Senate and it's unclear whether next 
year will bring any movement. 

Hatch lost in his attempt to end the battle over building 
Legacy Highway by inserting a provision that would have 
curtailed any further environmental studies on the controversial 
road. 

Overall, though, Jones says Utah's delegation can take credit 
for an important victory this year: unity. 

"They seem to be more aligned together more than they have in 
the past," Jones said. 

tburr@sltrib.com 

В© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 52 Boston Globe: Uranium cleanup moves ahead - 

January 1, 2006 --> 
 
By Davis Bushnell, Globe Correspondent  |  January 1, 2006 

Substantial progress has been made in the last three months
removing depleted uranium metal rods and barrels of depleted
uranium from the Starmet Corp. Superfund site in West Concord,
according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The status of the cleanup will be reviewed by a group of Concord
residents and officials at a meeting Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. at
141 Keyes Road. The 2229 Main Street Oversight Committee, which
takes its name from the Starmet address, regularly reviews the
status of the cleanup work on the the 46-acre property off Route
62.

By Dec. 23, a subcontractor of Envirocare of Utah Inc. had
carted away 2,540 of the 3,650 drums of depleted uranium and 100
of the 317 tons of depleted uranium metal, said Joseph Ferson, a
spokesman for the Department of Environmental Protection, which
is overseeing this part of the cleanup. All of the material is
being trucked to Utah for disposal.

Envirocare, which is working under a $8 million contract awarded
by the Department of Environmental Protection in August, ''is
slightly ahead of schedule and is expected to complete its work
in March or April" of this year, Ferson said.

The US Army has agreed to pick up the tab for this work. From
1970 to 1999, Starmet's predecessor, Nuclear Metals Inc., made
uranium-tipped bullets for the Army.

A leader of a Concord activist group, James West, said he and
others are pleased that the process is moving ahead efficiently.
''It's gratifying to see those trucks pulling out of the Starmet
property every day." West is technical assistance coordinator
for the Citizens Research and Environmental Watch, which
received a $50,000 grant from the US Environmental Protection
Agency.

The Starmet site was placed on the EPA's Superfund list, which
designates the nation's most contaminated properties, in 2001.

After the Utah firm has removed all of the low-level radioactive
material from Starmet buildings, which are guarded around the
clock, another contractor, De Maximis Inc. of Windsor, Conn.,
will examine what remains in those buildings.

De Maximis will be evaluating air, soil, and ground water data
on behalf of the Army and four other parties cited by the EPA in
2003 for contaminating the Starmet site. The others are the US
Department of Energy; Whittaker Corp. of Simi Valley, Calif.;
Textron Inc. of Providence; and MONY Life Insurance Co. of New
York City.

While the Army is paying for the current phase, the cost of the
overall cleanup will be apportioned among the five parties. The
split has not been determined.[ /]  © Copyright 2006 Globe
Newspaper Company. More: 
*****************************************************************
 53 KRNV: BLM sets aside corridor for study of Yucca Mountain rail route

Channel 4 

The federal Bureau of Land Management has designated a swath of
land across Nevada so the Energy Department can study a route
for a railroad to haul radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain. 

The move was made official Wednesday. 

The BLM says it won't limit most current uses of the mile-wide,
319-mile long corridor from Caliente to the Yucca site. 

Current valid mining claims, grazing rights, water rights and
public access to the land shouldn't be affected. But it gives
the Energy Department room for studies and surveys -- while
preventing new mining claims and deterring the BLM from selling
the property. 

Right now, there's no rail line to the Yucca Mountain site -- 90
miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)   

  
      All content © Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and KRNV. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 54 KOLD-TV: Navajos act to stop potential uranium rush

    
January 2, 2006   

PHOENIX Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Junior is taking 
action to prevent another uranium mining rush.In November, 
Shirley issued an executive order banning negotiations with 
uranium companies or uranium exploration on the three-state 
Navajo Nation.

That's because in the past two years, the price of uranium has 
tripled. And last year, 700 mining claims were filed and 100 test 
holes were bored into the remote high desert in northern Arizona.

Scott Florence is the director of the Bureau of Land Management's 
Arizona Strip district in St. George Utah. He says that number is 
significantly higher than any year since the frenzy of the 
1980s.After the first wave of uranium mining began on its 
reservation in the 1950s, the Navajo Nation became embroiled in a 
public health tragedy. Dozens of premature deaths of Navajo 
miners and passed-on genetic defects have been attributed to 
uranium exposure.

___Information from: The Arizona Republic, 
http://www.azcentral.com                                                      
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This 
  
      All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KOLD
*****************************************************************
 55 asahi.com: Commercialization far away for Monju fast-breeder reactor

01/01/2006 The Asahi Shimbun

In a country that depends on imports for almost all its energy
needs, the Monju reactor was once thought to represent the way
of the future. 

The plant, a prototype, was a model for the next generation of
nuclear power. Its "fast-breeder reactor" could produce more
plutonium than it consumed, and as such, it could provide fuel
for other plants and play a pivotal role in supplying the
nation's energy. 

But few people had ever heard of the plant until Dec. 8, 1995,
when a sodium leak forced a predecessor of the Japan Atomic
Energy Agency to shut it down. 

The leak, just three months after Monju started transmitting
power, came too soon for scientists to gather any important
data. 

Repairs and upgrades are now under way, and the reactor, in
Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, may be back at work as soon as 30
months from now. But some people are questioning whether it is
worth it. 

Officials at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology stand firmly behind Monju. 

"It is the one and only reactor that can accumulate vital data
that could lead to the next-generation reactor that would
incorporate new technology on the road to commercialization,"
said Masato Nakamura, who heads the Atomic Energy Research and
Development Division in the science ministry. 

However, much has changed in the decade since Monju shut down,
and some people doubt Monju will ever be able to compete with
other reactors. 

In the last 10 years, the output of Japan's nuclear reactors has
gone beyond 1 million kilowatts each, and future reactors are
being designed with outputs of 1.5 million kilowatts. 

Even if it was run on a commercial basis, Monju would have an
output of only about 280,000 kilowatts--not even half the output
of other reactors now in operation. 

Power company executives say that Monju cannot produce enough
power to turn a profit. 

An Outline for Nuclear Energy Policy, approved by the Cabinet in
October, underscored the importance of reactors such as Monju,
which use plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel. 

However, the document was vague about the timing, saying the
government should aim to have a commercial fast-breeder reactor
up and running by 2050. 

Without a clear goal for commercialization, Monju is
increasingly being seen as serving research purposes only. 

In global terms, development of a fast-breeder reactor is being
conducted jointly by 10 nations, including Japan, the United
States and France, as well as an agency. 

The French prototype, Phoenix, has been running for about 30
years, but it is expected to shut down in the next few years.
For that reason, French researchers have begun gathering at the
Monju site. 

Meanwhile, China and India are pushing development of their own
fast-breeder reactors, with plans to start operating them
commercially between 2020 and 2030. Both countries will have
huge energy demands in the future. 

The development has engendered a sense of crisis among science
ministry officials. 

"While we were a front-runner in the development of fast-breeder
reactors, we now face a situation of being overtaken by China
and India," Nakamura said. 

Japan Atomic Energy Agency officials hold similar concerns. 

Still, there are a number of issues that have to be resolved
before operations at Monju can resume. 

One is where to get the plutonium. 

Japan now has about 43 tons of plutonium. Of that total, 37 tons
were extracted at reprocessing facilities in Britain and France
from spent nuclear fuel from light water nuclear reactors in
Japan. The extracted plutonium is now stored in those two
countries. The question remains whether that plutonium should be
shipped to Japan. 

Another option would be to produce plutonium at a reprocessing
facility in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, that is scheduled to
begin operations in July 2007. 

Also, there are no facilities to reprocess the spent fuel that
would come out of Monju. 

A high-ranking science ministry official explained the problem
facing officials. 

"Monju is likely not a plant that will be operated for a long
period of time," the official said. "We have to first clearly
define a role for Monju by determining what data can be obtained
from it for the development of a new fast-breeder
reactor."(IHT/Asahi: January 01,2006) 
  
  + The Asahi Shimbun Company  
*****************************************************************
 56 asahi.com: Residents even more concerned about safety

01/01/2006 The Asahi Shimbun

A decade of inactivity has only heightened safety concerns among
residents of communities near the prototype Monju fast-breeder
reactor. 

Kiyoshi Yoshimura, a longtime leader of residents of Tsuruga,
Fukui Prefecture, is opposed to a resumption of Monju operations
that have been suspended since 1995 because of a sodium leak. 

"There are no examples in the world of a nuclear reactor that
has been idle for an entire decade," Yoshimura said at a Nov. 6
meeting in Osaka of groups opposed to nuclear energy. "Corrosion
may have spread in the pipes of the reactor." 

Hideyuki Ban, co-director of the Citizens' Nuclear Information
Center, said improvement work on Monju had not addressed some of
its fundamental problems, such as the ease at which a runaway
meltdown could occur from a nuclear chain reaction in the
reactor core. Ban also raised the possibility that major cracks
had formed in the pipes that transmit heat from the steam
generator. 

But Shinpei Kojima, president of the University of Fukui, said
people are overreacting. 

He classified the sodium accident in 1995 as a "minor problem"
since radiation did not leak, no injuries were reported and
residents were not forced to evacuate. 

Kojima is also the chairman of a specialists committee looking
into the safety of the Monju reactor. It was set up by the Fukui
prefectural government after the sodium leak. 

"The reactor has been halted for 10 years because of one broken
thermometer," Kojima said. "After we issued a report in November
2003 to the Fukui prefectural government saying Monju's
facilities were sufficiently safe in engineering terms, it took
the prefectural governor 15 months to approve the improvement
work. We cannot allow any further delays." 

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency also established a
study group to confirm the safety of the Monju reactor. Its
first meeting was held Nov. 1. 

One of the matters the group needs to clear up is the safety of
the pipes at the reactor. 

Another issue is whether agencies have outgrown the tendency to
immediately cover up any problems or accidents associated with
nuclear power. 

Cover-ups by the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development
Corp. (Donen) at one time became a national embarrassment. Donen
eventually was reorganized into the Japan Nuclear Cycle
Development Institute (JNC), which merged with the Japan Atomic
Energy Research Institute in October to form the Japan Atomic
Energy Agency. 

Takao Ishiwatari, an official at the Nuclear and Industrial
Safety Agency in charge of new reactor types, said Monju
operators have the responsibility to convince the public that
the facility is in proper working condition. 

He said his checklist would include: "whether pumps and turbines
as well as other equipment and facilities that have been idle
for 10 years will work properly, whether sufficient personnel
have been hired for the safe operation of the reactor, and
whether there are any problems in the disaster-prevention setup
and information-disclosure system." 

The ultimate decision on whether to resume Monju operations
rests with the Fukui prefectural government and the Tsuruga
municipal government. 

Fukui Governor Issei Nishikawa said citizens must be convinced
of the safety at the Monju reactor before he gives the go-ahead. 

"What is needed along with improvements in the software is
confidence in the technology by taking the time to conduct
safety inspections on each and every piece of equipment that has
been idle for a long time," Nishikawa said. "Unless the
understanding of Fukui residents is gained, operations cannot be
resumed anytime soon."(IHT/Asahi: January 01,2006) 
  
  + The Asahi Shimbun Company  
*****************************************************************
 57 asahi.com: Clarify energy goals before starting up Monju again

01/01/2006 By AKITO KUWAYAMA, The Asahi Shimbun

If and when the government decides to resume operating the
prototype Monju fast-breeder reactor, debate is sure to heat up
over whether the whole project is worth its huge costs. 

The feasibility of fast-breeder reactors has changed
dramatically over the past decade. 

When Monju went online in 1994, the Atomic Energy Long-Term Plan
had expected to start work on a demonstrator reactor in 2000 and
commercialize the technology by around 2030. 

However, with Monju operations at a standstill, the plan for the
demonstrator reactor also remains on ice. 

The Outline for Nuclear Energy Policy, the Cabinet's new
long-term plan for atomic energy that was announced this fall,
sticks simply to the goal of nuclear fuel production. 

However, the nuclear fuel process it envisions involves a
pluthermal system that uses plutonium to 

fuel light water reactors. 

The outline contains no specific forecasts for a fast-breeder
reactor such as Monju, although it does include a vague goal to
commercialize the process by around 2050. 

Rebuilding nuclear reactors in the short term will also depend
on improvements in light water reactors, rather than switching
to fast-breeder reactors. 

In the discussions leading up to the outline, no electric power
companies came out and said that fast-breeder reactors should be
developed. 

That is understandable, given that from an economic standpoint
there are few prospects for fast-breeder reactors becoming
commercially feasible. 

Electric power industry executives, it seems, would prefer the
central government develop fast-breeder reactors, even if the
industry thinks such development is needed. 

On the other hand, many people favor using Monju purely for
research. 

One research possibility is finding ways to reduce the toxicity
that results from burning radioactive waste materials containing
nuclides with long half-lives. 

Before starting up Monju just for research, however, a outline
for properly assessing its research plans is imperative. The
plant's operation should also be limited to about a decade. 

Japan has already spent more than 800 billion yen on Monju. If
its operations are resumed, even for research, the annual
operating expenses could soar to 15 billion yen. 

Can we afford this? 

We must carefully weigh the costs against the value of any
potential data that may be obtained from Monju. 

Of course, safety is among the main preconditions for resuming
operations at Monju. 

So is gaining the understanding of the local
community.(IHT/Asahi: January 01,2006) 
  

[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction
*****************************************************************
 58 Tennessean: Oak Ridge helps Russia protect nuclear materials - 

Associated Press: 

Monday, 01/02/06
 
Team assists country in making rail system more secure
 

OAK RIDGE — As a former military man who served during the Cold
War years, Oak Ridge National Laboratory engineer Gary Sullivan
finds a certain amount of irony in his collaborations with
Russia to make the world a safer place.

Sullivan, 59, is part of a transportation security team from
ORNL that is helping Russia protect its nuclear materials. He's
made about a dozen trips to the country to participate in
discussions and workshops.

"The first time I went to Russia, it was in January, and I was
standing in the middle of Red Square," Sullivan said. "I
remember thinking that I never expected to be here without an
M-16 in my hand."

ORNL's transportation security group, which involves a dozen or
more researchers and nuclear specialists, has worked extensively
with their Russian counterparts for nearly 20 years.

The focus in recent years has been improving the security of the
rail system.

Because the highway infrastructure is poor, trains are the
primary means of moving strategic materials and weapons
components around the nation, making them potential targets for
terrorism.

"Under the old Soviet system, with closed borders, they didn't
have a real problem or issue. Nobody crossed the line under the
Soviet system. They knew what would happen," Sullivan said. "But
once they opened the borders, theoretically at least, that all
changed."

Most of Russia's older rail cars used to move enriched uranium
and plutonium have been up-graded for security, Sullivan said.

The improvements include adding steel reinforcements to harden
the cars and adding electronic warning sensors and other
high-tech devices.

The ORNL team also has helped create designs for a new line of
rail cars being manufactured at a production plant in Torzhok,
about 150 miles northeast of Moscow.

And team members have assisted in installing GPS systems and
other technologies to track and safeguard the nuclear cargos
from tampering and alarms to alert Russian command centers if
anything goes wrong.

"Some of these systems were developed jointly with us, but it's
all designed and built in Russia by Russians," Sullivan said.

The U.S. government is funding these and other nonproliferation
projects to help reduce the spread of Russia's nuclear materials
and capabilities.

"We don't want it growing mushrooms," Sullivan said, referring
to the clouds that result from an atomic explosion.

"Personally, I find the work very rewarding. If we give the
wrong people enough opportunities, they'll make a mess. So we're
trying to minimize their opportunities."         

  Copyright © 2006, tennessean.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 59 Jackson Hole Wyoming News: Group: Reports show reactor safety lapses

Freedom of Information Act request raises questions about nuke 
lab deficiencies.                  
 			
By Rebecca Huntington Jackson Hole News 

January 02,2006                 
 			
Idaho National Laboratory documents reveal safety shortcomings at 
the Advanced Test Reactor, the centerpiece of a new plutonium 
production proposal for the lab, according to a Jackson-based 
watchdog group. 

Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free sought the documents through a
Freedom of Information Act request filed after the Department of
Energy announced plans to consolidate plutonium-238 production
at the Idaho lab. The lab is located about 100 miles west of
Jackson and upwind of Yellowstone National Park. 

DOE wants to move all plutonium-238 production to the Idaho
reactor, which would then produce 5 kilograms per year.
Moreover, a new facility would be built at the Idaho site to
house purification and encapsulation processes now conducted at
Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. 

KYNF opposes the consolidation plan and has repeatedly
questioned the safety of basing a new program on the 40-year-old
Idaho reactor. The group has said DOE should build a new
reactor; DOE officials have called that option too costly. 

Now KYNF says the DOE's own safety certification reports and a
report from a private consultant reveal the reactor is showing
its age through the failure of mechanical components. Moreover,
the documents show the reactor facility would be vulnerable to
damage during an earthquake, according to KYNF's analysis of the
documents. 

"The more we've examined this plutonium production project, the
more we've learned about the Advanced Test Reactor," said Tom
Patricelli, president of KYNF. 

Patricelli called the reactor an environmental and public safety
risk. KYNF and an Idaho-based nuclear watchdog group, the
Environmental Defense Institute, catalogued their safety
complaints in a letter, dated Dec. 21, to Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman, who oversees DOE. 

DOE spokesman Brad Bugger responded Tuesday that the documents
cited by KYNF show the lab's commitment to serious oversight of
the reactor. The documents show DOE has taken the initiative to
seek evaluations from outside consultants looking at the safety
of the reactor and its support systems, he said. 

"We have performed a number of upgrades to the reactor and its
support systems in recent years, as well as the core internal
change-out process, which essentially results in a new reactor
core every eight to 10 years," Bugger said. 

While Patricelli acknowledged that DOE changes the components in
the reactor's core every decade, he said the rest of the
facility is showing its age, which raises safety concerns. 

Moreover, the consultant's report suggests that some concrete
walls in the facility might not withstand a major earthquake and
should be evaluated for possible reinforcement, according to
KYNF. 

The consultant also suggests that a fire protection system,
designed to prevent a reactor meltdown in the event of an
accident or earthquake, could be vulnerable to damage during
such an event since the system's piping is supported by the
unreinforced concrete walls. 

The consultant suggests that installing an independent emergency
core cooling system "should be a high priority on the lifetime
extension plan" for the reactor, according to KYNF. Bugger said
that he could not respond Tuesday to specific details in the
KYNF letter because most lab experts were on vacation for the
holidays. But he said he would follow up on those concerns. 

"DOE and our contractors have worked very hard to make sure the
Advanced Test Reactor continues to operate safely, as it has
throughout the life of the reactor," Bugger said. 

Other concerns raised in the KYNF letter included mechanical
failures of control rods in the reactor, malfunctioning of a
radiation monitoring system and a lack of spare parts to fix
older systems in the facility. In the letter to Bodman, KYNF
argues that DOE has failed to accurately portray the seismic
vulnerability of the reactor in a draft assessment of the
plutonium consolidation proposal. 

A final assessment should describe the environmental impacts and
costs of necessary equipment repairs and replacements and
seismic upgrades needed to ensure the safety of the reactor, the
group states. Those costs and impacts should be compared to
other alternatives, such as building a new reactor, the letter
states.
				 		   	 
© 2005 - All Jackson Hole Wyoming Travel &Real Estate
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************