*****************************************************************
01/09/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.7
*****************************************************************
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 AFP: Iran to resume nuclear fuel research
2 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran to move ahead with nuclear research
3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: U.N. Council Warns Iran on Nukes
4 London Times: Outcry as Iran resumes its nuclear project -
5 [NYTr] N.Korea says nuclear talks are illogical
6 AFP: NKorea denies wrongdoing, says US sanctions must be lifted -
7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Says U.S. Must Lift Sanctions
8 Guardian Unlimited: West's humbug as Putin plays by our rules
NUCLEAR REACTORS
9 US: [NukeNet][srs] Progress Energy to announce new reactor site
10 US: Concord Monitor: Lawmakers eye second reactor They say expanding
11 US: NRC: Notice of Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.20
12 AFP: Fossil-fuel crisis drives Europe to nuclear, green energy -
13 SIGNATURE: Behind the Nuclear Spin
14 SIGNATURE: Learning to Love the Atom
15 US: Vermont Guardian: Key panel gives Vermont Yankee green light to
16 FT.com: Treasury faces 'big bill' for nuclear workers' pensions
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
17 [du-list] (U) Training Guide on Disease of Importance Iraq
18 [du-list] urgent re nuclear attack on Iran March 6, 2006
19 US: [du-list] Uranium revelation upset isle activists.
20 US: [du-list] Iowa: UI to study health of munitions workers
21 US: Sioux City Journal: Researchers to examine history of ammunition
22 RIA Novosti: Altai radiation: myth and reality
23 US: Hawk Eye: IAAP workers studied
24 US: KRNV.com: Region: Yerington tribe gets EPA grant to assess pollu
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
25 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: It's not religion -- it's propaganda
26 reviewjournal.com: LETTERS: Federal funding
27 RGJ.com: Yucca nuclear project is headed for failure
28 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Bush approves Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area
29 Telegraph: Nuclear advisers 'lack expertise'
30 SIGNATURE: Dumping Ground
31 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers warned of huge rise in nuclear waste
32 US: Guardian Unlimited: Energy Dept. Puts Off Shipping Nuke Waste
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
33 Online Journal: Nuclear weapons business as usual: Despite past perf
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 AFP: Iran to resume nuclear fuel research
Monday January 9, 7:48 PM
Photo: AFP
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has said it will resume nuclear fuel
research, despite Western warnings it could jeopardise any
efforts to end the long-running standoff over Tehran's nuclear
programme.
Monday's announcement coincided with the suspension of talks
with Russia aimed at seeking a compromise over Iranian uranium
enrichment, a key phase in the fuel cycle.
"Today, under the supervision of the agency, research activities
will resume," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said,
referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN
nuclear watchdog.
Europe has warned the move, which would end a two-year
suspension, would jeopardise any resumption of wider talks on
ending the crisis with the West over Iran's nuclear activities.
Washington, which accuses Iran of seeking to build nuclear
weapons, has also said any resumption of research into the fuel
cycle might spur it to seek Iran's referral to the UN Security
Council for enforcement action.
Iran has been trying to make a distinction between research into
the fuel cycle and actual production of enriched uranium, which
can be used as fuel in civil reactors or, in highly enriched
form, as the explosive core of an atom bomb.
The announcement came after talks between Russia and Iran on a
proposed compromise to end the row over uranium enrichment broke
off without result Sunday, although they are to resume in a
month.
"Negotiations to reach a final conclusion are going to be
continued on February 16 in Moscow," said Hossein Entezami,
spokesman for the National Security Council which is in charge
of the nuclear file.
"Negotiations ended on Sunday after three rounds of talks, which
resulted in some understandings," he was quoted in Monday's
press as saying.
Moscow is proposing that Tehran carry out uranium enrichment on
Russian territory to allay Western fears that the technology
could allow Iran to produce a nuclear bomb.
Both the European Union and the United States have backed the
proposal in principle.
In recent weeks, Iranian officials have blown hot and cold about
the proposed compromise, first suggesting that they might
consider it and then insisting that they would do so only if any
deal explicitly recognized its right to carry out enrichment on
Iranian soil.
Washington had warned Thursday that it would consider seeking
Iran's referral to the Security Council if it went ahead with
renewed research.
"If negotiations have been exhausted, we have the votes, there
is a resolution sitting there on the Security Council, we'll
vote it," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The European Union has been looking for a way to resume talks,
broken off last August, on securing safeguards from Iran that
its nuclear programme is exclusively for energy needs in return
for economic or other rewards.
But Entezami said the negotiations with Russia were
"independent" from the talks with the IAEA and European Union.
According to a source in the Russian delegation quoted by the
ITAR-TASS news agency, "the talks were detailed, candid and
professional," and while Moscow and Tehran "did not hold the
same view on all issues" talks would continue.
Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: Tehran to move ahead with nuclear research
Associated Press
Monday January 9, 2006
The Guardian
Iran said yesterday that inspectors from the International Atomic
Energy Agency were preparing to remove seals from research
facilities by today, allowing Tehran to move forward with its
promise to resume nuclear fuel research.
Tehran says its nuclear programme is for electricity generation,
despite US and European concerns that it is moving towards
producing nuclear bombs.
The US and France have called for Iran to be brought before the
UN security council, which could impose sanctions on Tehran if
it is found to be in violation of the nonproliferation treaty.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: U.N. Council Warns Iran on Nukes
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday January 9, 2006 11:02 PM
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Each of the permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council has told Iran to drop plans for new nuclear
activities or risk being hauled before the body for possible
sanctions, the Bush administration said Monday.
Although the United States and European allies have been sending
that message for weeks, China and Russia are now doing the same,
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
``We are working very closely with Russia, China and France and
Britain on sending a clear message to the Iranians,'' McCormack
said.
Those nations plus the U.S. are the five permanent Security
Council members. All are nuclear powers themselves and could
individually veto any punishment the body might try to impose on
Iran for pursuing what the United States claims is a fraudulent
and dangerous drive for nuclear technology.
The United States is backing a stalled European effort to
negotiate with Iran, and supports a separate offer from Russia
to perform some of the most sensitive nuclear enrichment tasks
on Iran's behalf. Both initiatives would allow Iran to pursue
legitimate civilian nuclear energy while reducing the risk that
the same technology could be diverted to make weapons.
Iran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, while the United
States accuses Tehran of hiding a weapons program behind its
drive for nuclear energy.
Iran has said it is ready to resume research on fuel production,
which had been on hold so that a diplomatic solution to the
crisis could be found. There was no official word from Iran on
Monday that it had resumed nuclear research, despite government
pledges as recently as Monday morning that it would do so.
``Ultimately, given Iran's track record on seeking nuclear
weapons under the cover of a civilian program, defying the
international community, bobbing and weaving, obfuscating, that
we're ultimately all going to end up in the Security Council on
this issue,'' McCormack said.
There has been no single unified communication from Security
Council members to Iran, such as a formal letter of warning,
U.S. officials said.
``I think that the Chinese are perfectly capable of delivering
their own messages,'' McCormack said. ``What we have been doing,
have done and will continue to do, is to continue to work with
them, work with the Russians and others so that Iran receives a
clear, consistent, unmistakable message from the rest of the
world.''
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called on Iran on
Monday to immediately retract its decision to restart nuclear
activities.
France, Britain and Germany - the three countries negotiating
with Iran on behalf of the European Union - will meet on the
issue soon, Douste-Blazy said.
He called Iran's intention to restart nuclear activities linked
to uranium enrichment ``reason for very serious concern.''
``We call on Iran to go back on its decision without delay and
without conditions,'' Douste-Blazy said.
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters at
U.N. headquarters in New York that Iran's nuclear program was
``a key issue.''
``It's quite clear if Iran today or in the next days takes the
steps it has announced it will do, then it will be in breach of
the wishes of the governing board of the International Atomic
Energy Agency and that there'll be cause, I think, for early
discussion in the governing board of what Iran has done,'' he
said.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said earlier
Monday that Iran was sending ``very, very disastrous signals''
on its nuclear program that ``cannot remain without consequences
for the EU-3's negotiation process.''
Javier Solana, the European Union foreign and security affairs
chief, told Iran on Saturday that if it resumes its uranium
enrichment program, it may doom any further negotiations with
the 25-nation bloc about economic aid and other issues.
Hossein Ghafourian, head of the nuclear research center of
Iran's atomic energy organization, pledged to press on with
plans to continue its peaceful program.
``Blocking research activities is similar to blocking the
light,'' Ghafourian told state-run radio on Sunday.
On the Net:
State Department: http://www.state.gov
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
4 London Times: Outcry as Iran resumes its nuclear project -
1-9-2005
By Simon Freeman and agencies
Tehran moved a step closer to economic and diplomatic sanctions
today as Iranian scientists returned to their labs to resume
forbidden research into nuclear power.
The provocative move follows the collapse yesterday of talks with
Russia aimed at seeking a compromise over Iran's suspended
nuclear enrichment programme, a key phase in both civilian fuel
production and in the generation of weapons-grade uranium.
French, German and British diplomats have given warning that
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is intent on scuppering the
resumption of negotiations to resolve the crisis.
Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel prize-winning boss of the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Authority), said that the decision
to remove UN seals and resume research in the face of
international criticism was "regrettable".
Hamid Reza Asefi, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, today told a news
conference: "We will remove the seals and we have announced that
we are ready to start research from tomorrow."
Western observers are convinced that Iran uses its civilian
atomic energy project as cover for a nuclear weapons programme.
The belligerent Mr Ahmadinejad - who last week publicly willed
the early death of Ariel Sharon - enjoys some support at home for
defending what he describes as Iran's right to produce its own
domestic power.
Iran resumed production of uranium gas in August. Three months
later it announced plans to enrich the gas at a pilot plant in
Natanz. Today's move ends a two-year suspension of enrichment
activity, the most sensitive step in the fuel cycle.
Today's announcement has pushed Iran another step toward being
referred to the UN's Security Council, where despite enjoying
tacit support from Russia and China, it is likely to face
sanctions.
Moscow, which has close energy trading links with Tehran, offered
a compromise that would allow Iran to carry out enrichment on
Russian soil. Talks - described as "detailed, candid and
professional" - broke down yesterday although they are to resume
next month.
Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, hinted that
Washington was losing patience with European attempts to cajole
Mr Ahmadinejad into line.
"If negotiations have been exhausted, we have the votes, there is
a resolution sitting there on the Security Council, we'll vote
it," she said.
Ursula Plassnik, the Austrian Foreign Minister, whose country has
just taken over the European Union presidency, said today that
Iran was "a very worrying situation indeed". She said today's
decision was: "the wrong step in the wrong direction and a cause
of very serious concern".
# A military passenger jet crashed in north-west Iran on
Monday, killing the commander of the ground forces of the
Revolutionary Guards and other senior officers.
The Falcon was making an emergency landing in bad weather in
Oroumieh, a mountainous region 560 miles (900km) northwest of
Tehran, when its landing gear apparently jammed at 9.30 am (0600
GMT) .
It is the second such crash in less than a month. The death of an
ally and friend is likely to further provoke the President, who
has blamed previous military air crashes on a US trade embargo
which prevents Iran from buying parts for its decrepit US-built
aircraft.
General Ahmad Kazemi, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war who was
appointed commander of the Guards' ground forces by President
Ahmadinejad in August, and eight officers died as well as the two
crew.
The official Islamic Republic News Agency later identified
another of those killed as Brigadier General Ghasem Soleimani,
the commander of the Jerusalem Force, an anti-terrorism unit
based in border areas.
Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
5 [NYTr] N.Korea says nuclear talks are illogical
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:39:40 -0600 (CST)
N.Korea says nuclear talks are illogical
By Jon Herskovitz
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea sees no point in returning to six-country
nuclear talks because of U.S. sanctions, Pyongyang said on Monday, adding
Washington would probably veto any deal to end the North's atomic ambitions
anyway.
The United States has clamped down on several companies it suspects of
aiding North Korea in counterfeiting, money laundering and the drug trade,
saying the illicit business has helped fund Pyongyang's nuclear weapons
programs.
"Under the present situation it is illogical to discuss with the U.S., the
assailant, the issue of dismantling the nuclear deterrent built up by the
DPRK for self-defense," a spokesman for the North Korean Foreign Ministry
said in answer to a question put by the official KCNA news agency.
DPRK is short for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea. Such statements from its Foreign Ministry are generally
considered one of the most authoritative forms of communication with the
outside world.
"Even if any agreement is reached between the parties concerned, it is
likely to be overturned by a person in high authority of the U.S.," the
spokesman said.
There was no immediate reaction from Washington.
Talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States have
hit a snag because of the U.S. crackdown on North Korea's finances.
Pyongyang has previously threatened to boycott the talks until the sanctions
are lifted.
Washington says the sanctions and the six-party talks are separate matters.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said last week Washington intends to
continue the crackdown.
FEELING THE PRESSURE?
In September 2005, the United States banned American institutions from doing
business with a Macau-based bank due to U.S. suspicions it helped North
Korea launder money.
A month later, it blacklisted eight North Korean companies for allegedly
supporting Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programs.
"North Korea is feeling the pressure (from the crackdown) and believes the
United States is out to kill them," said Paik Hak-soon, the head of North
Korea studies at Sejong Institute think tank south of Seoul.
Per capita income in North Korea ranks among the lowest in the world and the
country has few trading partners.
Paik added North Korea may be using the crackdown as a way to shift the
blame to Washington if the six-party talks break down.
North Korea has denied the charges of illegal activity and called for the
United States to lift the sanctions. The Foreign Ministry spokesman
reiterated the denial on Monday.
"We examined the information the U.S. side provided to us, claiming that it
was the motive of its application of sanctions," the spokesman said. "Such
things cited by it, however, have never happened in our country."
A South Korean official familiar with the six-party talks said Seoul and
others were working break the deadlock.
"We are all trying to move toward resumption of the talks while not
undermining the principles. The United States is probably doing the same,"
the official said by telephone.
South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said in an interview published on
Monday in the Korea Herald newspaper he was optimistic about the prospects
for the nuclear talks, but thought it would be difficult for them to resume
before the North and the United States are expected to meet later this
month.
(Additional reporting by Jack Kim)
) Reuters 2006.
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
6 AFP: NKorea denies wrongdoing, says US sanctions must be lifted -
Mon Jan 9, 12:32 AM ET
SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea" /> 's foreign ministry said that
evidence supplied by the United States to justify financial
sanctions imposed on the Stalinist state had turned out to be
"baseless" fiction.
The ministry said Pyongyang had scrutinized US evidence to
justify the sanctions imposed in retaliation for North Korea's
alleged illicit financial activities, including conterfeiting,
money-laundering and drug-running.
"We examined the information the US side provided to us,
claiming that it was the motive of its application of
sanctions," a foreign ministry spokesman was quoted as saying by
the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
"Such things cited by it, however, have never happened in our
country."
Washington has rejected a North Korean request for direct talks
on the issue, saying the sanctions are not negotiable.
"The US has persistently refused to negotiate with the DPRK
(North Korea) while floating baseless fictions which nobody
believes," the spokesman said.
He said sanctions should be lifted if six-party talks aimed at
ending the standoff over the North's nuclear weapons programme
were to resume.
The last round of talks -- which group the two Koreas, the
United States, China, Russia and Japan -- ended in stalemate in
November.
The US Treasury Department" /> in September told US financial
institutions to stop dealing with a Macau bank, Banco Delta
Asia, which it accused of being a front for North Korean
counterfeiting.
A month later the US blacklisted eight North Korean companies
allegedly involved in the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Washington says that the sanctions are unrelated to the nuclear
standoff which erupted in October 2002 over US charges that
North Korea was seeking to build nuclear weapons.
"The financial sanctions against the DPRK are an issue directly
related to the six-party talks," the unnamed foreign ministry
spokesman aid.
"This is quite understandable to anyone, if he has elementary
thinking ability. It is only the United States that pretends not
to know about this."
The spokesman said that the nuclear standoff was a product of US
hostility towards Pyongyang.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Says U.S. Must Lift Sanctions
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday January 9, 2006 12:02 PM
By KELLY OLSEN
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Monday sent its
highest-level signal yet that international talks aimed at
ending its nuclear programs are unlikely to resume soon,
repeating its demand that the U.S. drop sanctions to end the
impasse.
``Under the present situation it is illogical to discuss with
the U.S., the assailant, the issue of dismantling the nuclear
deterrent built up by the DPRK for self-defense,'' an unnamed
Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a statement carried by the
official Korean Central News Agency.
DPRK refers to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the
communist state's official name.
``The U.S. should lift the sanctions ... if it is truly
interested in the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and
hopes for the progress of the talks,'' the statement said.
The tightly controlled country often uses statements by the
ministry to reflect its stand on important foreign policy
issues. Recent similar criticisms have been published as
``commentaries'' in official media organs such as the Rodong
Sinmun newspaper, an organ of the communist country's Workers
Party.
North Korea and the United States have been engaged since 2003
in negotiations aimed at persuading Pyongyang to abandon its
nuclear programs. Though the talks also involve China, Japan,
South Korea and Russia, their progress is usually determined by
the existing level of level of tension between North Korea and
Washington.
In September, the United States slapped sanctions on a bank in
the Chinese territory of Macau, alleging it helped the North
distribute counterfeit currency and engage in other illicit
activities.
The next month, Washington sanctioned eight North Korean
companies it claimed were fronts for proliferating weapons of
mass destruction.
The September move particularly angered the North as it came
while the fourth round of nuclear talks was under way in
Beijing.
The U.S. says the sanctions are separate from the nuclear
negotiations. North Korea says U.S. emphasis on the nuclear
issue and on human rights abuses show it is aiming for the
overthrow of the North's regime.
``The financial sanctions against the DPRK are an issue directly
related to the six-party talks,'' North Korea said Monday,
referring to the series of negotiations in Beijing with China,
Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States that began in
2003.
Among U.S. allegations are that that North Korea is engaged in
the manufacture of high-quality counterfeit $100 bills, or
so-called ``supernotes,'' and money laundering.
Monday's statement carried a broad rejection of the U.S. claims,
which was significant as it marked the first time for the
Foreign Ministry to issue such a denial.
``We examined the information the U.S. side provided to us,
claiming that it was the motive of its application of
sanctions,'' the Foreign Ministry statement said. ``Such things
cited by it, however, have never happened in our country.''
North Korea's increasing anger comes as U.S. officials have been
taking a harder verbal line. Alexander Vershbow, the new U.S.
ambassador to Seoul, last month called North Korea's government
a ``criminal regime.'' On Thursday, his boss, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, called it a ``dangerous regime.''
``The key to solving the issue is for the U.S. to renounce its
hostile policy towards the DPRK and opt for coexistence with the
latter,'' the statement said.
In what was hailed as a major breakthrough, the North pledged in
the September round to give up its atomic programs in return for
aid and security assurances.
But it immediately placed new conditions on its disarmament,
such as demanding nuclear reactors for power generation. The
U.S. called them unacceptable, and no further progress has been
made.
The last session of the talks recessed in November. Negotiators
agreed to meet again, but did not set a date, though there had
been hopes something could be arranged this month.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: West's humbug as Putin plays by our rules
The Ukraine gas dispute is a warning of conflict to
come as energy supplies fall short
Larry Elliott, economics editor
Monday January 9, 2006
Russia's presidency of the G8 has certainly started with a bang.
Vladimir Putin had barely taken over from Tony Blair on January 1
before he was turning off gas supplies to Ukraine in a row over
the price of energy.
Putin received thunderous condemnation for this decision.
Commentators vied to find the right words to describe this
display of old-style Moscow muscle. It was quite outrageous that
Russia should bully Ukraine, punishing Kiev for daring to go
against the Kremlin's wishes in last year's Orange Revolution.
Of course, Putin's argument that he was simply asking Ukraine to
pay a market price for its gas was spurious. Belarus - a client
state of Moscow - is continuing to get its gas at the hugely
subsidised price of $50 (£28) per 1,000 cubic metres, and
increases for the Baltic states and Moldova are being phased in
over time (as will Ukraine's, now the two sides reached an
agreement). There was an element of spite in Putin's action; no
doubt about it. The message was clear: don't mess with me.
But for the west to raise its hands in horror is utter humbug.
The implication is that Britain, France and the US never reward
friendly countries nor punish those they believe have stepped
out of line. As Paul Robinson noted in last week's Spectator,
Egypt is seen as a friend of the west in the Middle East and
gets plenty of financial help; Syria is no friend of Washington
and receives less generous treatment. "Putin's policy certainly
represents a very crude pursuit of national interest,
implemented unilaterally and with little regard for
international opinion. But, as such, it is not so very different
from the sort of policies pursued by other states, including our
own. Furthermore, the marketisation of energy policy which it
involves is entirely in keeping with the demands that European
states have been making of Russia for several years."
Quite. If Putin has decided that the way to secure global
influence is to throw his weight around, who can blame him?
That's what everybody else does. And given Moscow was crawling
with neo-liberal zealots in the aftermath of the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991 insisting a dose of unrestrained market
forces was just what the doctor ordered, it must be amusing for
Putin to be able to say: "What, me? I'm only doing what the
market tells me I should."
In this case, the market-forces argument carries some clout.
Energy prices are high globally because demand is strong and
there are justifiable concerns about supply in the short and
medium-term. It is absurdly wasteful and damaging to the
environment for the Russians to sell gas at subsidised prices.
From the perspective of anybody concerned about global warming,
the idea that Ukraine should be receiving gas at one-fifth of
the price it costs in western Europe and an eighth of what it
costs in the US is the economics of the madhouse.
Vulnerable
In the event, last week's standoff was quickly settled. Fears
that the European Union could see supplies affected proved
groundless, at least on this occasion. Europe's vulnerability is
that it receives a quarter of its natural gas from Russia, with
Hungary, Austria and the Czech Republic especially vulnerable,
as most of it arrives via a pipeline that crosses Ukraine. When
Russia reduced the gas by the amount it normally supplies to
Ukraine, there was nothing to prevent the Ukrainians from
siphoning off some for themselves, leaving Europe short.
That was never seriously going to happen. This is the first time
Russia has held the presidency of the G8, a club of which it is
not really eligible to be a member. It is not as pivotal to the
global economy as China, India or Brazil, nor is its democratic
governance anything to write home about. The only reason Russia
is a member is because it is sitting on the world's biggest
reserves of natural gas, so Putin moved quickly to assuage fears
in Europe that supplies might be affected by his local dispute.
While appearing to revel in his image as a strong man, he is not
daft enough to alienate the rest of the G8 in such a crass
fashion.
That said, Putin has made his point and the G8 will get the
message. At one level, the dispute reflects the fact that the G8
will have a different focus this year. Tony Blair and Gordon
Brown would like to see some follow-through from Britain's
presidency, where the emphasis was on Africa, but Putin is
clearly far more interested in energy security. With oil prices
above $60 a barrel and reserves of fossil fuels concentrated in
parts of the world notable for their political instability, it
is reasonable to assume Britain will struggle to keep
development high on the agenda.
If Putin forces Blair and Brown to focus on the idiotic nature
of government policies on energy and climate change, that would
be no bad thing. Labour's new year bombshell was the news that
it plans to give the go-ahead for a third Heathrow runway, a
decision which can only be justified on the basis that growth is
more important than climate change. Having created the
conditions for more global warming, the government thinks it can
square the circle by building more nuclear power stations to cut
down on the use of fossil fuels.
Concerns
Given Britain's appalling record on energy efficiency, a better
idea might be to look at California, where tough state
regulations have had a considerable impact on consumption.
Arthur Rosenfeld, energy commissioner for California, told a
conference last year that avoiding the 50% expansion in
electricity use over the past 25 years was equivalent to getting
12 million cars off the road.
Unsurprisingly, concerns about the British government's energy
policy are growing, inside and outside parliament. Labour
backbencher Colin Challen has introduced a bill calling for the
contraction and convergence method for tackling climate change
to be enshrined in law. There is not much hope that the
government will adopt his bill, but it should. C involves
reducing greenhouse gases to a sustainable level over the next
few decades (contraction) and over the same period arriving at a
situation where everybody on the planet has an equal right to
pollute (convergence). It is simple, it is radical and it is the
best - perhaps the only - idea around that offers a solution to
climate change.
Instead, we're scrabbling around looking for a quick fix -
urging Opec to pump more oil, building more nuclear power
stations, occupying Iraq - in the hope that there is a magic
solution to the problem of ever-rising demand and limited
supply. There isn't. Russia's skirmish with Ukraine will be
merely the foretaste of bigger and nastier conflicts over energy
unless it is recognised that the party is over and the days of
cheap oil and gas are gone for good.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
9 [NukeNet][srs] Progress Energy to announce new reactor site
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:34:38 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
From: Mary Olson
To: SRS act
Subject: [srs] Progress Energy to announce new reactor site this month
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:08:39 -0500
Published: Dec 30, 2005 12:30 AM
Modified: Dec 30, 2005 04:18 AM
Nuke site may be chosen in January
Progress Energy had planned to pick a site this month. It has narrowed the
choices down from 13
CEO Robert McGehee
John Murawski, Staff Writer
Progress Energy, which had expected to announce a site this month for a new
nuclear plant, has narrowed its list to a half-dozen finalists, and plans
to name the site in mid-January.
The Raleigh-based utility in the past four months has halved its original
list of 13 potential sites in North Carolina and South Carolina. Company
officials are now in the final stages of the site selection process, said
Joe Donahue, Progress Energy's vice president for nuclear engineering and
services.
The names and locations of the sites are a closely-guarded secret. Progress
Energy, which has 1.4 million customers in the Carolinas, was considering
three locations where it already operates nuclear plants, including the
Shearon Harris plant in Wake County, as well as 10 undisclosed virgin
sites, Donahue said.
The Triangle's only Fortune 500 corporation has been very tight-lipped
about an impending announcement that's bound to spark fierce opposition
from local residents, environmentalists and opponents of nuclear
energy.Local government and economic development officials generally
embrace nuclear plants as founts of property tax revenue. But the county
managers of Wake and Brunswick counties say Progress Energy has not kept
county officials updated on the site selection process that will affect
their constituents for decades to come.
Progress Energy's chief executive said in April that the Shearon Harris
site would be the most logical choice for expansion. CEO Robert McGehee
noted the Harris facility serves a rapidly growing area with high energy
demand, and was designed to house four nuclear reactors. It now has one.
The delay in the company's site decision has been caused by a technical
study to identify the best nuclear reactor designs for each site under review.
"You can't pick a site, then the technology," Donahue said Thursday. "You
really need to pick both simultaneously."
Duke Power, the Charlotte-based utility that serves 2.1 million customers
in the Carolinas, is on a parallel track and expects to announce a site in
January to build a new reactor in its service area. The company is
reviewing 14 potential sites. Duke serves 108,000 customers in Durham
County, 45,000 in Orange and 2,000 in Wake.
Progress Energy and Duke Power have said they will need new sources of
power generation within a decade to meet growing customer demand. Both are
considering commissioning the nation's first nuclear reactors in two decades.
Each site selected would accommodate up to two nuclear reactors.
The utilities plan to file for federal licenses, but wouldn't commit to
building the reactors for up to several years after applying for the
licenses. Instead, the companies could decide to build coal-fired plants,
or choose another option.
Progress Energy has said it will apply for licenses to build as many as a
total of four nuclear reactors at two sites -- one in North or South
Carolina and the other in Florida. The company is reviewing 19 potential
locations in Florida and won't announce a site in the Sunshine State until
March.
The site and reactor design review is now in the hands of a four-person
technical team that's being aided by several engineering firms, Donahue
said. The technical team will present its findings and recommendations to
the company's baseload oversight committee, which in turn will make a
recommendation to Progress Energy's senior management team.
Shortly before the company makes its selection public, it will notify
elected officials in the affected counties and towns. As part of a detailed
communication plan, the company will also notify officials in areas that
had asked to be picked but lost out, Donahue said.
At this stage, the property record checks, geological testing and other
aspects of site evaluation have not required public disclosure, said
company spokesman Rick Kimble.
Officials in Cumberland County have been lobbying Progress Energy for the
reactor, seeing it as an economic development boon. And last month
Brunswick County passed a resolution expressing support for a new reactor.
The county is home to Progress Energy's Brunswick nuclear plant, south of
Wilmington.
The Shearon Harris plant is Wake County's biggest source of property tax
revenue, paying nearly $10 million a year. In addition, the plant employs
450 people in jobs that pay an average annual salary of $80,000.
Selecting a site is based on a dozen general criteria and 40 engineering
criteria, Donahue said. The criteria include adequate water supply to cool
the reactor (30 million gallons needed daily), flooding and earthquake
risk, and access to transmission lines and railroads or barges to bring in
construction equipment and materials.
Local community support, or opposition, is also a consideration.
Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at 829-8932 or
murawski@newsobserver.com.
© Copyright 2005, The News & Observer Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
10 Concord Monitor: Lawmakers eye second reactor They say expanding plant could cut
rates
SEabrook
Concord, NH 03301
Copyright 1997-2005 Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot
P.O. Box 1177 Concord NH 03302 603-224-5301 Privacy policy
The Associated Press
January 08. 2006 8:00AM
Lawmakers worried about the state's energy needs are raising the
possibility of rebuilding Seabrook Station's second nuclear
reactor - an idea that doesn't sit well with some
environmentalists.
"We need to increase power generation in the state of New
Hampshire," Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg said Friday.
"People all over the country are starting to realize we dropped
the ball when we allowed a vocal minority to stop production of
nuclear power."
Clegg said he and other leading lawmakers want to explore
rebuilding the reactor, though they have yet to approach the
station's officials.
Power companies around the state are raising their rates or
proposing to raise them, he noted.
"If we had built the second reactor, New England wouldn't be in
the problem it's in now,"Clegg said. "We're going to lose
businesses because they can't afford the increases."
But environmentalists say other options must be considered.
"I think it's reckless to even start talking about building
another reactor without first having the discussion on all
options first," said Catherine Corkery of the New Hampshire
Sierra Club.
Al Griffith, spokesman for Seabrook Station, said there are no
plans to rebuild the second reactor, which was dismantled three
years ago. Prolonged litigation is blamed for cost overruns that
led to a decision to leave that reactor incomplete.
But that doesn't mean new reactors may not be added elsewhere,
Griffith said.
"There are active consortiums investigating the building of the
next generation of nuclear power plants. It is going to happen,
the question is when and where," Griffith said.
"New England has not been talked about as a location, and
certainly not Seabrook Station,"he said.
*****************************************************************
11 NRC: Notice of Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
FR Doc E6-60
[Federal Register: January 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 5)]
[Notices] [Page 1456] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09ja06-79]
Docket No. 030-28641, License No. 42-23539-01AF, Department of
the Air Force.
Docket No. 040-06394, License No. SMB-141, Department of the
Army.
Docket No. 040-07086, License No. SUB-734, Department of the
Army.
Docket No. 040-08814, License No. SMB-1411, Department of the
Army.
Docket No. 040-08838, License No. SUB-1435, Department of the
Army.
Docket No. 040-07354, License No. SUB-834, Department of the
Army.
Docket No. 040-08850, License No. SUB-1440, Department of the
Army.
Docket No. 040-08779, License No. SUC-1391, Department of the
Army.
Docket No. 040-08767, License No. SUC-1380, Department of the
Army.
Docket No. 030-29462, License No. 45-23645-01NA, Department of
the Navy.
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, has issued a Director's Decision on a petition
dated April 3, 2005, filed by Mr. James Salsman, hereinafter
referred to as the ``Petitioner.'' The petition was supplemented
on April 26, 2005, and May 4, 2005. The petition concerns
depleted uranium (DU) munition licensees, specifically the
Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy, and ATK Tactical
Systems Company, LLC.
The petition requested the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to fine the licensees and modify their licenses. The
Petitioner's concerns revolve around the combustion products of
DU munitions, specifically hexavalent uranium trioxide (UO3).
Petitioner asserts that the licensees never attempted to detect,
never detected, and failed to recognize that hexavalent UO3 is a
hazardous combustion product when DU munitions are fired and
heated at high temperatures. Petitioner contends that DU
munitions licensed activity is unsafe and in violation of NRC
requirements.
On May 4, 2005, Petitioner met with the NRC staff's Petition
Review Board via telephone. The meeting gave the Petitioner and
the licensees an opportunity to provide additional information
and to clarify issues raised in the petition.
NRC staff sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the
Petitioner and to all DU munition licenses for comment on
September 22, 2005. Petitioner responded with comments on October
19, 2005, and the licensees responded on October 12, 2005 (Army),
and October 17, 2005 (Air Force). The comments are addressed in
the Director's Decision.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards has determined that insofar as Petitioner requests,
NRC to require DU munition licensees to report incidents and
overexposures to NRC, and to remediate facilities in accordance
with current regulations, Petitioner's requests are granted. The
Director also has decided to deny Petitioner's requests for
modification and/or revocation of DU munitions licenses and for
imposition of fines because Petitioner did not demonstrate that
DU munitions licensees violated any NRC requirement, or that
licensed activity creates conditions hazardous to the public
health and safety or to the environment not already considered in
licensing or addressed by NRC requirements. The reasons for these
decisions are fully explained in the Director's Decision pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-05-08), the complete text of which is
available in Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS) for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland, and via NRC's Web site
(http://www.nrc.gov) on the World-Wide Web, under the ``Public
Involvement'' icon. Accession Number for the Director's Decision
is ML053460450.
A copy of the Director's Decision will be filed with the
Secretary of the Commission, for the Commission's review, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As
provided for by this regulation, the Director's Decision will
constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the
date of the decision, unless the Commission, on its own motion,
institutes a review of the Director's Decision in that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of December 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert C. Pierson, Acting
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6-60 Filed 1-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
12 AFP: Fossil-fuel crisis drives Europe to nuclear, green energy -
Sun Jan 8, 4:31 PM ET
PARIS (AFP) - Surging oil prices, deepening concern about carbon
pollution and sudden worries over Russia's reliability as a gas
supplier have been a windfall for Europe's nuclear and renewable
energy industries.
Both sectors are looking to 2006 and beyond to widen their share
of Europe's energy market, where oil and gas remain firmly
enthroned.
The biggest beneficiary could be the continent's nuclear firms,
whose fortunes have been blighted for nearly two decades.
The 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which sent a pall of radioactive
fallout over much of Europe, was a hallmark.
It blocked the construction of new nuclear plants across Western
Europe, caused others to be mothballed or scrapped, encouraged a
shift to wind energy and other clean sources and prompted the
rise of Europe's powerful green movement.
Things, though, are changing. Little by little, nuclear's time
in the wilderness is coming to an end.
"Over the past two years, we have seen a perceptible shift in
public opinion about nuclear power... people are much more
positive," Laurent Furedi, a spokesman for the industry's lobby
association, Foratom, in Brussels, told AFP.
"There are various factors for it, namely security of supply,
the rising price of (fossil-fuel) energy, and concern about
climate change from carbon gases. The public mood is changing a
lot, and is overtaking fears about nuclear."
Last year Finland became the first European country in 15 years
to start building a new nuclear power plant, a facility
scheduled to go into operation in 2009.
Bulgaria put out tenders for the construction of a nuclear plant
to replace Soviet-era reactors being closed for safety reasons
at Kozloduy.
France pushed ahead with plans for a so-called third-generation
design, like that being built in Finland, to replace its
existing stable of nuclear reactors.
On Wednesday, President Jacques Chirac" /> President Jacques
Chiracunveiled a scheme for a "fourth-generation" prototype
reactor, designed to be more efficient and produce less waste,
that would start up by 2020.
In the coming months, Britain is facing a major energy review
that British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairsaid will
include whether to renew nuclear power stations built in the
1970s and 80s.
The decisions will be "difficult and controversial," warned
Blair, noting indirectly that nuclear plants were negligible
emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas.
Across the 25 EU states, 148 nuclear reactors account for 32
percent of electricity needs, a figure that ranges from just
four percent in the Netherlands to 78 percent in France,
according to Foratom.
Some countries have already phased out nuclear or promised to do
so, but in several of them there are signs of a change of heart.
Sweden has scrapped plans to phase out its 12 nuclear reactors
by 2010 in line with a referendum made in 1980, and opinion
polls say two-thirds of voters either want the plants to
continue until their operational lifespan ends or be replaced by
new plants in the future.
Germany's new coalition government, too, is wrangling over the
commitment to phase out nuclear plants by 2020, with two
ministers publicly disagreeing last week over what to do.
In Italy, whose four power stations were closed down after a
post-Chernobyl referendum, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
kindled a nationwide debate last year by calling for nuclear to
be included in a major review of energy supplies. A similar
debate was unleashed in 2004 in Belgium, where N-plants are
scheduled to be phased out by 2015.
Despite this, there remains strong anti-nuclear sentiment in
Europe.
Fission may be back, but it is not yet in fashion -- and even if
that were to happen, no-one sees a return to nuclear's glory
years of the 1950s and 60s, when the energy was billed as cheap,
safe and endless.
Memories remain scarred by Chernobyl and, even if there has not
been a major nuclear accident in Europe since that time, the
safety issue will not go away.
Green campaigners point to an intensifying public debate about
how to safely store highly radioactive waste that has quietly
built after half a century of nuclear power.
A survey of 24,700 European citizens last year by the European
Commission" /> European Commissionfound that only 37 percent
were in favour of nuclear power but 55 percent were against it.
Eight percent voiced no opinion.
That means the ground is also fertile for Europe's green-energy
firms, which have built a world lead in some areas of
renewables, notably wind and biofuels.
Corin Millais, chief executive of the European Wind Energy
Association (EWEA), said the scare over EU gas imports from
Russia, triggered by last week's showdown on gas prices between
Moscow and Ukraine, "made wind even more attractive" for easing
Europe's costly, vulnerable dependence on fossil fuels.
"Wind farms are a mature technology, have low costs and can be
installed swiftly," he said, noting that a nuclear plant can
take years of construction before it delivers the first watt.
Six percent of the EU's energy needs are met today by wind and
other renewables, half of which comes from wind, although the
proportion varies greatly among member states.
The European Commission has set a goal of 12 percent from
renewables by 2010, and the European Parliament last September
demanded a mandatory benchmark of 20 percent by 2020.
Millais said that the market for renewables remained hedged with
regulations that made it difficult to sell green electricity
across borders.
If such problems could be fixed, wind farms could provide 12
percent of EU electricity by 2020 "and probably 25 percent by
2030," he said.
Recommend It: Not at All Somewhat
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
13 SIGNATURE: Behind the Nuclear Spin
January 2006
BY Signature
This week the world’s six largest polluters meet in Sydney to
discuss the role of nuclear power and new technologies in
curbing climate change.
The inaugural meeting of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate will focus on “practical action to
develop and deploy low-emissions technologies”. There will be no
discussion of Kyoto-style timetables for reducing emissions —
Environment Minister Ian Campbell told the Sydney Morning Herald
last week that “China and India are simply not interested in
that sort of target approach”.
Nuclear power is likely to be promoted as a potential solution
to the world’s greenhouse problems.
The once unpopular nuclear energy industry enjoyed a media
revival last year, thanks to a number of prominent politicians
calling for a renewed debate on the issue. Despite refusing to
sign the Kyoto protocol, our government now accepts that
greenhouse gas emissions are a serious problem; nuclear power,
they argue, must be considered as a solution.
These calls for debate have inspired an odd dance in the media:
between those who think we should have a debate; those who think
we’re already having one; and those who think the issue should
not be touched with a ten foot pole.
What is unclear, however, is how ‘calls for a debate’ add
anything to a debate, and if what we are having is not a debate
— what a debate entails?
This month, Signature enters the fray.
So far we’ve heard a lot more from nuclear proponents than
opponents. Their angle, after all, seems to break new ground.
While they embrace a pariah, the sustained historic moral
opposition of environmentalists, eminent scientists and ALP
policy has been relegated to a footnote.
But in all the debate about debates, one thing seems to have
been largely overlooked: a domestic nuclear power industry is
probably not on the cards in Australia. Nuclear reactors are
illegal under current Federal law and even the aggressively
pro-uranium Federal Minister for Resources Ian Macfarlane has
publicly ruled out the possibility for at least another 20 years.
Signature thinks any debate — if it is to be relevant to the
Australian public — should really be about the only stage in the
nuclear fuel cycle that Australia presently engages in: uranium
mining and export.
Australia is home to 40 per cent of the world’s low-cost
recoverable deposits of uranium — more than any other country —
yet we currently produce 22 per cent of the world’s yellowcake,
the world’s second largest producer behind Canada.
A renewed interest in nuclear power around the globe has led to
a flurry of interest in uranium mining in Australia: in 2003
there were five companies actively exploring for the mineral;
today there are more than 70. Many of these companies were
listed and applied for tenements in the last 12 months.
Open market prices for yellowcake have risen from around US$9 a
pound at the end of the 1990s, to US$33 in late 2005.
The Federal Government’s enthusiasm for the uranium industry
seems to be pegged to the yellowcake price: it continues to
rise.
We know that controversial big export deals are already in
train, including a lucrative deal with a China.
On 4 August 2005 Macfarlane reinforced the Federal Government’s
control of the North Territory’s uranium deposits, declaring the
Territory “open for business”. Since then, uranium exploration
has boomed across the Territory.
However, while uranium exploration is legal in all states, the
federal ALP’s ‘no new mines’ policy is binding on all state
Labor governments, meaning no new mines will come online in the
states without a change to Labor policy.
In our cover story MARNI CORDELL speaks with Shadow Minister for
Industry and Resources, Martin Ferguson, and others about
Ferguson’s push to overturn the ALP’s position.
MIRIAM LYONS investigates one of the longest running PR
campaigns in history: the push to sell nuclear power as ‘clean
and green’.
And EVE VINCENT reports on the Federal Government’s radical
Radioactive Waste Management Bill.
In our photo story the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta celebrate their
success in stopping a national radioactive waste dump from being
built on their country.
© 2005 Signature.
*****************************************************************
14 SIGNATURE: Learning to Love the Atom
January 2006
BY MIRIAM LYONS
The idea of nuclear power as a ‘clean green alternative’ to
fossil fuels may be new to Prime Minister John Howard and
environmentalist James Lovelock, but energy companies and
industry lobby groups have been pushing the same idea for over
twenty years. MIRIAM LYONS reports on one of the longest-running
PR campaigns in history.
The seventies were a bad decade for nuclear power companies. The
eighties were worse. In the US the cost of building a new
reactor rose 500 per cent from 1970 to 1980, partly due to
protests and legal challenges from a growing anti-nuclear
movement. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania
seriously dented public support. And the 1986 Chernobyl disaster
finished off what little remained of the of the industry’s
reputation — and with it, the confidence of its investors.
New nuclear power plants can take years to get approved and
decades to make a profit. It’s not surprising then that the
industry took a long-term approach to public relations —
starting with America’s future voters.
In their book ‘Toxic Sludge is Good for You’, John Stauber and
Sheldon Rampton describe a flood of business-funded education
materials in US public schools in the late seventies, which
portrayed nuclear energy as both safe and green. In one
comic-book published by a Florida electricity company,
characters promise that “nuclear plants are clean, odourless and
generate electricity economically … and most important, help
conserve fossil fuels!’’
Over the years the story stayed pretty much the same, but the
number of groups telling it has grown. Three separate
industry-funded tax-deductible education organizations started
up in the early 80s to connect energy and mining companies with
the US school system. The Energy Source Education Council for
example, produced a million-dollar energy curriculum which is
purchased by local energy companies who in turn donate it to
schools. The Council claims that the curriculum has reached
nearly 12 million students.
In Australia, without a domestic nuclear power industry, the
task of teaching kids the virtues of atomic energy has largely
been left to one man. Ian Hore-Lacy spends half his time as the
Public Communications Director for the World Nuclear
Association, and the other half as the manager of the Uranium
Information Centre (UIC) — a small group funded by Australian
uranium mining companies.
The UIC produces colour information brochures for schools with
titles like “Sustainable Energy — Uranium, Electricity and
Greenhouse” and “The Peaceful Atom”.
The UIC also co-publishes Hore-Lacy’s school textbook “Nuclear
Electricity” with mining lobby group the Minerals Council of
Australia. Although Hore-Lacy is open about the UIC’s funding
sources, neither “Nuclear Electricity” nor the school brochures
make reference to the fact that they are paid for by uranium
mining companies.
Hore-Lacy says that there was a lot more education on nuclear
power in schools twenty years ago, and that more is needed now.
“We need to start to get all this sort of material in school
textbooks.”
In August 2005 the federal Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane set
up the Uranium Industry Framework (UIF) to help overcome
obstacles to the expansion of uranium mining. Of its fifteen
members, nine are industry representatives. It is anticipated
that this Committee will push to relax the industry’s
regulation.
A working group on ‘Information, Communication and
Understanding’ has been set up under the framework to look at
ways of bringing about greater community acceptance of the
industry. The group will be chaired by Ron Mathews, the
Australian director of Canadian uranium mining company Cameco.
Carolyn Barton from the Department of Industry says that one of
the reasons for appointing Mathews was Cameco’s background in
schools outreach. “Schools is something that could be looked at”
says Barton. “We’ve thought of it as an issue but we haven’t
made any decisions yet.”
“There would be resourcing issues if we were to run a major
campaign ourselves — it would more be looking at what’s already
there — [for example] the Uranium Information Centre, or the
Minerals Council of Australia [MCA].”
The MCA, Australia’s peak mining industry lobby group, has over
30 member companies which pay a small percentage of their annual
profits as membership fees. The Council currently spends $2
million dollars a year on its National Education Program (NEP),
which targets both primary and secondary students. (Council
Chairman Mitch Hook estimates that in total the MCA and its
members spend over $10 million each year on education.)
Delivered through the state and territory minerals councils, the
NEP funds the development of educational resources, salaries for
a full-time education coordinator in each state’s minerals
council, and part-time presenters who deliver the program in
schools.
None of the national programs developed through the NEP focus on
uranium, but five years ago the South Australian Council of
Mines and Energy (SACOME) decided to develop a specific uranium
education program on behalf of three uranium mining companies
active in South Australia — BHP-Billiton, Heathgate Resources,
Southern Cross Resources.
Kerrie Prescott-Prime, SACOME’s education coordinator, says that
‘UraniumSA’ gives “a balanced non-judgmental non-biased view of
what happens in the industry”.
The UraniumSA program combines a website, workshops for students
and teachers, a teachers’ lesson plan and student activity kit,
and has reached about 8000 students and 300-400 teachers since
it began.
One of the program's listed aims is that on completing it
students will “be able to evaluate the different energy sources
in terms of the sustainable development debate.” To help them do
this, a chart is provided listing the pros and cons of different
energy sources. For nuclear power, the entry under ‘wastes’ is
‘4 milligrams of radioactive spent fuel per kWh’. For solar
power, the entry is ‘toxic waste from production of solar
panels’. Under ‘environmental impacts’, the entry for nuclear is
‘limited mining and associated tailings storage facilities’. No
mention is made, for example, of the groundwater contamination
caused by the controversial in-situ acid leaching technique used
at the South Australian Beverley uranium mine.
Grant Banfield, an education lecturer at Flinders University,
came across UraniumSA four years ago. “I thought ‘it looks a
little bit one-sided here — what’s going on?’ … Information
that’s given to students should be at least accurate — if there
are interests those ought to be declared.”
While the lesson plan provided to teachers by UraniumSA states
that the program is funded by uranium mining companies, the
student activity kit does not. Prescott-Prime says that the
funding behind the program is never mentioned during the student
workshops. “It’s never discussed when we’re in the class,
because we don’t take a stance, we just present the information.”
Although she describes UraniumSA as “balanced”, Prescott-Prime
says that this does not mean the program needs to present all
sides of the story. “Teachers can access other materials…and we
would encourage them to use science as a basis for that.”
But Banfield says that UraniumSA’s “scientific approach”
sidelines other important issues. “There are ethical issues
involved, there are political issues involved — the question of
where we put nuclear waste in Australia is a political issue,
not just scientific.”
“There’s nothing un-factual I suppose, it’s what’s not said.”
To fill in the blanks, Banfield decided to put together a set of
‘counter materials’ addressing the same subject from an
environmental perspective. Together with another education
lecturer, Banfield started ‘NuclearSA’ — modeled closely on the
mining company’s program, but with a different set of biases.
“The intention was to put both the UraniumSA and NuclearSA
materials in the hands of teachers — what’s silent in one set of
materials and what’s illuminated in the other?”
In principle Banfield says he has no problem with industry
sponsored education programs. “The UraniumSA materials have a
particular slant on things — that’s okay, I don’t think you can
avoid that.”
“For me the issue is the amount of resources and opportunity
that industry-based material has over other views.”
Starting NuclearSA was difficult, says Banfield. “A group of
people were doing it in their spare time…If you put the two
packages together side by side, one’s an amateur effort, the
other is glossy”
“What I’d ideally like to see is that public education systems
support alternative views — so that there wasn’t this competing
on an unequal playing field.”
While NuclearSA had to use volunteers to develop its materials,
it did get a grant from an international environment group to
cover the costs of printing. Prescott-Prime says that the budget
of UraniumSA itself was quite small. “Just because it’s industry
doesn’t necessarily mean it’s well funded.”
“We’re putting information out there for discussion and debate”,
says Prescott-Prime, and SACOME is just one voice among many.
“McDonalds sponsor things in schools — electronics companies,
the construction industry…there’s a whole host of things like
this. Ultimately it’s up to the schools to decide.”
© 2005 Signature.
*****************************************************************
15 Vermont Guardian: Key panel gives Vermont Yankee green light to boost power
By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian
posted January 9, 2006
ROCKVILLE, MD A key advisory panel has enthusiastically
endorsed the largest allowable power increase under federal law
for Vermont Yankee, one of the nations oldest nuclear reactors.
In a Jan. 4 letter to the five commissioners of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the prestigious Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) dismissed eight state and local
concerns about decreased safety systems, operator error margins
and an NRC inspection of the 510-megawatt Vernon reactor, as
well as uprate-related problems at four plants that have
undergone smaller power increases. The letter was released to
the public today.
The ACRS appeared to base its decision heavily on information
provided by the industry and Vermont Yankees owner Entergy Corp.
Although several regulatory hurdles remain, the ACRS
recommendation is seen as the green light for the 20 percent
uprate. The recommendation dashed the hopes of anti-nuclear
activists who said ACRS members letter appeared far more
sympathetic than NRC technical staff to their concerns during
two days of hearings in Brattleboro late last year.
We should not have expected anything different, said Ray Shadis,
technical advisor to the New England Coalition, the first
citizens group in the country to be granted intervenor status
before the NRC on an uprate. It was perhaps foolish of us to
raise our hopes based on the sharp questioning of the ACRS, that
they would actually do something with that information.
Another opponent, Deb Katz of the Massachusetts-based Citizens
Awareness Network (CAN), said the NRC has relinquished it role
as regulator.
The technical nukespeak that NRC and ACRS use to justify
permitting Entergy to put profit before the health and safety of
our community provide no comfort and considerable concern, said
Katz. Her group is planning a protest at VY headquarters in
Brattleboro on Monday, where she said activists plan to call on
Entergy to shut the reactor down and replace it with sustainable
energy that will bring safety, jobs and prosperity to our
communities.
The Vermont Public Service Board has yet to rule on a
certificate of public good for the uprate. The board has issued
conditional approval pending a determination of whether an NRC
inspection of the 33-year-old reactor met criteria set forth by
the state. Observers say the board has been awaiting a signal
from the ACRS before issuing its ruling.
State officials were reviewing the ACRS letter on Monday and had
no comment.
VY officials did not immediately respond to a request to comment
on the story.
In their letter, ACRS committee members were abruptly dismissive
of repeated calls by member of the public for a more stringent
inspection of the plant.
A number of members of the public asked for a more extensive
inspection, similar to that performed at the Maine Yankee plant,
the letter to the commissioners states. Based on the results of
the inspection that was performed and the performance of VY as
determined by the Reactor Oversight Process, such an extensive
inspection is not warranted.
Absolutely, quipped Shadis. Take that school bus full of
children on down the road; well check the brakes later.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the ACRS letter is a significant
step in the uprate approval process. The commission and the NRC
technical staff take the recommendations of ACRS very seriously.
The commission could still decide it doesn't agree with the
issuance of the license amendment. But that is probably unlikely
in light of the fact that the technical staff and ACRS have both
said they don't see any safety issues that should prevent the
uprate from going forward, Sheehan said in an e-mail to the
Vermont Guardian.
The NRC has approved more than 100 uprates at the nations
commercial reactors and has never denied one.
The final steps in the NRC review are a final assessment and a
final safety evaluation. Both are expected in February, Sheehan
said. However, NRC staff recommended in favor of the uprate in a
draft safety evaluation last year.
In a separate letter to Entergy dated Jan. 5, the NRC technical
staff said the commissioners have made a proposed determination
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration.
[T]his means that operation of the facility in accordance with
the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Several safety-related questions remain outstanding before a
separate, quasi-judicial NRC panel, the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, but that wont necessarily impede the
commissions uprate approval, Sheehan said.
Separately, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is still
considering the contentions regarding the uprate raised by the
state of Vermont and the New England Coalition. However, the NRC
technical staff can issue the license amendment allowing the
uprate when it is done with its review, even if the ASLB is
continuing to review the contentions at that point, Sheehan
said.
Asked if the ASLB is more likely to dismiss the contentions as a
result of the ACRS letter, Sheehan said, The ASLB panel will
rule on its own on the contentions. But it will certainly be
aware of other evidence, including the ACRS recommendations.
In their letter to the commissioners, ACRS committee members
also disregarded concerns about decreased time for operators to
respond during a crisis. Acknowledging that one of the impacts
of the power uprate is a reduction in available response time
for operator actions, the panel said a systematic assessment by
Entergy has assuaged any concerns. The VY simulator has been
modified to represent the [extended power uprate] condition and
operators have been trained for EPU conditions. The simulator
exercises have demonstrated the ability of the operators to
respond correctly within the required time period.
Entergy officials have made it clear that the highly profitable
uprate, which is expected to earn the company at least a $20
million a year in additional profits, is a precursor to a
20-year license extension. They have informed the NRC that they
intend to apply for the extension by the end of the month.
Send us your news tips, a letter to the editor or general
comments.
Vermont Guardian
PO Box 335
Winooski, VT 05404
©2005 Vermont Guardian |
Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com
*****************************************************************
16 FT.com: Treasury faces 'big bill' for nuclear workers' pensions
By Jean Eaglesham,UK Business Editor
Published: January 9 2006 02:00 | Last updated: January 9 2006
The Treasury faces a multi-billion pound bill to protect the
pensions of nuclear industry workers being transferred to the
private sector, according to unions.
The unions will tomorrow meet the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority, the government agency managing the £60bn clear-up of
nuclear waste, for the start of formal talks on plans for a new
pensions scheme.
Private sector employers are wrestling with ways to curb rising
pensions liabilities, with some cutting benefits significantly
for existing staff. In contrast, the generous inflation-linked
final salary benefits offered to existing nuclear industry
employees are protected by law. The government has promised to
maintain the retirement age of 60 for those staff, although the
NDA consultation suggests new employees could be forced to wait
to 65 for retirement. This would mirror the deal struck for most
public sector workers by the unions and government last year.
Protecting the nuclear workers' benefits will not be cheap. The
pensions are unfunded with retirement payments met from tax
revenues. But the new scheme will be funded. "It has to be fully
funded, it can't be in deficit, but we don't yet know what the
employer's contribution rate will be," the NDA said. "There have
to be discussions with the Treasury about funding."
The NDA and Department of Trade and Industry said it was
impossible to quantify the cost of the new scheme until its
scope had been finalised. The Treasury, which will agree the
scheme's funding through the Government Actuary's Department,
also declined to provide any estimate of costs. But the bill for
setting up the fund is understood to be at least £500m. The
cumulative cost to the state as the scheme expands is expected
to be more than £1bn by the end of this decade.
Doug Rooney, national officer at Amicus, one of the unions in
tomorrow's talks, said: "You're talking about sums that go into
the billions. Our main concern is that the Treasury will not
pump in sufficient money to fund the scheme properly."
The Transport and General Workers' Union, an-other union
involved, did not expect a "great deal of disagreement over the
fabric of the scheme - it's the funding that will decide whether
it's effective or not".
The new scheme is needed because about 13,000 workers are
expected to move to the private sector over the next few years.
The state-owned British Nuclear Fuels Limited has put two of its
divisions - Westinghouse and British Nuclear Group - up for
sale. And the NDA intends to put more than half the contracts
for maintaining and decommissioning the 20 sites it controls out
to tender by 2008, potentially taking this work out of the
public sector.
While the pension benefits of staff being transferred are
protected under the 2004 Energy Act, terms for new staff are to
be negotiated.
The government is fast-tracking the approvals process for the
new scheme, which is due to be ready to accept its first members
by August 1, to avoid delaying the planned sale of Westinghouse.
The unions have threatened to strike if the sale goes ahead
without the pensions issue having been resolved satisfactorily.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
17 [du-list] (U) Training Guide on Disease of Importance Iraq
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:29:57 -0800
All,
Have recently posted TG 273 (U) regarding subject as stated above. The
url for this doc is located at http://www.dsjf.org/IZ_Diseases/TG273.pdf
Best,
Paul D. Lyons
President,
Desert Storm Justice Foundation, Inc.
www.dsjf.org
[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.
*****************************************************************
18 [du-list] urgent re nuclear attack on Iran March 6, 2006
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:24:51 -0800
PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY. THERE IS NOT MUCH TIME.
see the article also at
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714
and another at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PET20051225&articleId=1635
>
>From: "Janet M Eaton"
>X-Yahoo-Profile: jmeaton08
>X-eGroups-Edited-By: ljdumble
>X-eGroups-Approved-By: ljdumble
> via web; 06 Jan 2006
>05:40:48 -0000
>Sender: GSN@yahoogroups.com
>Mailing-List: list GSN@yahoogroups.com; contact GSN-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list GSN@yahoogroups.com
>List-Id:
>List-Unsubscribe:
>Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 01:18:06 -0400
>Subject: [GSN] Chossudovsky Interview re nuclear
>attack on Iran March 6, 2006 [Transcript]
>Reply-To: GSN@yahoogroups.com
>
>Dear All:
>According to Chossudovsky the US has been planning a war against
>Iran for months with the intent of using nuclear weapons. Now that
>planning has escalated and even more disturbing is the fact that the
>timeline for this operation has already been announced - March of
>2006 - in other words, in the next three months.
>
>EXCERPT on What Canadians [or anyone] can do NOW !
>
>Q: Well, on that note and in summing up, do you want to take a few
>minutes to maybe again tell people what you think they should be
>doing and maybe giving out some contacts?
>
>A (MC) Well, I think we have to - again, the time span is very, very
>short. We have to certainly move very swiftly and establish very
>consist anti-war networks across the land, which are not necessarily
>geared towards major street marches - those consume a lot of energy -
>they are necessary, but they are not sufficient. We have to start
>confronting our political leaders, who are complicit in this war
>agenda.
>
>Canada is involved in the war in Afghanistan, Haiti; it is involved
>in joint consultations with the United States leading up to its
>membership in Northern Command, which is also on the agenda of joint
>Canada-U.S. negotiations. So I think (Canadians) have to express our
>dissent in relation to this military agenda and we have to ultimately
>also challenge the people who are making these decisions on our
>behalf and we are not going to send them a petition and ask them
>please, Mr. So and so, Prime Minister, would you be so kind as not to
>wage war on Iran. That kind of action is, I think, ineffective
>because it ultimately accepts the legitimacy of those who are
>actually conducting the war, and these wars are criminal. They are a
>violation of international law, and we have to ultimately unseat the
>main political and military actors, which are pushing for this war
>against Iran, as well as the war and the illegal occupation of Iraq,
>which are part of the same broad military agenda. So that I think is
>absolutely crucial.
>
>We have to start the challenge at all levels, municipal, provincial,
>federal, international and we ultimately have to educate the public.
>
>We have to confront the media-the media is complicit in this project
>because if it were doing its job it would at least be informing
>people of the devastating impacts of a nuclear holocaust and it would
>be explaining to people the use of tactical nuclear weapons means
>nuclear war. There is no other way of saying it.
>
>fyi-janet
>
>See also
>
>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context==viewArticle&code==%20CH2
>0060103&articleId=14
>
>Nuclear War against Iran
>by Michel Chossudovsky
>January 3, 2006
>GlobalResearch.ca
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>Interview with Michel Chossudovsky - Jan. 2, 2006 - Monday
>Brownbagger
>
>Programme, Co-op radio, CFRO 102.7 FM, Vancouver, B.C.,
>Canada
>
>Interviewer: Don Nordin
>Guest: Michel Chossudovsky
>
>I have on the line today Michel Chossudovsky, see http://
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky and
>http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ONE311A.html. He is a
>professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, and we
>will basing the programme today on an article that he has
>recently written (entitled "The Anglo-American War of Terror
>- An Overview") that is on the website:
>http://globalresearch.ca and it centers around the problems
>in the Mid East particularly (in) Iran. Welcome to the
>programme, today, Michel.
>
>Well, it's a pleasure to be on the programme. Greetings and
>best wishes to everybody in British Columbia.
>
>And you wanted to focus on the issue of Iran. Now, it seems
>like we are looking at a situation building up with Iran and
>it is centered around the terrorism, used as a pretext for
>this agenda that they are building up, this global
>domination agenda.
>
>Q. Do you want to just get into that a bit, Michel, and
>maybe you could talk around the issue of the imminent war
>against Iran?
>
>For the last year or so, the United States, Israel and Turkey have
>been preparing an aerial bombing of Iran. This went into the planning
>stage back in November of 2004. In other words, it's over a year now
>and essentially this operation is using the pretext of Iran's nuclear
>programme to bomb its nuclear facilities. In fact, what is actually
>being planned is a nuclear war and that nuclear war has nothing to do
>with Iran. It has to do with nuclear weapons, which are slated to be
>used by the United States and Israel and I have looked into the
>various documents behind this.
>
>We are not talking about surgical strikes. That's what's being
>presented to public opinion - that the United States is going to
>embark on surgical strikes directed against Iran with a view to
>making
>the world safer and it's all based on the idea that Israel is
>threatened and so on and so forth. In fact, what is being planned is
>an all out nuclear war using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.
>And this is something, which is not widely known, although it's
>confirmed in a number of military documents. (The air assault) would
>use tactical nuclear weapons, which have an explosive capacity
>between
>1/3, and 6 times the Hiroshima bomb.
>
>I should mention that these tactical nuclear weapons, which are often
>referred to as 'mini-nukes,' are now in a sense re-classified - in
>fact they are considered as conventional weapons and the distinction
>between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred following a
>decision in the U.S. Senate, December 2003, which essentially allows
>for these so-called mini nukes to be used in conventional war
>theatres and in fact, the senate decision was reached after a
>propaganda campaign waged by the Pentagon, which enlisted nuclear
>scientists to the fact these nuclear bombs were harmless to
>civilians, quote, unquote. That's exactly the term they used, that
>these nuclear weapons are "harmless to civilians" because the
>explosion is underground, and the system of delivery would be very
>similar to the conventional bunker buster bombs.
>
>But what is now very disturbing is that actually the timeline for
>this operation has already been announced - March of 2006. In other
>words, in the next three months. This (timeline) has been confirmed
>by the Israelis. Prime Minister Sharon has made the statement. His
>political opponents, in particular Benjamin Netanyahu, have confirmed
>that they are also in agreement with this posture - that they will
>wage surgical strikes against Iran. But if you look at in a broader
>context, you will realize that this is not strictly an Israeli
>operation. It's an operation, which involved the United States,
>Turkey, and Israel as the main military actors but which is firmly by
>America's coalition partners in NATO. In other words, NATO has given
>its approval to this military operation. There are no dissenting
>voices within the Atlantic military alliance as occurred prior to the
>war in Iraq and in effect, I think that there won't be many
>dissenting voices in the United Nations Security Council, and
>eventually a pretext will be built that Iran is a threat to global
>security in view of its nuclear programme, and that is of course a
>very controversial issue. But as to whether this is up for civilian
>use or for military use, but there is no evidence that Iran at this
>stage is developing nuclear weapons.
>
>But what we're dealing with here is the fact that the United States
>wants to launch a nuclear war. o.k.? And if it launches a nuclear
>with Israel, what's going to happen is this is going to affect a much
>broader region. The war is going to extend to the entire Middle
>Eastern region; it's going to lead to radioactive contamination over
>a large part of that region and, in other words, if we thought we
>were in a situation of chaos and war crimes in Iraq, we really
>haven't seen what is planned ahead because this is a major military
>operation which is being envisaged.
>
>I have been reviewing a number of military documents to that effect,
>and they are now talking about what is called Concept Plan 8022. Now
>Concept Plan 8022 is a plan, which would be implemented by US
>Strategic Command, which is located at the Offutt Military Base in
>Nebraska. Essentially, it's an air force base. And this Concept plan
>essentially consists in what they call "global strike"; it combines
>both conventional as well as nuclear strikes, and it integrates the
>actions of the navy and the air force and then of course, it would be
>implemented from US military facilities in the Persian Gulf or in the
>Indian Ocean, in particular, Diego Garcia, the military base, the
>extremely large US facility strategically located in the Indian
>Ocean, which is a joint navy/air force base in Diego Garcia, in the
>Chagos Archipelago and from there they would implement the aerial
>bombardments and also the missile attacks.
>
>And so if this plan goes ahead, we are really entering into a World
>War III scenario. I believe we are already in World War III. World
>War III started at the beginning of the post Cold war era, with the
>wars in Yugoslavia, but this is a new stage in the deployment of
>America's war machine with devastating consequences for the future of
>humanity.
>
>Q. Now these targets - they are supposedly aiming at these nuclear
>facilities. Are those located near to populated areas?
>
>Well, absolutely, they are heavily populated, and I don't think they
>will limit these strikes strictly to these facilities. I should
>mention that even if they use conventional weapons against these
>nuclear facilities, the explosions at those facilities would in fact
>trigger the spread of radioactivity over a vast area because these
>are nuclear power plants, and so on, which would be targeted. But
>from what I understand, reading some of the background material, is
>that what is contemplated is an operation in terms of air strikes
>similar to what Donald Rumsfeld implemented in March 2003 on Baghdad,
>prior to the actual invasion. In other words, this 'shock and awe'
>blitzkrieg type of bombing would occur and that is confirmed in fact
>by statements of the U.S. military and we are talking about a very
>large deployment, again as I said, comparable to the US bombing raids
>on Iraq at the outset of the war.
>
>Now when you speak of these tactical nuclear weapons having the power
>of anywhere from 1/3 to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, and we've seen the
>damage that those bombs did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I would think
>that even ones with 1/3 the power - I guess they would be the ones
>that maybe they would use to take out a nuclear plant - would do a
>lot of damage. But I can't imagine where they would use one 6 times
>the power of a Hiroshima bomb.
>
>I'm not entirely clear as to the explosive capacity of the bombs that
>they are planning to use. I think you're right that the ones that
>are being contemplated to be delivered, let's say, with B-52 bombers,
>wouldn't be the larger ones, o.k? They would be delivered in much
>the same way as the conventional bunker buster bombs; it's the B-61-
>11, which is the nuclear version of the conventional blue 1-13. I
>think those are in fact probably of the order of about 1/2 of the
>Hiroshima bomb.
>
>But I think when we see that this process is unleashed - once this
>process is triggered, we may be in a situation where the U.S.
>military is landing several nuclear devices in different parts of
>Iran and we must understand - and that's also very important - is
>that Iran has the capacity to retaliate in many different ways. It
>has stated that it will retaliate. It has acquired rather
>sophisticated air defense systems. Russia has delivered the
>equipment to it.
>
>This war which is contemplated by its architects as an aerial
>operation, could well lead into a ground war. ok? The whole idea of
>Con Plan is that you don't have any deployment of ground troops, and
>in fact, you have minimal risk for your air force.
>
>But what happens if Iran decides to confront U.S. troops stationed in
>Iraq across the border, in northern Iraq? What happens if Iran
>retaliates and sends its own missiles towards U.S. facilities in the
>Persian Gulf or Israel for that matter? So we are dealing with an
>extremely dangerous scenario.
>
>People don't realize - I don't think the military planners realize
>themselves the implications of this military agenda. And we are in a
>situation where in fact the military planners, the people who
>actually devise the bombing strategies, not the politicians
>necessarily, they actually don't realize that these nuclear weapons
>are in fact, nuclear weapons because the military manuals that they
>consult and which have been drafted by the science labs and the
>weapons factories and so on, stipulate that these tactical nuclear
>weapons are "harmless to civilians" because the explosion is
>underground. Now when a 3-star general picks up the military manual,
>and says "ha, ha, here we are, it explains that these weapons are
>harmless to civilians, let's go ahead and use them". And so what we
>have is a situation where the authors of this military propaganda, in
>fact, are feeding this propaganda to their own command, their own
>military command structures, so that those who devise the propaganda
>believe in the propaganda which they themselves are promoting. And
>that's a very dangerous situation when people actually believe within
>the system, within the command system - high ranking officers, 3-star
>generals, 4-star generals - actually believe that these nuclear
>weapons are harmless, well then we are really in a fix because all
>the safeguards which have protected us from a nuclear holocaust have
>been literally broken down.
>
>And I don't think anybody really seriously has contemplated what is
>behind this military agenda. I mean there are a number of people
>around the world who know and understand, but because the matter has
>literally not been debated in the mainstream media, it's not the
>object of media attention, it never reaches the front pages, and�
>Perhaps what's going to happen is there is going to be a nuclear war
>in Iran and then we are going to get a blip on the evening news,
>which will follow various other news items saying "yes, there's been
>a nuclear war" but they won't even say it's a nuclear war, they will
>say something else because the nuclear explosions may not be
>acknowledged as nuclear explosions until much later.
>
>And I should mention that the bunker buster bombs and the nuclear
>versions� are quite different but you can't always say whether there
>is a nuclear explosion or a conventional explosion because the bunker
>buster bomb creates such a (large) explosion that it could be nuclear
>or it could be conventional. But of course the difference is that in
>one case you have radioactive materials which are spreading over a
>vast area and leading to literally the devastation of all forms of
>life for millions of years.
>
>And so people, I don't think realize, at what juncture we are
>presently (at) in our history. I think it's absolutely devastating.
>
>Well, this is something new, Michel, this use of nuclear weapons on
>the battlefield. Why would they turn to nuclear weapons? Why
>wouldn't they just stick to high intensity explosives?
>
>Well, I think there are many different reasons to that. First of all,
>there is a little bit of history.
>
>Two years ago in August of 2003, in fact it was on Hiroshima Day, the
>Pentagon invited the private sector, namely the military-industrial
>complex, to a meeting held at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska,
>Strategic Command Headquarters and at that meeting they more or less
>requested the private sector to define the nuclear agenda.
>Previously you had the Nuclear Posture Review, which was passed in
>the Senate in the beginning of 2002. But this 2003 meeting was very
>important because what it did is it privatized nuclear war. And it
>involved the military contractors, the producers of weapons systems,
>not only in the production side but also in the consumption side so
>that they actually said to the nuclear weapons producers, well,
>listen, tell us how we are going to use these weapons, we have to
>define a military agenda. And so they now have in effect, they have
>privatized nuclear war.
>
>And so that it is a market driven, profit making operation to produce
>bombs because the more bombs you produce the more money you make, and
>you have a military allocation of 450 billion dollars a year out of
>the public purse, not to mention the 200 billion dollars which is
>allocated to finance the war in Iraq. You are talking about
>something of the order of an annual basis, which is certainly in
>excess of 500 billion dollars, not to mention all the black budgets
>and the amounts which are channeled into shell companies, which are
>controlled either by U.S. military or intelligence, and so it is a
>very profitable venture for military contractors, security companies,
>mercenary companies, and so on.
>
>And so I think that's the consensus - and how you reach that
>consensus is by building, of course, pretexts for waging war, which
>is what we are dealing with - and the 'fact' that the nuclear weapons
>are harmless. The war on Iran is a market driven war. It's profit
>for the military contractors, and the military-industrial complex.
>It's profit for the oil companies because the ultimate objective is
>to confiscate Iran's oil reserves. It's to establish control over
>that broader area, which is the Central Asia, Middle East area, which
>encompasses 70% of (world) oil and gas reserves, and ultimately it is
>also intended to confront other major economic powers in the world,
>namely Russia and China, both of which have a sizeable interest in
>that region, and I should say also the Europeans, the European Union.
>
>But it would appear in this particular case, there is some kind of
>tacit understanding with Germany and France in particular, on sharing
>the spoils of war and I think that is why we are leading up to a
>military operation where there will be ultimately consensus, much in
>the same way as (with) Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia was invaded and
>bombed in 1999, and even before that, when Germany and NATO and the
>United Nations interfered in the Yugoslav civil war in the early
>nineties, there was a consensus. The consensus was between the
>United States, Germany, and broadly the Western military alliance.
>And what you see emerging now is pretty much the same situation.
>There's no dissenting voice anywhere.
>
>In fact, even the frontline Arab states including Egypt, Morocco,
>Jordan, and Algeria have been sucked into this project. Early this
>year several countries of the eastern Mediterranean conducted
>military exercises with several Arab countries. And these countries
>were conducting military exercises with Turkey and Israel. And so
>you can see how, in effect, under NATO auspices they managed to bring
>in these countries, at least the leaders of these countries, not
>necessarily the people, but the leaders of these countries - which
>are increasingly serving U.S. interest - and how they managed to put
>them together in joint military exercises with Israel, so that there
>doesn't seem to be much of a dissenting voice in the Middle East with
>regard to this military operation directed against Iran - although if
>we go into a scenario of nuclear war or even a conventional war, in
>other words, conventional aerial attack, in all likelihood this war
>is going to spread to the entire Middle Eastern region because at
>present what do we have? We've three separate war theatres:
>Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.
>
>But if Israel is involved in the coalition, in the Anglo-American
>coalition, officially - of course unofficially it has been part of
>the coalition for some time - but if Israel is officially involved in
>the coalition, and if the war extends into Iran and if Turkey is
>involved, you can see just by looking at the map, that whole area is
>going to explode. And if nuclear weapons are used, well, the
>consequences of course affect everybody on this planet because
>nuclear radioactive material will spread and it will spread in a very
>broad area of the world and the likelihood is the war itself could
>extend into other frontiers. That region borders on the former
>Soviet Union; it also borders onto China. Afghanistan has a border
>with China; that whole area is militarized with U.S. military bases
>scattered all over the place in the former Soviet republics and as I
>mentioned a ground war is not to be excluded either. It's a very
>grim scenario and it means that we have to do everything in our power
>in the next few months to reverse the tide.
>
>Next we go to the major powers, which are, I suppose, Russia, China,
>and India, who are not very far away from even the present fighting
>in Iraq and they will be even closer to the fighting that threatens
>the world in Iran. I am just wondering what you think - I think I
>have heard Russia say that if there are any attacks on Iran, that it
>will retaliate in some way. China is certainly not going to be happy
>about things that are going on there. I don't think I've heard
>anything from�
>
>But on the other hand, neither China nor Russia have really made any
>statements overtly in the diplomatic arena. Now Russia is supporting
>Iran in terms of weapons delivery - that we know. I mean even though
>the Russians are not making any public statements, but that's part of
>the game. I mean, that goes back to the Cold War era that�Vladimir
>Putin is not going to make any controversial statement directed
>against the U.S. military agenda.
>
>I think there was some statement that came from one of � the minister
>of defense or something like that. It wasn't a statement from Putin�
>
>No, that's entirely possible that people in the Russian parliament,
>in the Russian military, can make certain statements about what's
>going on. But again they are very cautious and they also have their
>own hidden agenda.
>
>But I think we have to take very seriously the fact that the Russians
>are supplying Iranians with an air defense system, a very
>sophisticated air defense system. They have actually also assisted
>the Iranians to establish a satellite, a spy satellite network, which
>will give them early warnings of an Israeli attack and so they signed
>a very large contract with Russia to put this spy satellite into
>orbit. This was actually confirmed in the Sunday Times report
>recently, and so we are not simply - we are dealing with a situation
>where in fact Iran has the capabilities - perhaps it doesn't the
>capabilities to challenge the United States military but it certainly
>has the capabilities of defending itself to a limited degree and it
>has also the capability of responding and those capabilities.
>
>We are talking about a country of some 60 million people. It's not a
>small dot on the map. It has a very educated population. They have
>capabilities to address this aggression and I suspect that people in
>Iran will rally behind the president irrespective of whether they
>support him or not. That's a logical reaction which occurs in times
>of war. So it certainly is something to bear in mind. I sincerely
>wish it would be part of our election campaign here in Canada. It
>should be part of the election campaign. There we have a war, an
>ongoing war in Iraq, and the next phase of this war has already been
>announced and the next phase of this war could be as deadly as the
>ongoing phase of this war.
>
>But you don't think that in the event of aggression against Iran
>there would be any sort of military reaction from Russia or China at
>all?
>
>I don't think that there would be any reaction from Russia or China
>directly, no. There may be military cooperation between Russia and
>Iran, which is in any event ongoing. But I think the nature of
>diplomacy is that these two competing powers, they don't wash their
>dirty linen in public so to speak. When they meet with their
>counterparts, the United Nations or wherever or the G8, it's all very
>polite.
>
>Now, there are very important divisions which prevail. There are
>important divisions within the western alliance as well and so�I
>think what is really needed at this juncture, first of all, (is that)
>some countervailing diplomacy has to occur.
>
>It's very important that citizens actually pressure their governments
>to take a stance on this, to take a stance nationally and
>internationally. In other words, what do political leaders in Canada
>believe of an impending nuclear holocaust by their closest ally, the
>United States of America? And this something very serious, it's not
>fiction.
>
>Now, how can we reverse the tide? Well, we can reverse the tide at
>several levels. I don't think it's necessarily through massive
>demonstrations and so on, and walking through the streets we are
>going to achieve it. We are going to achieve that by ultimately
>unseating the military agenda, by unseating the people behind it. In
>other words by questioning the legitimacy of the main political and
>military actors and the people who support them. And essentially we
>are dealing with the Bush administration and so I think that is very
>important.
>
>But if for instance in Canada, in Western Europe, there would be
>debate in national parliaments, where leaders would be
>confronted�because in effect it is a conspiracy of silence; nobody is
>talking about it. Political leaders are not mentioning it; they are
>not saying they are for or against.
>
>But there has been absolutely no dissenting voice (that) has occurred
>in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. ok? And in a sense this
>particular phase of the war is far more serious than the previous
>one, because it is the first time that coalition partners Israel,
>Britain and the United States, have actually confirmed their
>intention to use nuclear weapons against Iran. We are not dealing
>with some abstract statement.
>
>We are dealing with a pre-emptive nuclear doctrine and that pre-
>emptive nuclear doctrine has already been formulated in quite a
>number of texts of the U.S. military. It's confirmed in speeches of
>the U.S. president and statements by the U.S. military. And
>unfortunately our anti-war movement is not always aware of these
>developments and doesn't address them. So that anti-war sentiments
>from my point of view (are) not enough if we are going to build an
>anti-war movement based on "Hey, Bush, we are against you" and send
>postcards or petitions to whoever. That is not enough. We need to
>dismantle the decision-making process behind the war agenda and that
>means unseating the rulers who are supporting this particular course
>of action.
>
>I want to turn the last question around and I want to ask in this
>march towards global domination by the U.S. and the New World Order
>forces, do you think there would come a time where New World Order
>forces would militarily attack either Russia or China or are they
>getting what they want from those countries now? I mean in terms of
>economic activity and so forth? Maybe they wouldn't even have to
>think in terms of that type of activity.
>
>Well there is no question that the National Security doctrine does
>target China and Russia. Officially in the Nuclear Posture Review of
>2002, which was leaked to the Los Angeles Times, China and Russia are
>explicitly identified as targets for pre-emptive nuclear attacks.
>Now it is not to say that is anything new because they have always
>been a target going back to the Cold War era. But the fact that they
>would be officially identified as targets when in fact they are
>considered to be allies, at least Russia is considered to be a friend
>of America, China a bit less. But the fact that they would be
>officially identified as rogue states, so to speak, indicates that
>the ultimate objective of this military agenda is global, economic
>and military domination, and the two remaining super powers in the
>world, Russia and China, are the targets.
>
>Now you are absolutely right, they already exert significant
>influence in the area of economic activity, for instance. China now
>has opened its borders to western banks. Western banks can simply go
>in and take over the domestic banking business - something which we
>don't even have in Canada. We don't have foreign banks in Canada, at
>least not operating freely in an unregulated environment and
>Citigroup has just acquired very large banking stakes in China.
>China is the provider of a large share of what we consume on a day-to-
> day basis, produced in cheap labour factories.
>
>I mean this idea that China is somehow a competing economic power I
>think has to be qualified because in effect China is really an
>economic-industrial colony of the West. Without China the whole
>retail trade would collapse overnight because most of the commodities
>that we buy in supermarkets and shopping centres are produced in
>China, at least the consumer durables are produced in China. And so,
>I think that those inroads into the Chinese economy through inroads
>in terms of banking - the outsourcing in the manufacturing sectors -
>all this is happening and it indicates in effect that China is not
>really a sovereign country; it may have certain appearance of being
>sovereign but the way it's international trade is organized, its
>links to international financial institutions and so on makes it
>very, very much dependent on Western markets and so on.
>
>And that I think is also ultimately part of the military and
>strategic agenda. Conquest is not strictly based on invading,
>conquering and so on and taking over countries; it's also based on
>overseeing the domestic banking system, taking over trade, using
>country's resources to produce cheap commodities for the Western
>markets and so on and so forth. And that's certainly true in China.
>
>Russia is somewhat of a different arrangement, but there you can see
>that Western financial and industrial interests have already made
>significant inroads into the former Soviet Union. The International
>Monetary Fund is calling the shots with regard to macro-economic
>reform. Large amounts of what used to belong to the Soviet state, of
>state capital and assets, have been transferred into private hands
>and many of the large companies operating now in Russia, of course,
>are foreign owned.
>
>Yes, absolutely, the military agenda is one aspect. War and
>globalization go hand and hand and the extension of the Free Market
>is supported in turn by the military agenda.
>
>Is it possible that the U.S. could over-extend itself in terms of
>military spending and their economy could collapse to the point where
>it couldn't sustain an ongoing New World Order military agenda?
>
>Well, I certainly think that perhaps we are already in that
>situation. It is over-extended so not much in the capacity to
>finance, but certainly it is over-extended in the capabilities that
>it can deploy, mainly, essentially manpower - the fact that it still
>need troops on the ground and this particular operation, in fact, the
>Con Plan, it's rationale is really to minimize the use of troops.
>You don't need to put any boots on the ground. You go in with your
>missiles, smart bombs, and B-52 bombers and essentially (inflict)
>large damage to Iran in this particular case, and you don't need to
>send in any ground troops. But again that scenario in a sense is
>very theoretical because even an aerial type of military operation
>could well result in unintended consequences, which eventually lead
>into a ground war. And I don't think the United States can afford
>another ground war at this stage.
>
>How cost effective are these nuclear weapons in terms�as opposed to
>conventional weapons in terms of effecting damage to targets? Do you
>know?
>
>I really don't know what�I don't know how much they cost to produce.
>The thing is that you don't really need to have nuclear weapons to
>incur damage to these facilities. You could go in with conventional
>weapons and the damage, the actual damage through explosion, is
>enough to wipe it out.
>
>Bombs, for instance dead weight bombs, are cheaper to deliver than
>bombs on the heads of cruise missiles.
>
>Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, that's correct. But the nuclear
>weapons can be delivered also from a B-52. You don't need to�you can
>use cruise missiles to deliver them but you can also use US long
>range bombers, which are deployed out of Diego Garcia in the Indian
>Ocean, and they can carry both nuclear as well as conventional bombs.
>And so I don't think there's much of a consideration - as far as
>delivery is concerned, these new tactical nuclear weapons, the mini-
>nukes, can be delivered much in the same way as a conventional bunker
>buster bomb.
>
>In fact, from a military standpoint, there is very little advantage
>in using a nuclear device; the only difference that I can see is that
>the nuclear device will kill more people both in the short as well as
>the long run. But if it's a question of destroying a building or
>facilities, they can be easily done through run of the mill
>conventional weapons. But I don't think ultimately that is the
>purpose of this military operation. The purpose of this military
>operation is not to disable the nuclear facilities; the purpose is to
>ultimately destroy a country and to implement very significant
>civilian casualties, which then opens the door for the conquest of
>Iran, its oil facilities and so on.
>
>The more fundamental question is when you use nuclear weapons without
>really assessing the underlying consequences this opens a Pandora's
>Box and it leads to�.Pandora's Box is not the correct designation�it
>opens the road, essentially, to a much broader war which could
>threaten the future of humanity as we know it, and that's not an
>understatement.
>
>Do you think Iran has any capability of lobbing or sending some sort
>of a large bomb or weapon over to Tel Aviv?
>
>Well they have the capabilities of retaliating that's for sure, and
>they have their own generation of ballistic missiles which they
>intend to use and this is certainly well understood. The Iranians
>also have these Russian Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. Certainly they
>do have the capabilities of responding.
>
>Now the Israelis also have a very sophisticated air defense system.
>But whatever actually occurs, as soon as - because we have to see the
>logic really of a military confrontation - as soon as they retaliate,
>the United States is going to retaliate and Israel is going to
>retaliate, and they are going to retaliate with more nuclear weapons.
>
>So the logic of retaliation in this particular case opens up again
>the possibility of escalation. I mean that's really what we have to
>address is the fact if the Iranians decide to retaliate, which they
>said they will do, and I believe they will, then we expect the
>American will again retaliate in retaliation.
>
>So Israel is also sitting there with, I don't know�a couple hundred
>of nuclear ICBM weapons that could be used too at some point.
>
>Well. that is correct, because Israel is the fourth or fifth nuclear
>power in the world today. Its nuclear arsenal is said to be more
>advanced and sophisticated than that of Great Britain. But the
>discussions that I've seen so far do not mention this nuclear
>arsenal; they don't mention their nuclear arsenal. What they mention
>is the use of tactical nuclear weapons so that at this stage they are
>not talking about using their own nuclear warheads. They are talking
>about using the (U.S.-supplied) min-nukes, but you are absolutely
>right, if this whole conflict expands and leads to escalation, there
>is a possibility, of course, that they might decide to use their own
>thermonuclear weapons against Iran.
>
>Yeah. Well, on that note and in summing up, do you want to take a
>few minutes to maybe again tell people what you think they should be
>doing and maybe giving out some contacts?
>
>Well, I think we have to - again, the time span is very, very short.
>We have to certainly move very swiftly and establish very consist
>anti-war networks across the land, which are not necessarily geared
>towards major street marches - those consume a lot of energy - they
>are necessary, but they are not sufficient. We have to start
>confronting our political leaders, who are complicit in this war
>agenda.
>
>Canada is involved in the war in Afghanistan, Haiti; it is involved
>in joint consultations with the United States leading up to its
>membership in Northern Command, which is also on the agenda of joint
>Canada-U.S. negotiations. So I think (Canadians) have to express our
>dissent in relation to this military agenda and we have to ultimately
>also challenge the people who are making these decisions on our
>behalf and we are not going to send them a petition and ask them
>please, Mr. So and so, Prime Minister, would you be so kind as not to
>wage war on Iran. That kind of action is, I think, ineffective
>because it ultimately accepts the legitimacy of those who are
>actually conducting the war, and these wars are criminal. They are a
>violation of international law, and we have to ultimately unseat the
>main political and military actors, which are pushing for this war
>against Iran, as well as the war and the illegal occupation of Iraq,
>which are part of the same broad military agenda. So that I think is
>absolutely crucial.
>
>We have to start the challenge at all levels, municipal, provincial,
>federal, international and we ultimately have to educate the public.
>
>We have to confront the media-the media is complicit in this project
>because if it were doing its job it would at least be informing
>people of the devastating impacts of a nuclear holocaust and it would
>be explaining to people the use of tactical nuclear weapons means
>nuclear war. There is no other way of saying it.
>
>And when the United States embarks on a military adventure in which
>nuclear weapons are presented as some kind of peacekeeping
>instrument, essentially we can see on what course we are. We are
>really going to go down the tube so to speak. I mean down the drain,
>and that's a self-destructive statement because it presents war as a
>peacekeeping operation and it presents nuclear weapons as some kind
>of harmless toy and military analysts are fully aware of the
>implications. Again they are too 'polite' to ultimately address these
>issues in a broad public arena.
>
>Well, o.k., Michel. People should also check into the website which
>you are involved with: http://globalresearch.ca. Check in for
>information.
>
>***
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.global-sisterhood-network.org/
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
______________________________________
Stephanie Hiller, publisher/editor
Awakened Woman e-Magazine
The magazine for a foreseeable future!
*****************************************************************
19 [du-list] Uranium revelation upset isle activists.
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:23:21 -0800
Uranium revelation upsets isle activists
Army e-mails detailing the presence of spent metal at Schofield are
troubling, critics say
By Rosemarie Bernardo
rbernardo@starbulletin.com
Friday, January 6, 2006 Hawaii Star Bulletin
http://starbulletin.com/2006/01/06/news/story06.html
SEVERAL environmental and native Hawaiian groups are accusing the Army of
misleading the public after the groups discovered that a heavy metal known
as depleted uranium was recovered at Schofield Barracks' range complex.
During a news conference yesterday, the groups said the Army has repeatedly
assured the public that the heavy metal was never used in Hawaii.
"These recent revelations, then, indicate that the Army is either unaware
of its DU (depleted uranium) and chemical weapons use or has intentionally
misled the public. Both possibilities are deeply troubling," said Kyle
Kajihiro, program director of the American Friends Service Committee and
member of DMZ-Hawaii/Aloha Aina.
Some members of the various groups read about the depleted uranium in
e-mails detailing documents submitted in federal court in December, showing
that heavy metals were found at Schofield Barracks' range complex area
during clearing efforts.
The e-mail was submitted as part of an ongoing discovery process. At the
end of November, attorneys representing the 25th Infantry Division filed a
motion in federal court to amend a 2001 settlement so soldiers can resume
live-fire training at Makua Valley. The motion is scheduled to be heard Monday.
Depleted uranium tail assemblies have been found in a Schofield Barracks
range impact area, prompting some to question the Army's forthrightness.
See story, Page A3.
The clearing was being done to prepare for the expansion of additional
training space and the construction of a rifle and pistol range for a new
Stryker brigade combat team.
Depleted uranium is a byproduct of radioactive enriched uranium and has
been used by the U.S. military in bullets and other weapons designed to
pierce armor. Some researchers suspect exposure to depleted uranium might
have caused chronic fatigue and other symptoms in veterans of the first
Gulf War, but there is no conclusive evidence it has.
In a letter sent yesterday to Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commanding general
of the 25th Infantry Division, Kajihiro wrote that several groups were
outraged by the use of the uranium, which they say poses a public health
hazard even in small amounts.
During community discussion on the Stryker Brigade environmental impact
statement in 2004, Army officials assured the public that depleted uranium
was never used in Hawaii, Kajihiro said.
Fifteen tail assemblies from spotting rounds made of D-38 uranium alloy,
also called depleted uranium, were recovered in August by Zapata
Engineering, a contractor hired by the military to clear the Schofield
Barracks' range impact area of unexploded ordnance and scrap metal,
according to a news release from the 25th Infantry Division.
In an e-mail dated Sept. 19, a contractor told an Army official at
Schofield: "We have found much that we did not expect, including recent
find of depleted uranium. We are pulling tons of frag and scrap out of the
craters in the western area to the point where it has basically turned into
a manual sifting operation. Had this not been a CWM site, we would have
moved mechanical sifters in about 5 weeks ago but the danger is just too high."
Dr. Fred Dodge, Waianae resident and member of Malama Makua, said, "DU is a
heavy metal similar to lead. It can be toxic particularly to the kidneys,"
and could cause lung cancer if the metal in dust form is inhaled.
But U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii officials said the recovered depleted uranium
has low-level radioactivity and does not pose a threat to the public.
The tail assemblies are about 4 inches in length and an inch in diameter.
Army officials said they are from subcomponent remnants from training
rounds associated with an obsolete weapon system that was on Oahu in the 1960s.
"The Army has never intentionally misled the public concerning the presence
of DU on Army installations in Hawaii. This is an isolated incident and
should not be considered as an attempt to misinform the public," Col.
Howard Killian, commander of the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii, said in a
written statement.
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre.
[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.
*****************************************************************
20 [du-list] Iowa: UI to study health of munitions workers
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:24:59 -0800
UI to study health of munitions workers
By the Iowa U Press-Citizen
From University News Services
Friday, January 6, 2006
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060106/NEWS01/60106002/1079
Researchers in the University of Iowa College of Public
Health are beginning a new comprehensive health study to
determine whether conventional weapons workers at the Iowa
Army Ammunition Plant (IAAAP) near Burlington have elevated
rates of death or adverse health effects such as cancer
compared to other workers.
The IAAAP Munitions Workers Study, a congressionally
mandated study funded by the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD), is being led by principal investigator Laurence J.
Fuortes, M.D., professor of occupational and environmental
health, and co-principal investigator R. William Field,
Ph.D., associate professor of occupational and environmental
health and epidemiology. It is one of the largest health
studies ever undertaken of workers in the U.S. munitions
industry.
This study of DOD contract workers is separate from a
Department of Energy Former Worker Program at IAAAP, which
provided health screenings and compensation to employees
adversely affected by their work with atomic weapons at the
plant. There is no compensation program associated with the
DOD study.
"The health of workers in the munitions industry has been a
concern over many years, yet relatively few studies have
examined the health risks associated with munitions work,"
Fuortes said. "Throughout the munitions industry, workers
are likely exposed to a variety of toxic agents, including
explosives, solvents, metals, depleted uranium, asbestos,
radiographic sources and numerous others."
The UI investigators will examine the mortality rates for
former workers at the Middletown, Iowa, munitions facility
and compare them to both state and federal reference
populations. Similarly, researchers will analyze Iowa cancer
records to determine whether IAAAP workers are at higher
risk for overall cancer incidence as well as certain
site-specific cancers such as cancer of the lung, liver,
trachea and leukemia compared to unexposed workers.
"In some cases, workers at IAAAP may have been exposed to
chemicals or metals before it was clearly known that these
substances had the potential to cause adverse health
outcomes," Fuortes said. "We anticipate that this study will
provide insights into whether or not the work performed at
IAAAP resulted in higher mortality or cancer incidence rates
in this population."
In addition, Fuortes said, some current and former workers
at the IAAAP have expressed concerns about potential
exposure to beryllium, a hard, lightweight metal widely used
in industrial processes. Although beryllium is not reported
to have been a component in the production of conventional
munitions at IAAAP, beryllium-containing tools such as
hammers, punches, and chisels were in use prior to being
phased out beginning in 2002. Some IAAAP workers may have
been exposed to beryllium from grinding or sanding these
tools, potentially putting them at risk for a serious and
sometimes fatal lung illness called chronic beryllium disease.
As part of the beryllium study, the UI researchers will also
test a subset of current and former workers who represent
different job categories, work practices and job
descriptions at IAAAP to assess possible beryllium exposure,
and to determine if cases of chronic beryllium disease have
occurred in the IAAAP workforce.
"Findings from this study may provide information on
previously unrecognized hazards at the IAAAP and at similar
munitions facilities operating over the same time period
throughout the United States," Fuortes said.
The IAAAP is located about 10 miles west of Burlington in
southeast Iowa. Employment at the 19,000-acre facility
currently stands at approximately 850, but it is estimated
that the workforce, servicing conventional weapons' lines,
varied from approximately 15,000 around World War II, to
about 7,500 during the Korean conflict, to 5,500 during the
Vietnam conflict. Employment at IAAAP remained around 2,000
through most of the 1980s.
Built between 1941 and 1943, the IAAAP has produced
conventional missile warheads and a variety of large caliber
tank ammunitions, mines, mortars, artillery, demolition
charges and weapons' component parts. In addition, it is
designated as the Midwest Area Demilitarization Facility for
disposing of old and/or obsolete ammunition.
In 1947, the IAAAP was designated as the first plant in the
nation to assemble atomic weapons for the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC). For nearly three decades, conventional and
nuclear weapons were manufactured at the plant under
separate U.S. DOD and AEC contracts. In 1975, production of
nuclear weapons was terminated and transferred to Amarillo,
Texas.
--
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.
*****************************************************************
21 Sioux City Journal: Researchers to examine history of ammunition plant workers
Monday, January 09, 2006 Sioux City, Iowa
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) -- Health and death records of more than
30,000 workers of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant will be
examined by researchers in the University of Iowa College of
Public Health.
The study will determine if conventional weapons workers at the
plant near Burlington have elevated rates of death or adverse
health effects such as cancer.
Principal investigator Dr. Laurence Fuortes, University of Iowa
professor of occupational and environmental health, said the
first year of the study is funded by $775,000 from the U.S.
Department of Defense, with about $5 million total in funding
over five years.
The ammunition plant in Middletown housed a secret federal
nuclear weapons program, which was revealed after many former
workers developed cancer. In 1975, production of nuclear weapons
was transferred to Amarillo, Texas.
After years of struggling to get approval from the federal
government to help pay for radiation-related health care
problems, about 350 former workers and family members were
finally approved for benefits.
The university's study is separate from a Department of Energy
Former Worker Program, which provided health screenings and
compensation to employees adversely affected by their work with
atomic weapons at the plant.
No compensation program is associated with the research, called
the IAAAP Munitions Workers Study, a congressionally mandated
study.
Co-principal investigator is R. William Field, associate
professor of occupational and environmental health and
epidemiology.
Fuortes said the study will compare health records, death
certificates and other data from about 30,000 plant workers
dating back 45 years, to state and national data showing causes
of death and rates of particular diseases.
It also involves recruiting about 1,000 former and current
munitions workers who were exposed to beryllium, a hard,
lightweight metal used in industrial processes.
Researchers will test the subjects, who represent different job
categories, work practices and job descriptions, to assess
possible beryllium exposure, and determine if cases of chronic
beryllium disease have occurred.
Copyright © 2006 Sioux City Journal
Tel: (712) 293-4250
*****************************************************************
22 RIA Novosti: Altai radiation: myth and reality
Opinion &analysis -
09/ 01/ 2006
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatiana Sinitsyna.)
Motor vehicles kill more people than any other transport
system. They are also seen as the ultimate pollutant. However,
no sober-minded person will say that cars are dangerous
four-wheeled monsters which must be banned. We bow our heads
before progress because motor vehicles were conceived by it.
Moreover, we need them badly because motor vehicles are a
mandatory pre-condition of progress.
However, people still cannot reconcile themselves with nuclear
energy, which is yet another aspect of modern civilization. It
seems that radiation phobia, which is still a chronic disease of
human society, could not be avoided. The April 1986 Chernobyl
explosion and other nuclear disasters scared everyone all over
the world. Their psychological impact is more serious than
radiation fall-out and will not disappear in the foreseeable
future (as long as modern generations live). Unfortunately, this
planet's oil, coal and gas deposits are being depleted at an
alarming pace. Nuclear energy is so far the only reliable source
of power.
On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first atomic
bomb at the sparsely populated Semipalatinsk nuclear testing
site (130 km west of Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan). The bomb was
installed atop a 37.5-meter tower amidst local wastelands and
subsequently detonated from a bunker. That successful test made
it possible to break the U.S. A-bomb monopoly after Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.
At the same time, the blast spewed radiation over adjacent
territories, including the Altai region. It still faces all-out
social tensions. Greenpeace mentions congenital birth defects,
the growing number of oncological diseases and schizophrenia
cases, etc. The Russian government continues to reimburse the
population of the affected territories in line with a special
federal program. High radiation is also blamed for leukemia, the
most widespread disease in the town of Rubtsovsk, Altai
territory.
But scientists, who prefer to deal with facts, think otherwise.
"No such problem exists because ordinary people lack a special
education and know little about the gist of the matter," said
environmentalist Yelena Kvasnikova, PhD (Geography) and leading
research associate of the Institute of Global Climate and
Ecology, Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and
Environmental Monitoring, and Russian Academy of Sciences. She
points to the map showing a vast desert separating Altai and the
Semipalatinsk nuclear testing site. The atmosphere tends to
diffuse all kinds of substances. Radioactive fall-out levels are
inversely proportional to the length of radioactive clouds and
their radionuclide concentrations. In her opinion, Altai
radiation levels simply could not exert any biological impact
because most nuclear devices were detonated inside underground
camouflets at the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing site.
Consequently, no radiation spewed into the atmosphere.
The mountainous Altai, the Caucasus, the Kola Peninsula,
Scandinavia, the Abyssinian Plateau, the Cordilleras and Tibet
have always been notorious for their high radiation levels that
vary depending on the height of mountain ranges, slope
specifics, meteorological conditions and atmospheric substance
properties.
Different radiation levels have been registered at the
Semipalatinsk nuclear testing site, scientists say. "We have
just finished assessing subterranean water quality at former
blast sites. Our group worked near the No. 1,003 and No. 1,004
wells, where nuclear warheads were detonated, which spewed earth
and radiation into the atmosphere. The received data have shown
that local subterranean waters are absolutely clean; background
radiation alone has been registered. The same can be said about
water inside these wells. We failed to obtain ample data for
assessing radionuclide migration inside subterranean waters. Our
project has therefore flopped. This is bad for our research. On
the other hand, we have received new information about regional
radiation levels," Kvasnikova said.
Substantial gamma-radiation levels ranging between 100 and 500
microroentgen/hr have been detected near underground blast
craters. These levels tend to diminish with range and time.
Gamma-emitting radionuclides have different life spans.
Short-lived radionuclides and those with a medium life span have
decayed a long time ago. Background radiation, that is, about 20
microroentgen/hr, is being registered 500 m from ejecta sites.
Kvasnikova says that no radiation fall-out has reached the Altai
territory from the Semipalatinsk testing site.
Some people are trying to separate the Semipalatinsk factor
from global radioactive contamination. But this hardly feasible
task has no practical importance. Global radioactive
contamination emerged in the 1960s as a result of atmospheric
nuclear tests that were conducted by the Soviet Union, the
United States, Great Britain, France and China. Radioactive
fall-out became "cosmopolitan" after reaching the stratosphere.
Part of radioactive substances drifted to the planetary surface
two or three years under the impact of gravitation. Global
radiation levels, with the exception of mountain areas that have
a rough surface (which traps radioactive substances), are more
or less the same.
"Secondary dust clouds have now become a serious problem at the
Semipalatinsk testing site," Kvasnikova stressed. Nuclear blast
craters are surrounded by salt marshes, which are covered with
soot-like ejecta. The latter may contain hot particles capable
of damaging human lungs. "Still this mostly concerns people
working there, scientists included. For example, Moscow
residents suffer from much greater atmospheric pollution than
the population of Altai," Kvasnikova said.
Angelina Guskova, PhD, the author of a book on the national
nuclear industry, said: "The health of Altai residents was
affected by the 1949 and 1961 nuclear blasts (no other
explosions exerted their impact on that area). The situation has
changed greatly over the decades. Moreover, the aging factor
should not be overlooked either," Guskova added. In her opinion,
workers at the Mayak (Beacon) enterprise near Chelyabinsk were
irradiated to a much greater extent ten days after the 1957
nuclear accident. However, their health now differs little from
that of their coevals in other regions. Professor Guskova is
positive that patients are often being misled. "Apart from the
radiation factor, human life is influenced by other more
significant and rapidly acting factors. First of all, the
authorities must tackle social issues," she stressed.
It seems that evolutionary processes on this planet were
launched by space radiation. All of us have evolved as a result
of this factor. The human body can withstand impressive natural
radiation fluctuations. Planet Earth has thorium "sand pits,"
uranium deposits, radon waters and countless mountain ranges.
About 10 to 300 millicuries per square kilometer were registered
in the mountains of Altai throughout the 1960s (depending on
specific altitudes and slope exposition). And it should be
mentioned that each square kilometer of European Russian
territory boasted over 100 millicuries at that time.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
23 Hawk Eye: IAAP workers studied
Monday, January 9, 2006 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST
Research will determine if plant workers have elevated rates of
death.
The Associated Press
IOWA CITY— Health and death records of more than 30,000 workers
of the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant will be examined by
researchers in the University of Iowa College of Public Health.
The study will determine if conventional weapons workers at the
Middletown plant have elevated rates of death or adverse health
effects such as cancer.
No compensation program is associated with the congressionally
mandated study, called the IAAP Munitions Workers Study.
Principal investigator Laurence Fuortes, professor of
occupational and environmental health, said the first year of
the study is funded by $775,000 from the U.S. Department of
Defense, with about $5 million total in funding over five years.
The ammunition plant in Middletown housed a secret federal
nuclear weapons program, which was revealed after many former
workers developed cancer. In 1975, production of nuclear weapons
was transferred to Amarillo, Texas.
After years of struggling to get approval from the federal
government to help pay for radiation–related health care
problems, about 350 former workers and family members finally
were approved for benefits in 2005.
While those workers were involved in the nuclear weapons program
and are being compensated under a Department of Energy program,
the health screenings covered under the new funding are for
Department of Defense employees.
Fuortes said the study will compare health records, death
certificates and other data from about 30,000 plant workers
dating back 45 years to state and national data showing causes
of death and rates of particular diseases.
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com
*****************************************************************
24 KRNV.com: Region: Yerington tribe gets EPA grant to assess pollution
The US Environmental Protection Agency has awarded the Yerington
Paiute Tribe a 52-thousand-dollar grant to assess the health of
area wetlands.
The money is intended to be used to assess potential pollution
from area farming and mining operations.
The tribe is putting up 17-thousand-500 dollars in matching
funds to help hire a full-time wetlands specialist to assess
current risks associated with potential contaminants and to
examine the potential for restoration.
The tribe's lands are located near the former Anaconda copper
mine where the EPA and others already are working to clean up
hazardous materials including uranium and a variety of heavy
metals.
The federal money is part of one-and-one-half million-dollars
worth of grants the EPA's regional office in San Francisco has
awarded in the past year to nine tribes, local governments and
other groups to protect wetlands in California, Arizona and
Nevada.
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
All content © Copyright 2001 - 2006 WorldNow and KRNV.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
25 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: It's not religion -- it's propaganda
January 05, 2006
Letter: It's not religion -- it's propaganda
As a scientist and a philosopher, Paul Campos makes a fine
lawyer for the right-wing politicians. His column in the Jan. 2
Sun says that science is a "belief system." He further maintains
that the Dover, Pa., ruling against "intelligent design" is an
attack on the First Amendment right of free speech.
Incredibly, Campos uses Bertrand Russell, an agnostic, to
support the idea that science may beg the question by assuming
what it wishes to prove. Mr. Campos then calls science a
"metaphysical orthodoxy."
Science assumes that our senses perceive a reality that can be
verified, but it is not democratic. Peer review by objective
scientists presents a mainstream view, and the will to doubt is
essential to science, but Campos wishes to politicize the
process. "Balance" cannot be achieved by elevating intuition to
the level of observation or by collecting the opinions of many
pseudoscientists who overemphasize scientific uncertainty.
In fact, what author Chris Mooney calls in his book "The
Republican War on Science" is not primarily about religion at
all but about propaganda used to counter scientific studies that
show that our highly profitable companies may be making those
profits at the expense of the health of the environment and of
our citizens.
When right-wingers manufacture their own evidence, it's called
"sound science." It is that very "sound science" that says Yucca
Mountain is a great place to store nuclear poison, that cutting
down trees makes healthy forests and that polluting the air
makes it clean.
That is not science, religion or philosophy -- it's propaganda.
Jerry Bitts
Las Vegas
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
26 reviewjournal.com: LETTERS: Federal funding
Opinion -
Jan. 09, 2006
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
To the editor:
To the editor:
Has anyone ever thought that the reason Nevada is last among the
50 states when it comes to federal funding is that it may be a
political "payback" for our politicians' constant fighting
against the Yucca Mountain Project?
I've heard since I was a child that in order to get something
good, sometimes you have to take some of the bad in the process.
I'll bet none of our politicians will ever admit this.
Richard N. Davis
LAS VEGAS
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
27 RGJ.com: Yucca nuclear project is headed for failure
Nevada, USA 775-788-6200 January 09, 2006
Posted: 1/8/2006
Supporters of the Yucca Mountain project are even using the
benefits of nuclear power to justify storing waste in Nevada.
(Of course, where the waste is stored is a separate issue.)
Imagine this scenario: You click on the TV and here's a
documentary on how nuclear waste is stored. The camera shows an
elevator going underground to a concrete vault on the site of
the nuclear power plant. The TV commentator explains that the
industry has adopted standards for storage, subject to
inspection and that the cost is just part of doing business and
so it is passed on to the ratepayers. It is further explained
that this material is likely to be of value to the electric
company in the future. The whole thing is so reasonable that it
is boring and you switch channels.
That was imaginary; now here's the reality: A hair-brained idea
is being promoted that would have vehicles with nuclear material
strung out across the far-flung reaches of this nation on their
way to bring the stuff to a mountain in Nevada.
Ridiculous! It will never happen! This idea was so bad it is
doomed to fall of its own weight from the start.
Vernon Eaton, Reno
b Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
28 Salt Lake Tribune: Bush approves Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area
Last Updated: 01/07/2006 08:41:50 AM
Dump derailed: The signature marks a victory for Utahns fighting
plans for a storage facility
By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - President Bush signed legislation into law Friday
creating a wilderness area in Utah's west desert, dealing a blow
to plans to store high-level nuclear waste in the state.
The language, included in a broad defense policy bill, would
establish a 100,000-acre Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area near the
Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, complicating plans by a
group of electric utilities known as Private Fuel Storage to
store nuclear waste on the reservation.
"This has been years in the making, and it's nice to see it
finally become law," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who
introduced the Cedar Mountain bill. "We protected the test and
training range, a major military asset, we created wilderness
the right way and we have significantly impeded the
transportation of high-level nuclear waste to the Goshute
Reservation."
PFS had planned to build a rail line through the area to
deliver 44,000 tons of spent nuclear reactor waste to the site,
but the wilderness designation prevents the rail line
construction. The company has said repeatedly that other options
are available, including trucking the waste to the reservation
down the Skull Valley Highway.
"This is very, very good for the state and it's very, very
bad for Private Fuel Storage," said Mike Lee, counsel to Gov.
Jon Huntsman Jr. "It's a real blow for PFS. It may not be a kill
but it's a mortal wound. PFS is a seriously wounded animal right
now."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized a license for PFS
in September, but the document has yet to be issued.
Utah's delegation also touted the bill as a move that would
protect the military's access to the vast Utah Test and Training
Range, a key asset for the state's military mission. There was
concern that storing the waste near the site or restrictions on
flying over a wilderness area could hinder access.
The bill explicitly allows flights over the Cedar Mountain
Wilderness.
The Cedar Mountain language was nearly dropped from the final
version of the bill, after Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., objected to
it.
However, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said he would
hold up passage of the bill until Ensign at least met with
Bishop and Sen. Orrin Hatch to discuss his objections, and after
a series of discussions, Ensign eventually agreed to allow a
somewhat watered down version of the bill.
The compromise version included the wilderness language, but
not proposed restrictions on other land surrounding the
reservation. The original version would have created a moat
around the tribe's land to restrict access.
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
29 Telegraph: Nuclear advisers 'lack expertise'
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) needs
"stronger scientific input" as it moves into the final stages of
reviewing options for managing radioactive waste, says a report
published today by the Royal Society.
The report, The long-term management of radioactive waste: the
work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management,
recommends that scientific and technical organisations should be
more involved.
Prof Geoffrey Boulton, the co-ordinator of the Royal Society
report and independent member of the CoRWM Quality Assurance
Group, said: "We are concerned that the hitherto relatively
limited engagement with the scientific and engineering
communities might result in a negative response to the final
CoRWM proposals.
"We support the crucial importance of the public consultation
and engagement processes that are being managed by CoRWM."
He warned that there was a danger that "the CoRWM process will
have been yet another ineffectual stage in the history of the
UK's failure to develop policy for this vital issue."
The report recommends that, after CoRWM reports in July, the
Government should replace it with a body with "much greater
scientific and technical capacity".
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. Terms &Conditions
of reading.
*****************************************************************
30 SIGNATURE: Dumping Ground
January 2006
BY Eve Vincent
Julius Bloomfield, a traditional landowner from Mount Everard,
north of Alice Springs, hands me a yellow felt circle, carefully
cut out. It's an imperfect shape, but an eloquent piece of felt.
The yellow dot, an attached note explains, is for “the sun on
our flag, and renewable energy”. It also symbolises yellow cake,
and a target. Bull's eye.
When EVE VINCENT met Julius in mid-September 2005, the Arrente
people of Mount Everard suspected that when it came to a
decision about where to put a national radioactive waste
repository, their views would count for very little. By
December, they were proved right.
In July 2005 Dr Brendan Nelson, Federal Minister for Education,
Science and Training, finalised a list of possible sites for a
nuclear waste dump: Mount Everard, on the Tanami Road 40
kilometres north west of Alice; Harts Range, on the Plenty
Highway 165 kilometres north east of Alice; and Fishers Ridge on
the Stuart Highway 47 kilometres south of Katherine. All three
sites are on Commonwealth-owned Defence Department land.
According to Nelson, the three potential sites will be assessed
for their suitability over the next three years.
Public opposition to the waste dump runs high in the Territory,
and enjoys the bipartisan support of Clare Martin's Labor
Government and the Country Liberal Party Opposition. Currently,
various State and Territory regulatory laws and prohibitions
apply to the transporting and dumping of nuclear waste,
reflecting strong community concern about the practice.
However, in October 2005 Nelson unveiled a Bill that puts beyond
doubt the Commonwealth's power to proceed with their plans. The
Bill was subsequently passed in December.
The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill strips the
powers of both the Northern Territory Government and the
relevant Aboriginal Land Councils, which represent traditional
owners, to oppose the dump.
The Bill decrees that all relevant Aboriginal heritage
legislation and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 “will not apply to the site investigation
phase of the project”.
It confers discretionary powers on the responsible minister, who
may declare one of the three sites as suitable. The Bill also
extinguishes all interests — such as Native Title — that the
Commonwealth does not already hold in the site.
Finally, just in case any confusion remains, the Bill ensures
the Commonwealth has the express authority to do anything
“necessary or incidentally required to proceed with the
establishment and operation of the facility, as well as the
transport of waste”.
By this stage of the Bill's initial October reading, Warren
Snowden, Labor member for the Territory seat of Lingiari, had
been kicked out of the House of Representatives chamber. Snowden
could not help himself from interjecting. “Outrageous!” he
interrupted. “This is outrageous. [Nelson]'s outrageous.”
The Northern Territory's Chief Minister, Clare Martin, was also
furious with the Federal Government's radical move. The NT
Parliament immediately moved a resolution condemning their
inability to scrutinise, review or appeal the dump proposal.
It's certainly an extraordinarily heavy-handed power grab. (Or
it would be, if the arrogant, anti-democratic thrust of so much
Government comment and legislation hadn't rendered the
extraordinary, very ordinary.)
Territorians are angry that they've been lied to about the dump.
In the lead up to the 2004 Federal election, Environment
Minister Ian Campbell made this statement in Darwin: 'The
Commonwealth is not pursuing any options anywhere on the
mainland ... Northern Territorians can take that as an absolute
categorical assurance.' The things you say, when you're trying
to win votes.
Nelson's justification for the Bill was highly emotive.
The Government needs to have finalised its plan for the disposal
of radioactive waste before the regulatory body APARNSA will
license the construction of a new nuclear research reactor at
Lucas Heights in suburban Sydney. The closing passages of the
Bill's reading stated that Lucas Heights, which produces medical
isotopes, saves people's lives everyday. This is grossly
misleading.
Dr Bill Williams, from the Medical Association for the
Prevention of War, has noted that “from February to May 2000,
while the [Lucas Heights] reactor was shutdown for maintenance,
we simply imported all our technetium [an isotope used in
nuclear medicine], without any reported adverse patient
outcomes”.
Dr Williams also cites research in the US which suggests that
alternative production methods of technetium are not far off.
Development and commercialisation of new technology could mean
Lucas Heights's existence is unjustifiable within years.
Let's remember why the Government's last attempt to impose a
waste dump on an unwilling community went so disastrously wrong.
In 1998 the Federal Government began a push to locate a national
nuclear waste dump in South Australia's arid north.
The move was deeply unpopular in South Australia. So much so
that, in 2003, the Federal Government awarded a $300,000
contract to a Melbourne-based PR firm to sell the plan to a
hostile public. The public didn't buy it. In fact, in
demonstrating its contempt for community opinion, the Federal
Government cemented the passionate resolve of South Australians.
With the South Australian community behind him, Mike Rann's
Labor Government eventually took the Federal Government to court
over the issue. On 24 June last year the Federal Court found
that the Commonwealth Government had misused the 'urgency
provisions' in a hurried compulsory acquisition of the relevant
land parcel. The Howard Government decided an appeal would be
too costly, (as in, it might cost them marginal Adelaide seats
in the 2004 Federal election) and announced its decision to
abandon the plan two weeks later.
Since 1998, when the waste dump plan for South Australia was
first mooted, the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, a council of Senior
Aboriginal women based in Coober Pedy in the State's north, had
insisted that they had a responsibility to care for their
country. See our photo story for more about their campaign,
which effectively argued that the Government was ignorant, and
that they (the Kungkas or women) held valuable local knowledge.
The Government thought the country was dead, meaningless,
remote. The Kungkas showed it was alive, filled with meanings
and home.
The Kungkas wrote many letters to politicians explaining that
they had to look after the land, life and the future. Some of
the Kungkas signed these letters — which were drafted out loud
and then written up in the campaign office — with small, neat
crosses.
Theirs then is a story about contesting power, with an unlikely
outcome. Or is it?
When Governments move radical proposals to extend their own
power, communities respond in kind.
© 2005 Signature.
*****************************************************************
31 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers warned of huge rise in nuclear waste
David Adam, environment correspondent
Monday January 9, 2006
The Guardian
A new generation of nuclear power stations would increase
five-fold the amount of a lethal and long-lasting form of highly
radioactive nuclear waste stored in the UK, official figures
show.
The analysis, by a government-sponsored committee of experts,
reveals the scale of the legacy to future generations by building
nuclear plants. It comes as the nuclear industry and supporters
are pressing ministers to approve reactors in the face of
uncertainty over gas supplies.
The figures reveal that spent uranium fuel rods from new power
stations would almost triple radioactivity in the current
inventory of UK nuclear waste. They contrast with claims that new
reactors would create far less waste than predecessors.
BNFL says a new generation of plants would add only 10% to the
volume of waste. Experts say this is misleading because the
majority of existing waste is made up of bulky, less hazardous
material.
Chris Murray, chief executive of nuclear waste management body
Nirex, said: "The volume is not the whole story. We need to be
very exact about what type of waste new reactors would actually
produce and how it needs to be dealt with."
In 2003 the Commons select committee on science and technology
said BNFL's argument that new reactors would only produce 10%
more waste meant that "the waste issue cannot be used as an
argument against further nuclear build".
Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, said: "It
is typical of the nuclear industry that, not only have they got
the brass neck to put something forward which is so
unsustainable, but they also try to fiddle the figures to cover
up what they're doing."
The figures have been prepared by Corwm, the committee on
radioactive waste management. They use yet-to-be published
government accounts of the amount of nuclear waste in the UK.
They assume Britain will build 10 new reactors and will not
reprocess the spent fuel, which is hazardous and difficult to
handle because it stays radioactive for thousands of years and
generates so much heat it must be stored for several decades
before it can be dealt with. Corwm says this would produce an
extra 31,900 cubic metres of spent fuel, on top of the 8,150
cubic metres currently stored.
A Nuclear Industry Association spokesman said: "We're not
fiddling the figures. It's just a different way of measuring it."
A massive rise in spent fuel would not present a significant
technical challenge because it was a relatively well understood
waste, Prof MacKerron said. But it could significantly increase
the size of a permanent disposal site. Corwm is weighing up
several long-term disposal options. A decision is expected this
summer.
He said: "The footprint of any facility you might want would
have to be increased, by more than 10% but nothing like as much
as 2-3 times. It's very difficult to know at the moment where
between those extremes it lies."
The nuclear industry has suggested spent fuel from new reactors
could be stored on site at power stations for at least a century.
Jean McSorley, of Greenpeace, said: "There's barely a policy in
the UK for handling the spent fuel we've already got. The
nuclear decommissioning authority is struggling with the amounts
from current reactors. How the UK can cope with a massive
increase ... has not been answered by anyone."
Useful link
Green party of England and Wales
Email us
Email your comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
32 Guardian Unlimited: Energy Dept. Puts Off Shipping Nuke Waste
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday January 10, 2006 12:32 AM
By SHANNON DININNY
Associated Press Writer
YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - The federal government will halt its quest
to ship hazardous waste to the nation's most contaminated
nuclear site until a new environmental review is done, the U.S.
Energy Department announced Monday.
Washington state had sued to block the proposed shipments of
nuclear and hazardous waste to the Hanford nuclear reservation
on the banks of the Columbia River.
The state agreed to drop the lawsuit in exchange for another
environmental study, which will re-analyze effects of waste
storage on groundwater. The state will also play a greater role
in developing the new statement.
The document is to be completed by 2008.
``With this agreement, both parties will be able to shift their
focus and resources away from litigation and toward partnership
and our shared cleanup goals,'' Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman
said in a statement.
State Attorney General Rob McKenna called the resolution ``a
great outcome for a long and contentious case.''
The Energy Department manages cleanup at the 586-square-mile
Hanford reservation, which is the most contaminated nuclear site
in the nation after 40 years of plutonium production for the
U.S. weapons arsenal. Cleanup costs are expected to total $50
billion to $60 billion, with the work to be completed by 2035.
Washington sued the Energy Department in 2003 to block shipments
of off-site waste. The state expanded the lawsuit in 2004 to
include a challenge of the environmental review, released that
year.
A judge barred the shipments, and last year the Energy
Department found that the current statement contained
inconsistent data on groundwater.
In a separate case, the federal government is challenging the
constitutionality of a voter-approved state initiative barring
out-of-state waste shipments to Hanford.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
33 Online Journal: Nuclear weapons business as usual: Despite past performances
Bechtel & UC awarded Los Alamos contract
Updated: Jan 9th, 2006 - 02:33:25
By Scott Kovac and Sasha Pyle
Online Journal Contributing Writers
Watchdog staff cartoonist Jamie Chase
In a December 21 announcement that surprised many, powerful
Lockheed Martin and its academic bidding partner, the University
of Texas, failed to win the plum annual management contract for
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The winning team
consisted of Bechtel National, its roster of crony corporations,
and the University of California (UC), the lab's manager since
the Manhattan Project.
Despite UC's name still being on the contract, this signals a
big shift for the lab. Like many of the nation's resources under
this administration, it is being privatized and placed into
corporate hands, a little further from public view.
Bechtel's victory may be a cause for surprise, but not
necessarily for relief. Department of Energy (DOE) officials say
Bechtel/UC will provide better "integration of the nuclear
weapons complex." Could "integration" be code for monopoly?
Bechtel subsidiaries already co-manage Yucca Mountain, the
Nevada Test Site, Y12, Savannah River and Pantex -- and they
subcontract at eight additional DOE sites. UC still runs
Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley Labs, along with Los
Alamos. Perhaps DOE couldn't risk introducing a new cast of
characters to the legacy of waste, contamination and
mismanagement plaguing the national complex, more of which
undoubtedly would have been exposed by a clean sweep at LANL.
How much do we know about the privately owned Bechtel? For
starters, they have a long and checkered past with DOE: cost
overruns and delays at Hanford, suppressed records of a nuclear
accident at Oak Ridge, fines for safety violations at Pantex,
Oak Ridge, Paducah . . . Outside of DOE, Bechtel has attained
infamy for EPA citations for hazardous waste spills, delays and
overruns at the Big Dig in Boston, and investigation by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for their work at Three Mile
Island.
Bechtel has no monopoly on expensive mistakes. UC has also
racked up quite a track record. Consider a decade of management,
environmental, safety and security scandals, topped off by last
year's costly operations stand-down and recent allegations of
missing plutonium (over 700 kilos).
During the award announcement a DOE official noted "concerns
with regards to past [UC] performance," a polite reference to
the fiscal and safety problems. In fact, DOE was so displeased
with UC performance in 2004 that it withheld two-thirds of the
performance-based LANL management fee. Nevertheless, DOE
predicts that Lab operations will be improved simply because the
corporate partners will bring "what they do best" to LANL
management -- while giving no details.
The retention of UC implies some continuity in Lab operations.
But this gravy train has more drivers now. We will be watching
closely as Bechtel and its network of corporate entities takes
the reins of day-to-day nuclear lab operations. Will it become
even more difficult to obtain information about what's happening
and planned, now that the lab -- so long shielded from scrutiny
by national security and academic aura -- hits the profit-driven
corporate trail? How many veils of secrecy will we now have to
penetrate to get the real story? It's never been easy.
Three bidding teams vied for the contract: Bechtel/UC; Lockheed
Martin/UT; and Nuclear Watch New Mexico/Tri-Valley CAREs. Only
the last team offered a real alternative, proposing a new Lab
Office of Nonproliferation to shift away from LANL's aggressive
nuclear weapons emphasis, so as to comply with the 1970
Non-Proliferation Treaty -- and with international opinion. By
example, this would have provided solid leadership in countering
the nation's gravest security threat (recognized by both
presidential candidates) -- the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. Sadly, DOE summarily rejected that proposal, and now
the bid has been awarded to more "big business as usual." Scott
Kovac is the operations and research director of , and Sasha
Pyle is the editor of The Watchdog Newsletter.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************