*****************************************************************
01/22/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.18
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Guardian Unlimited: Talk of Military Action in Iran Standoff
2 MiamiHerald.com: Yet another undeclared war
3 RIA Novosti: Too early to refer Iran to UN - former Russian PM
4 BBC: Confusion over Iran 'assets move'
5 BBC: Israel warns Iran on nuclear work
6 FT.com: Iran warns against UN referral
7 IRNA: Larijani to outline latest nuclear developments on Sunday 
8 WorldNetDaily: 'Disarming' Tehran
9 Xinhua: Diplomacy remains best solution to Iran nuke program   
10 IRNA: Dy FM: US, Europe preconditions for nuclear talks unacceptable
11 FT.com: Iran: Origins of the nuclear dispute
12 AFP: Iran blasts 'shameful' Chirac nuclear warning 
13 AFP: Iran 'not worried' about being sent to Security Council 
14 IRNA: Iran not to abandon its nuclear right - Mousavi -
15 AFP: UN nuclear agency still divided over Iran -
16 AFP: Iran again denies moving funds out of Europe -
17 AFP: Iran defies nuclear pressure, brandishes Iraq influence
18 AFP: Israel hardens line as pressure on Iran grows
19 Eric Margolis: Foreign Correspondent : NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN WITH IRAN 
20 US: Lew Rockwell: Iran's Bomb 
21 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Return to nuclear talks   
22 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: South warns North on counterfeits
23 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [OUTLOOK]New U.S. diplomacy carries risks
24 Korea Times: NK Leader's Outings Soared Last Year 
25 AFP: US team in Seoul to discuss NKorean financial wrongdoing -
26 US: Daily News of Newburyport: Scientific fact takes a back seat in 
27 Independent: Bush wades in to help GE in BNFL sell-off 
28 Indian Express: Atomic lethargy
29 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine, Russia approve pricing mechanism for nuclear fue
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
30 US: Tucson Citizen: Nuclear reactor restarted, solutions sought for 
31 Guardian Unlimited: Blair warned on 'rush for nuclear'
32 London Times: Nuclear revival doubles value of Westinghouse - 
33 US: Casper Star-Trib: Wyo has equal say in proposed buyout
34 RIA Novosti: Russia wants to build NPPs with Ukraine in third countr
35 BBC: Call to halt nuclear power plans
36 ePolitix.com: Government to reopen nuclear debate
37 Moscow Times: Ukraine and Russia Discuss Nuclear Cooperation
38 US: Herald News: Exelon to test Braceville drinking water
39 Sunday Herald: Sleaze probe into nuclear lobbying at Holyrood - 
40 US: Rutland Herald: Yankee power boost may exceed 'fence-line' stand
41 US: toledoblade.com: FirstEnergy to pay $28 million fine for lying; 
42 US: toledoblade.com: U.S. indicts trio in Davis-Besse inquiry
43 US: Fayetteville Online:  Lawmaker to appeal for nuclear plant
44 Interfax: Rosatom chief says there are no problems with fresh fuel
45 Scotsman.com: Why won't timid Blair face facts on nuclear power?
46 US: Decatur Daily: Browns Ferry reactor resumes operation
47 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Students offer energy plan to lawmakers
48 SABCnews.com: Repairs at Koeberg not responsible for power cuts     
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
49 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear threat is real, says Carr - 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
50 US: Heads roll at Veterans Administration - DU scandal blamed
51 US: News-Miner: Nothing depleted about 'depleted uranium'
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
52 London Times: Focus: Sellafield: The real fallout - 
53 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast plume growing, tests find
54 US: Taipei Times: Editorial: Mate, I nuked myself in the foot 
55 Las Vegas SUN: Mother defends Miss Nevada's pro-nuclear dump stance 
56 Sunday Herald: Privatised nuclear clean-up will cause accidents 
57 reviewjournal.com: DOE renews contract
58 AU: Green Left Weekly: Act passed to impose nuke dump
59 US: Chicago Sun-Times: Nuke utility to pay $28 mil. over cover-up of
60 US: JournalStar.com: Clean-up bill looms for NU - 
61 AFP: Iran wants China in on Russian uranium enrichment plan - 
62 Dnevnik: Construction of Kozloduy radwaste repository faces 6-mo del
 
                           PEACE
 
63 US: Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Preventing nuclear war should be first pr
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
64 Idaho Statesman: WGI expands jobs in nuclear facilities
65 LA Daily News: Rains clean up toxins at development site near lab
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Talk of Military Action in Iran Standoff
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday January 22, 2006 12:18 AM

AP Photo ROM161 

By JOSEF FEDERMAN 

Associated Press Writer 

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that
the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's
nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the
first course of action. 

``Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear
capability and it must have the capability to defend itself,
with all that that implies, and this we are preparing,'' Shaul
Mofaz said. 

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly
threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing
tensions with Iran. 

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published
Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the
impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that ``all
options'' should remain open. 

Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a
military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was
quoted as responding: ``Yes, we need all options.'' 

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could
respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored
terrorist attack. 

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said
Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of
nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency
reported. 

``The French president uncovered the covert intentions of
nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to
determine political games,'' IRNA quoted Asefi as saying. 

Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and
accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic
program is peaceful. 

Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and
said it was resuming nuclear research after a 2-year freeze.
Germany, France and Britain said two days later that talks aimed
at halting Iran's nuclear progress were at a dead end and called
for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear
watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss possible referral. 

Israel's Mofaz said sanctions and international oversight of
Iran's nuclear program stood as the ``correct policy at this
time.'' 

In Germany, Jung called himself ``confident that there will be a
diplomatic solution in the case of Iran.'' 

Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis
can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military
action would have to be part of an international effort. They
have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still
agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program
to Russia, a step backed by the United States and Europeans as a
way to resolve the deadlock. 

Israel's concerns about Iran have grown since the election of
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that
Israel should be ``wiped off the map.'' 

On Friday, Iran's Students News Agency reported Friday that
Central Bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani said Iran had begun
moving its foreign currency reserves from European banks and
transferring them to an undisclosed location as protection
against possible U.N. sanctions. 

Sheibani backed away Saturday from his statement that the
transfers were already underway, and Iran's Central Bank said
there had been no change in its currency policy. 

Estimates put Iranian funds in Europe at as much as $50 billion. 

---- 

Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi and Ali Akbar Dareini in
Tehran and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.	 
		 	 	   

      Guardian Unlimited Š Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 2 MiamiHerald.com: Yet another undeclared war

01/21/2006 | 

 BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN www.creators.com

Is the United States about to launch a second preemptive war,
against a nation that has not attacked us, to deprive it of
weapons of mass destruction that it does not have? 

With U.S. troops tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and
Pakistanis inflamed over a U.S. airstrike that wiped out 13
villagers, including women and children, it would seem another
war in the Islamic world is the last thing America needs. 

Yet, the ''military option'' against Iran is the talk of the
town. 

''There is only one thing worse than . . . exercising the
military option,'' says Sen. John McCain. ``That is a
nuclear-armed Iran. The military option is the last option, but
cannot be taken off the table.'' 

Appearing on CBS's Face the Nation, McCain said Iran's nuclear
program presents ``the most grave situation we have faced since
the end of the Cold War, absent the whole war on terror.'' 

Meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush employed the
same grim terms he used before invading Iraq. If Iran goes
forward with nuclear enrichment, said Bush, it could ``pose a
grave threat to the security of the world.'' 

McCain and Bush both emphasized the threat to Israel. And all
the usual suspects are beating the drums for war. Israel warns
that March is the deadline after which she may strike. One reads
of F-16s headed for the Gulf. The Weekly Standard is feathered
and painted for the warpath. The Iranian Chalabis are playing
their assigned roles, warning that Tehran is much closer to
nukes than we all realize. But just how imminent is this ``grave
threat''? 

Is Rice right? 

Thus far, Tehran has taken only two baby steps. It has renewed
converting ''yellowcake'' into uranium hexafluoride, the gaseous
substance used to create enriched uranium. And Iran has broken
the International Atomic Energy Agency seals at its nuclear
facility at Natanz, where uranium hexafluoride is to be
processed into enriched uranium. But on Saturday, the foreign
ministry said it was still suspending ``fuel production.'' 

However, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared, ''There are
no restrictions for nuclear research activities under the NPT,''
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran has signed. 

Here, Iran's president is supported by his countrymen and stands
on the solid ground of international law. Yet Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said last week, ``There is simply no peaceful
rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment.'' 

Is Rice right? 

Unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, which clandestinely built
nuclear weapons, Iran has signed the NPT. And Tehran may wish to
exercise its rights under the treaty to master the nuclear fuel
cycle to build power plants for electricity, rather than use up
the oil and gas deposits that it exports to earn all of its hard
currency. Nuclear power makes sense for Iran. 

True, in gaining such expertise, Iran may wish to be able, in a
matter of months, to go nuclear. For the United States and
Israel, which have repeatedly threatened Iran, are both in the
neighborhood and have nuclear arsenals. Acquiring an atom bomb
to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack may not appear a ''peaceful
rationale'' to Rice, but the Iranians may have a different
perspective. 

Having seen what we did to Iraq, but how deferential we are to
North Korea, would it be irrational for Tehran to seek its own
deterrent? 

And, again, just how imminent is this ``grave threat''? 

''We don't see a clear and present danger,'' Mohamed ElBaradei
of the IAEA has just told Newsweek. 

Some put the possibility of an Iranian bomb at 10 years away.
Con Coughlin, defense and security editor of the London
Telegraph, writes that the 164 centrifuges in the Natanz pilot
plant could enable Iran to produce enough highly enriched
uranium for a single bomb -- in three years. 

If the threat were imminent, Israel, which invaded Egypt in
1956, destroyed the Syrian and Egyptian air forces on the ground
in a surprise attack in 1967 and smashed an Iraqi reactor before
it was completed in 1981, would have acted. And with an
estimated 200 nuclear weapons, Israel is fully capable of
deterring Iran -- and of massive retaliation if she is attacked
by Iran. 

Iran has attacked neither Israel nor our forces in the Gulf, and
the Ayatollah Khamenei is said to be reining in Ahmadinejad. So,
it would seem that Iran does not want a war. 

Hold congressional hearings 

Congress thus has the time to do the constitutional duty it
failed to do when it gave Bush his blank check to invade Iraq at
a time of his choosing. 

Few today trust ''intelligence reports,'' War Party
propagandists or the word of exiles anxious to have us fight
their wars. Congress should thus hold hearings on how close
Tehran is to a nuclear weapon and whether this represents an
intolerable threat, justifying a preventive war that would mean
a Middle East cataclysm and a worldwide depression. Then it
should vote to declare war, or to deny Bush the power to go to
war. 

The ''Bush Doctrine'' notwithstanding, if Congress has not put
the ''military option on the table,'' neither Bush nor McCain
can put it there. That is the Constitution still, is it not? 

Š2006 Creators Syndicate
*****************************************************************
 3 RIA Novosti: Too early to refer Iran to UN - former Russian PM
 
21/ 01/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, January 21 (RIA Novosti) - It is too early to refer the
Iranian nuclear file to the UN Security Council, former Russian
Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov said Saturday. 

"I do not support sanctions against Iran because they may boost
extremism," Primakov, who is currently the president of the
Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, told the radio station
Ekho Moskvy. 

He said other options should be explored to resolve the problem
before referring Iran's dossier to the UN and that Iran should
not be deprived of an opportunity "to develop a peaceful nuclear
industry". 

The Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions have been the subject
of particular attention since hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was
elected president last year. Iran has consistently stated that
it wants to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,
but calls have mounted for the UN to impose sanctions on the
country after it ended its two-year moratorium on nuclear
research last week.
 
Š 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 4 BBC: Confusion over Iran 'assets move'
 
Last Updated: Saturday, 21 January 2006
 
[Natanz nuclear facility in Iran]                               

Iran has broken the seals on three nuclear facilities                                                            

There is confusion over whether Iran is moving foreign exchange 
reserves from Europe to avoid possible sanctions, after 
conflicting remarks by officials. 

The deputy head of Iran's central bank has said that Iran has no 
plans at the moment to shift its money. 

But Iranian news agencies reported on Friday that the bank head 
had said the state had started to withdraw assets, amid a row 
over its nuclear programme. 

Iran denies US and European claims that it is seeking to build 
nuclear weapons. 

The UN's atomic agency is due to meet on 2 February to discuss 
whether to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council. 

The council has the power to impose international trade or 
diplomatic sanctions. 

Revolution freeze 

The Iranian students news agency (Isna) reported on Friday that 
Iran's central bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani had revealed that 
the country had started to shift assets from Europe. 

It was not immediately clear where the funds were going, although 
reports suggested assets could be heading to Asia. 

However, the deputy head of the bank has told the official news 
agency Irna that Iran has no plan at the moment to move money 
from Europe to Asia. 

"At the moment, Iran does not have any schedule to transfer its 
foreign exchange accounts to the named countries," Mohammad-Jafar 
Mojarad said. 

Earlier, the economics minister denied reports that key 
individuals linked to the regime had started to remove billions 
of dollars of private capital from Europe. 

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says many Iranians believe 
it would be prudent to take action to avoid a repeat of 1979, 
when the US froze Iranian assets in response to Iran's Islamic 
revolution. 

It is difficult to estimate the amount of assets that Iran has 
abroad. Some sources have put the total value of Iran's foreign 
assets at somewhere between $30bn and $50bn. 

Russian solution? 

Correspondents say a possible solution to the Iranian nuclear 
dispute may have emerged, after Russia said Iran has expressed 
interest in a proposal to enrich uranium on Russian territory. 

The head of Russia's atomic energy agency told President Vladimir 
Putin that Iran was ready for detailed discussions about the 
idea. 

The highly sensitive process of enriching uranium lies at the 
heart of the row between the West and Iran. 

Low level enriched uranium is used as fuel in nuclear power 
stations, but uranium enriched to higher levels can be used in 
nuclear weapons. 

Western countries are afraid that oil-rich Iran is secretly 
pursuing nuclear weapons and that allowing it to master the 
enrichment process will inevitably lead to weapons acquisition. 

Tehran says it wants the technology for energy purposes alone. 
*****************************************************************
 5 BBC: Israel warns Iran on nuclear work
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 22 January 2006
 
[Isfahan uranium conversion facility]                           

Iran could face sanctions if it is brought before the UN                                                           

The Israeli defence minister has warned that the country will not 
accept an Iranian nuclear capability. 

Shaul Mofaz said that at this stage his government gave priority 
to diplomatic action aimed at convincing Iran to give up its 
nuclear programme. 

But he added that Israel was preparing for any eventuality and 
had the "capability to defend itself", after Iran resumed nuclear 
research. 

Iran insists the programme is purely aimed at meeting its energy 
needs. 

However western countries suspect Tehran may be seeking to 
develop nuclear weapons, and talks over the issue are stalled. 

Precedent 

The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agency is due 
to meet on 2 February to discuss whether to refer Iran to the 
Security Council. 

The council has the power to impose international sanctions. 

Mr Mofaz told a conference in Herzliya that Israel "must have the 
capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this 
we are preparing". 

Israeli leaders have repeatedly stated that any military action 
would be part of an international effort, and Israeli officials 
have denied plans for a unilateral preventive strike. 

Israeli concerns about Iran have grown since the election of 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be 
"wiped off the map". 

The warning appears to be a veiled suggestion that if diplomacy 
fails, Israel may be planning a repetition of its pre-emptive 
strike against Iraq in 1981. 

At the time, Israeli aircraft destroyed the Osirak nuclear 
research centre near Baghdad. 

Concern 

However analysts say it would be hard for Israel to achieve 
similar success in Iran, which has learned from the Osirak 
attack. 

Its nuclear sites are dispersed around the country and heavily 
protected. 

Washington, Israel and many European powers distrust Iran, partly 
because it had kept its nuclear research secret for 18 years 
before it was revealed in 2002. 

The crisis intensified earlier this month when Iran resumed 
research on uranium enrichment. 

Western countries are concerned because the process could 
ultimately be used both to generate electricity and to make 
nuclear weapons. 

Israel does not admit or deny having nuclear weapons, but it is 
widely believed to possess some. 

*****************************************************************
 6 FT.com: Iran warns against UN referral

By Roula Khalaf and Gareth Smyth in Tehran

Published: January 22 2006 21:56 | Last updated: January 22 2006

[Ali Larijani] Iranâs top nuclear official on Sunday warned
Tehran would resume efforts to enrich uranium on an industrial
scale if its case was reported to the UN Security Council,
further raising the stakes in the crisis over its nuclear
programme.

Tehran earlier this month moved to resume nuclear research,
including some small-scale enrichment. But Ali Larijani,
secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, which
handles the nuclear issue, said in an interview with the
Financial Times that a referral to the United Nations would
force Tehran to broaden significantly the scale of such work.

âIf the case goes to the Security Council, weâre
obligedâ.â.â.âto lift all voluntary measures,â he
said, specifying that this included industrial-scale uranium
enrichment.

The European Union and US have been pushing to get Iranâs case
reported to the UN Security Council since Tehran announced it
would restart its nuclear research two weeks ago. The US and
European governments consider the move a breach of a 2004
agreement with Iran.

A referral could come as soon as next week at an extraordinary
session of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the governing
board of the UNâs nuclear watchdog. Such a move could lead
eventually to sanctions.

The US and EU argue that involving the Security Council would
strengthen the IAEAâs hand. But Mr Larijaniâs warning
appears designed to show that greater diplomatic pressure would
instead undermine both the IAEAâs work and attempts to curtail
Iranâs programme.

Iran has always intended to develop industrial-scale uranium
enrichment, which can be used for nuclear reactors or atomic
weapons, but stopped all preparatory work during two-year talks
with Europeans.

Nuclear experts say assembling enough centrifuges and preparing
for industrial production could still take years.

Mr Larijani spoke at the start of a week of intense diplomacy.
European officials will visit capitals represented on the
35-member IAEA governing board to lobby for an EU-backed
resolution on referral.

Meanwhile, Mr Larijani is likely to be in Moscow to discuss a
Russian proposal to find a compromise, an effort to forestall
the Europeans or at least temper the tone of any IAEA resolution.

Moscow has proposed a joint venture to enrich uranium on Russian
soil for use in Iranian reactors. In his interview Mr Larijani
said the proposal âhad to become complete. Gaps have to be
filled.

âWe have to see what potential this idea has for being
productive,â he said.

âThere are two issues to be considered: one is Iranâs right
to enrichment, and the other is non-diversion [of nuclear
material to weapons].

âAny solution should be consistent with these two
considerations. The scale, extent and timing can all be
discussed.â  
  
  [ height=]     ÂŠ Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 7 IRNA: Larijani to outline latest nuclear developments on Sunday 

, Jan 21, IRNA

-- 
Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali 
Larijani will appear before the Majlis National Security and 
Foreign Policy Commission on Sunday to give a synopsis of latest 
developments in Iran's nuclear case.

 Larijani and his deputies will be asked to respond to questions 
raised by commission members on the case.

 The commission is scheduled to hold a meeting on Thursday 
attended by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on the latest 
developments in Iran-Egypt ties.








*****************************************************************
 8 WorldNetDaily: 'Disarming' Tehran

 [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] 

Posted: January 21, 2006
 

Š 2006 WorldNetDaily.com 

President Bush will soon, once again, "take a few minutes to
discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to
lead the world in confronting that threat." 

Here are selected points Bush made in such a "discussion" back
in 2002: 

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi
regime's own actions  its history of aggression and its drive
toward an arsenal of terror. 

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf
War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of
mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and
to stop all support for terrorist groups. 

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. 



Wrong! By 1997, U.N. inspectors had concluded that Iraq was
effectively in full compliance with all relevant Security
Council resolutions. Hence, Council members called for the
lifting of U.N. sanctions. President Clinton announced he would
never allow the sanctions to be lifted so long as Saddam Hussein
was in power. 

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The
danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with
time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today 
and we do  does it make any sense for the world to wait to
confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more
dangerous weapons? 

And how do "we" know that? 

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the
head of Iraq's military industries defected. 

But the defector Bush refers to was General Hussein Kamal,
Saddam's son-in-law, who told the U.N. exactly the opposite of
what Bush implies. Kamal revealed that by the end of 1991, all
of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and the means for
producing more had been destroyed  either in the Gulf War,
itself, or on Saddam's orders in the immediate aftermath. 

Hence, by 1997, U.N. inspectors reported to the Security Council
that they had verified that Kamal spoke the truth  "Nothing
remained." 

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing
a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the
problem. 

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction capabilities  only to see them
openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist. 

Bush is apparently referring to Clinton's five-day
cruise-missile assault on Saddam's "palaces" in 1998. Of course,
by then Clinton already knew that Saddam had completely disarmed
and had made no attempt to re-arm. Clinton's outrageous assault
on Baghdad was a blatant attempt to kill Saddam Hussein. 

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or
enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. 

America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that
helps keep the peace. 

And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a
new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. 

And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time,
without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions. 

The time for denying, deceiving and delaying has come to an end.
Saddam Hussein must disarm himself  or, for the sake of peace,
we will lead a coalition to disarm him. 

In 2002, the "grave threat to peace" was the nuclear weapons
program Bush almost certainly knew the Iraqis were not pursuing. 

And, by the time Bush launched his war of aggression against
Iraq, the whole world certainly knew, because the International
Atomic Energy Agency had certified it. 

This time the "grave threat to peace" will be the nuclear
weapons program Bush charges the Iranians are pursuing, right
under the sensors of IAEA inspectors to whom the Iranians
voluntarily gave more than two years ago the kind of access Bush
demanded of  and was granted by  the Iraqis back in 2002. 

And Bush's 2006 speech about the Iranian "nu-cular' threat, will
likely be replete with other statements that are  at best 
misleading, and deliberately so. 

In particular, "America" may want the U.N. to be an "effective
organization" that helps keep the peace, but Bush and the Cheney
Cabal certainly don't. 

In fact, historians will no doubt marvel at their success  in
the pursuit of Iraq's non-existent nukes  in partially
undermining international treaties (such as the Treaty on
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), international agencies
(such as the IAEA), the U.N. Security Council and the U.N.
Charter, itself. 

Will Bush finish the U.N. demolition job by "leading the world
in confronting the [non-existent] Iranian nuke threat"? 

Stay tuned. 

Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy
implementing official for national security-related technical
matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr.
Prather also served as legislative assistant for national
security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate
Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had
earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National
Laboratory in New Mexico. 

*****************************************************************
 9 Xinhua: Diplomacy remains best solution to Iran nuke program   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-22 05:55:27   

    BERLIN, Jan. 22 (Xinhua) -- German Foreign Minister
Frank-Walter Steinmeier said here Sunday that a diplomatic
solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis remained the best. 

    In an interview with ARD TV, Steinmeier said that he did not
think the west should be caught up in a "mental
militarization"."We have to exhaust the diplomatic options that
we still have at our disposal," he told ARD, which released the
interview before its planned schedule. 

    Steinmeier said, "We are working to ensure such as
escalation as military pressure does not happen." 

    "I think we have shown a lot of patience already. It was
in2003 that the international nuclear monitors established that
the nuclear ambitions in Tehran were incompatible with the
non-proliferation treaty." 

    He noted that Tehran has counted on succeeding in splitting
the international community, adding "So far that has not
happened.I think we can see the interest in not allowing a
spread of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear
weapons,predominates in the (International Atomic Energy Agency)
Board of Governors." 

    On the same day, Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Ali
Larijanisaid the doors for diplomacy were open in the ongoing
dispute.Germany, France and Britain, which had been trying to
persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program in the past few
years, broke off negotiations with Iran after it resumed nuclear
research early this. Enditem   

  Copyright Š2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: Dy FM: US, Europe preconditions for nuclear talks unacceptable -
      
Pretoria, Jan 21, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-SAfrica-Mostafavi 

The preconditions set by the US and certain European states for
continuation of nuclear negotiations with Iran are unacceptable,
said an Iranian official on Saturday.

 Iran's Acting Foreign Minister Mehdi Mostafavi told IRNA after
talks with South African statesmen that there is no reason for
Iran to give in to the exorbitant demands of others.

 "In our opinion, one can avoid facing a deadlock and allay
concerns by continuing talks within the frameworks agreed upon
by both parties," said Mostafavi.

 He stressed that if others resort to unusual methods, the
Islamic Republic of Iran too will show due reaction.

 In that case, he added, the government will have the duty to
enforce the Majlis approvals regarding an end to the voluntary
cooperation of Iran on its nuclear program.

 There is no acceptable ground for closure of Iran's nuclear
research program, which is a scientific activity, said the
official, adding that continuation of confrontation will
definitely be in the interests of no parties.

 He said his talks with the South African officials over the
past three days have been "helpful". "South Africa is willing to
find solutions to the ongoing crisis," he added.

 Mostafavi said South Africa supports Iran's peaceful nuclear
activities within the framework of the International Atomic
Energy Agency's (IAEA) conventions and Iran has been acting far
beyond its commitment.

 Commenting on South African Foreign Ministry's statement last
week which invited the nuclear negotiators to avoid adopting
measures that would escalate tension, Mostafavi said the main
reason behind such concerns is that escalation of the tension
will undoubtedly be against the interests of all.

 Mostafavi said that from the Iranian officials' point of view
referral of Iran's case to the UN Security Council is
politically motivated. "Iran has taken all the necessary
measures to remove ambiguities and build global confidence," he
added.

 As for South Africa's stance on referral of Iran's case to the
UN Security Council, Mostafavi said South African officials do
not consider such a decision to be helpful, insisting settlement
of the current differences within the framework of the IAEA
conventions.

 While in South Africa, Mostafavi met and conferred with the
country's parliament speaker, minister of labor as well as the
acting and deputy foreign minister.

*****************************************************************
 11 FT.com: Iran: Origins of the nuclear dispute

Published: January 22 2006 21:15 | Last updated: January 22 2006

What is the significance of Iranâs decision to break the seals
at the Natanz plant?

The International Atomic Energy Agency placed seals at Iranâs
Natanz plant to ensure that no research work would be carried
out at the facility, which is the only known facility in Iran
capable of carrying out nuclear enrichment. 

Iranâs decision to break the seals was the last straw for the
UK, France and Germany - known as the EU3 - and their efforts to
persuade Iran to keep its nuclear research programme on hold. It
followed Iranâs decision in August to resume uranium
conversion at its facility in Isfahan - a move the EU had warned
would end negotiations linked to trade and economic issues - and
prompted the EU3 to declare that their talks with Iran had
reached a âdead endâ. They are now seeking an emergency
meeting of the IAEA to discuss referring Iran to the UN security
council - a move that could lead to the imposition of sanctions.

What is conversion?

Uranium ore needs to undergo a number of processes before it is
suitable for use in a nuclear reactor. In the first, known as
recovery, uranium ore is dissolved in sulphuric acid to produce
uranium oxide. In the second, known as conversion, uranium oxide
is converted into uranium hexafluoride. During the conversion
process, impurities are removed and the uranium is combined with
fluorine to create the gas, which is then pressurised and cooled
to a liquid. In its liquid state it is drained into cylinders
where it solidifies after cooling for approximately five days.
UF6 is the only uranium compound that exists as a gas at a
suitable temperature for enrichment operations.

What does uranium enrichment involve? 

Natural uranium consists of heavy-weight atoms, middle-weight
atoms, and light-weight atoms. These are the different isotopes
of uranium. All uranium contains 92 protons in the atomâs
centre. The heavy-weight atoms contain 146 neutrons, the
middle-weight contain 143 neutrons, and the light-weight have
just 142 neutrons. When refering to these isotopes, scientists
add the number of protons and neutrons and put the total after
the name - making uranium 238, uranium 235 and uranium 234 -
atomic weight. Enriching uranium increases the amount of
middle-weight and light-weight uranium atoms. Uranium 235 is the
key ingredient that starts a nuclear reaction and keeps it
going. To fuel a nuclear reactor, the uranium 235 must be
enriched from 0.7 per cent of the uranium mass to about 5 per
cent. For a weapon, it must be enriched to 90 per cent plus.
There are two commonly used methods of enriching uranium -
gaseous diffusion and gas centrifuges. Iranâs nuclear
programme uses the latter. 

What are centrifuges?

The gas centrifuge uranium enrichment process uses a large
number of rotating cylinders. These machines use centrifugal
force to separate substances of different densities. In this
case the gas, uranium hexafluoride, is spun inside the
centrifuge to separate the uranium 235 from the rest These
centrifuge machines, are interconnected to form cascades. 

What is a cascade?

The gas must pass through hundreds or thousands of such
centrifuges, an arrangement called a cascade, before it is
enriched in sufficient quantities for reactors or, in its most
concentrated form, bombs.

How far has Iran gone in terms of its research towards making a
nuclear bomb?

Experts regard the ability to manufacture highly enriched
uranium as the most important factor in determining whether a
country is capable of making a nuclear bomb. 

When the Iranians shut down their pilot plant in Nantaz in 2004,
it had only 164 centrifuges running, and some of them crashed.
Experts say a cascade of 2,000 centrifuges is needed to produce
sufficient quantities of highly enriched uranium for a reactor
or a bomb.

It is a hugely significant issue whether Iran takes the next
step to a full-blown resumption of uranium enrichment and gets
all of the 1,200 centrifuges it has assembled working, while
assembling others. 

According to an estimate by Londonâs International Institute
for Strategic Studies, it could take about five years for Iran
to assemble a nuclear weapon. But if only the pilot plant was
active, it could be more like 30 to 40 years.

Has Iran ever received weapons designs?

Iran showed the International Atomic Energy Agency a document
that diplomats consider to be highly incriminating - a design
given to Iran by Pakistanâs AQ Khan nuclear proliferation
network in the 1980s, which appears to show how to cast enriched
uranium into hemispheres. This is a process whose chief use is
engineering a nuclear explosion. 

Is there evidence that Iran wants a bomb?

IAEA inspectors found traces of weapons-grade uranium at several
sites in Iran, but the agency said that this it could have
entered Iran on equipment imported from Pakistan. Others,
notably American officials, argue that AQ Khanâs involvement
and Iranâs alleged interest in missile designs is powerful
proof that Tehran wants to develop nuclear weapons. 

Iran is internationally isolated, with the US army on two of its
borders, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, Israel, its sworn
enemy, has long been a nuclear state. Some diplomats argue that
Tehran wants to be within reach of nuclear capacity as part of
its strategic defence, with all the infrastructure needed to
develop nuclear weapons, but without necessarily having the bomb
itself. 

What does Iran say?

For Iran, the right to acquire nuclear technology is a matter of
national pride, as indicated by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the
countryâs supreme leader, who said recently that Iran would
never give up its right to peaceful nuclear technology, aquired
by âthe talented youth of the countryâ.

Iran has always claimed its aims are purely peaceful and that it
is merely seeking to safeguard its energy security. 

What is the Paris agreement?

After concerns were first raised in 2002 by the Iranian
opposition about Iranâs nuclear enrichment activities, Iran
was persuaded by Britain, France and Germany - known as the EU3
- to suspend nuclear enrichment activities on a voluntary basis
and to allow unfettered access to its nuclear facilities to
representatives of the IAEA. In return the EU3 agreed to press
for Iranâs nuclear dossier to be closed at the next IAEA board
of governors meeting in June 2004 and also to supply Iran with
advanced nuclear technology.

However, because of Iranian violations, the meeting ended up
with the IAEA condemning Iran for its failure to fully comply
with the agencyâs inspectors. In response, Iran resumed its
uranium-enrichment activity.

The next IAEA Board of Governors meeting, in September 2004,
concluded that if Iran did not halt all enrichment activity by
the date of the next meeting in November, its nuclear dossier
would be transferred to the UN Security Council.

Intensive negotiations in the weeks prior to the IAEA meeting
resulted on November 14 2004 with the Paris Agreement. Under the
agreement, Iran agreed to a temporary and voluntary suspension
of its nuclear activities as long as talks with the EU3
continued. The EU3 meanwhile promised Iran a package of benefits
- including EU support for Iranâs membership of the WTO,
access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, and economic aid.
The threat of Iranâs nuclear dossier being transferred to the
UN Security Council was then dropped at the IAEA meeting on
November 25.

Less than a year later, however, in September 2005, the IAEA
declared Iran to be in non-compliance with the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty and Iran responded by threatening to
end its âvoluntary and temporaryâ agreements over its
nuclear programme. The EU and US stepped back from pressing the
IAEA to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council, however, and in
November the EU agreed to an Iranian request for renewed talks. 

What position is the IAEA taking?

Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA director general, had hoped that a
temporary de facto suspension of Iranâs nuclear activities
might grow into a more permanent entente between the various
sides. 

But after two years of trying to facilitate talks between Iran
and the EU3, he has publicly said that his patience is running
out. Mr ElBaradeiâs next report on Iran on March 6, which will
be the basis for the IAEA discussions, is likely to break with
his previous efforts, which have taken pains to be even-handed. 

Instead, he is set to report that he has made âno progressâ
in persuading Iran to allow access to suspect sites or to hand
over documents that could cast light on whether Tehran has
sought to develop nuclear weapons.


  [ height=]     ÂŠ Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: Iran blasts 'shameful' Chirac nuclear warning 

 Sun Jan 22, 8:21 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - French President Jacques Chirac" /> President
Jacques Chirachas come under attack in Iran" /> Iranafter
warning that France could use nuclear arms against state
sponsors of terrorism, with officials in the Islamic republic
branding the remark "shameful" and "unacceptable". 

 "It is shameful for the people of France that their president
brandishes atomic weapons on the pretext of fighting terrorism,"
said Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel, speaker of Iran's right-wing
parliament. 

On Thursday, Chirac for the first time raised the threat of a
nuclear strike on any state that launches "terrorist" attacks
against France. 

Although he did not single out any country, the warning could be
intrepreted as including Iran -- frequently accused of
sponsoring terrorism and under pressure over its disputed
nuclear programme. 

But Hadad-Adel said the French president was merely "trying to
restore the prestige of France after the recent unrest, when
young people took to the streets and torched hundreds of cars
every night." 

"The French need to make an effort to remove the shame of the
the massacre of millions of Algerians, France's support for
Saddam Hussein" /> Saddam Husseinand the massacres in Africa and
Rwanda," Hadad-Adel said in a speech to deputies carried by
state radio. 

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, in a
statement carried by the official news agency IRNA Sunday, also
branded Chirac's comments as "unacceptable and unjustifiable". 

"These statements redouble public concern in countries of the
world which face those countries in possession of nuclear
weapons," Asefi was quoted as saying. 

Iran is currently at loggerheads with France, with Paris at the
forefront of Western efforts to prevent the Islamic republic
from acquiring nuclear technology that could be diverted to
making weapons of mass destruction. 

France, along with Britain and Germany and backed by the United
States, is now leading a push for Iran to be referred to the UN
Security Council. 

Iran has denounced the mounting pressure, arguing it only wants
to generate electricity and that this is a right for any
signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

An editorial by the hardline Jomhuri Islami newspaper argued
that Chirac's warning was a sign of the double standards Iran
has long complained about. 

It said Chirac had defied the NPT and calls for nuclear
disarmament, and said France "has no right to be a member of
world's nuclear club or comment on other countries". 

"His remarks mean the French government would use the atomic
bomb to oppress the ones who seek liberty," the paper said in a
comment that could be seen as alluding to Iran's support for
Palestinian militants. 

"Everybody knows they label anyone who opposes their
exploitative and colonial demands as terrorists, and that any
country sheltering such people and supports them is named a
supporter of terorists," the paper wrote. 

"(Chirac) has unveiled the true face of the West," it said,
asking why Iran should "still wait for negotiations" over its
own nuclear programme. 

Copyright Š 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: Iran 'not worried' about being sent to Security Council 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has denounced next month's emergency meeting
of the UN nuclear watchdog as "political" but said it was not
worried about the crisis over its disputed atomic drive ending
up at the Security Council.

"We are not worried by the Security Council, but it is the wrong
method," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told
reporters.

"An emergency meeting of the board of governors of the
International Atomic Energy Agency is not necessary. It is a
political act," he added Sunday.

Iran faces the threat of being referred to New York for resuming
sensitive nuclear fuel research work that the Western powers and
Israel fear would give the clerical regime the know-how to build
a bomb.

Tehran insists such work is legal given it has signed the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has branded atomic weapons
"un-Islamic" -- but a lengthy IAEA probe has yet to confirm the
claimed civilian nature of the programme and has uncovered
suspect activities.

Britain, France and Germany have called an urgent meeting of the
IAEA's 35-nation board for February 2. The meeting is widely
expected to result in Iran's case being referred to the Security
Council, despite the reluctance of Russia and China.

"It is clear in advance that the result of a meeting that takes
place under the pressure of certain countries will be
political," Asefi said, complaining that "we have asked the
Europeans to resume negotiations but, lacking any logic, they
have not."

A week ago Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also
vowed his country would not back down over sensitive nuclear
work, even if ordered to do so by the Security Council.

The country's top national security official, Ali Larijani, told
the BBC on Wednesday that Iran has "not closed the path to
compromise" -- but said that did not include returning to a
freeze of sensitive enrichment research.

The West wants Iran to voluntarily limit its fuel cycle work so
that enrichment does not take place in the country. Uranium
enrichment can make reactor fuel, but the technology is dual-use
and would give Iran the strategic option to enrich to levels
required for making the core of a weapon.

Also piling on the pressure is Israel. The Jewish state has come
to view the Islamic republic as its number one enemy and its
fears were heightened in October when Ahmadinejad called for
Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz warned that his government
would not tolerate a "nuclear option" for Iran -- taken to mean
Israel would not accept seeing Iran master enrichment work.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear armed power in
the Middle East, although it has never confirmed or denied
having a nuclear arsenal.

On Thursday, President Jacques Chirac warned that France could
use nuclear weapons against state sponsors of terrorism --
although he did not single out any country.

Iran, however, has been quick to blast Chirac's remarks as
"shameful" and "unacceptable".

"It is shameful for the people of France that their president
brandishes atomic weapons on the pretext of fighting terrorism,"
said Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel, speaker of Iran's right-wing
parliament.

Chirac, he claimed, was "trying to restore the prestige of
France after the recent unrest, when young people took to the
streets and torched hundreds of cars every night."

"The French need to make an effort to remove the shame of the
the massacre of millions of Algerians, France's support for
Saddam Hussein and the massacres in Africa and Rwanda,"
Hadad-Adel said in comments carried by state radio.

Asefi, in a statement carried by the official news agency IRNA,
also branded Chirac's comments as "unacceptable and
unjustifiable".

"These statements redouble public concern in countries of the
world which face those countries in possession of nuclear
weapons," he said. 

    Copyright Š 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 14 IRNA: Iran not to abandon its nuclear right - Mousavi -

, Jan 21, IRNA

Iranian Vice-President for Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Ahmad
Mousavi said in Rabat, Morocco, on Friday that Tehran will not
give up its right to acquire nuclear technology and produce
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

 Addressing reporters after a meeting with Moroccan Prime
Minister Driss Jettou, the Iranian official reiterated the
Islamic Republic of Iran's "readiness to hold talks in order to
convince the world community that its nuclear activities are
transparent and for peaceful purposes."
 He then gave a synopsis of latest developments in the Iran
nuclear issue as well as Tehran's principled stance on its right
as well as that of other countries to pursue nuclear energy
under international law, rules and regulations and under the
supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog.

 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech before the United
Nations General Assembly last year which included an invitation
for governments and private entities to participate in Iran's
nuclear activities was aimed at building confidence and proving
to the world the peaceful nature of Tehran's nuclear
activities," Mousavi said.

 "Iran has so far been cooperating with pertinent bodies on its
nuclear programs much more than it is legally committed,"
Mousavi added.

 Nevertheless, if need be, Tehran will continue its cooperation
to further prove its transparency but will not in any way
abandon its legal right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT)."
 The official defended Iran's decision to resume nuclear
research announced on January 10, 2006, saying it was perfectly
within its rights as "its decision to suspend nuclear activities
two years ago was a purely voluntary measure."
 Mousavi, currently on a regional tour of Africa, has already
been to Egypt, Libya and Algeria.

*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: UN nuclear agency still divided over Iran -

 Sun Jan 22, 11:46 AM ET                         

VIENNA (AFP) - Europe and the United States are struggling to
get Russia and China on board to crack down on Iran" /> Iranat a
UN meeting next month over a nuclear program the West fears
hides secret atomic weapons work, diplomats have told AFP. 

 While some move by the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agencyseems certain when the UN
watchdog agency meets here February 2, it remains unclear how
much of a deadline it will be for Iran. 

A diplomat close to the IAEA said key Iranian trade partner
Russia wanted to split the action into two parts, "with a
nominal referral in February but giving Iran one month to
deliver on demands to suspend nuclear fuel work and to
cooperate" with IAEA inspections. 

The IAEA is to hold another meeting, a regularly scheduled one,
on March 6. 

A Western diplomat said European Union" /> European
Unionnegotiators Britain, France and Germany as well as the
United States "rejected this idea outright," even if other
diplomats said a compromise in the Russian direction was
possible. 

"The United States doesn't want to wait anymore," said a
non-aligned diplomat. 

The EU negotiating trio and the United States, "are trying to
sell" China and Russia on a tough resolution at the IAEA board
of governors meeting to send Iran before the Security Council
for possible sanctions, said a second Western diplomat, who like
others interviewed asked not to be named due to the sensitivity
of the issue. 

China, a major recipient of Iranian oil, and Russia want to give
diplomacy more time in a crisis which escalated when Tehran
earlier this month announced it was resuming nuclear fuel work
that can also make atom bomb material. 

"The Russians need cooperation with Iran to deal with their soft
underbelly," non-proliferation expert Gary Samore said Sunday
about the Muslim states of central Asia. 

IAEA director Mohamed ElBardei has already given Iran until
March to comply with a report on its cooperation that he is to
file at the board meeting that month, diplomats said. 

"A real problem the United States and the Europeans face is that
it is hard for them to explain why referral to the Security
Council is going to be helpful. 

"No one thinks political pressure and modest sanctions are going
to be very effective," said Samore, a former White House arms
control expert who now works at the MacArthur Foundation in
Chicago, Illinois. 

Russia, which has a billion dollar contract to build Iran's
first nuclear reactor, and China each have vetos on the Security
Council and are worried about the crisis escalating. 

The non-aligned diplomat said there was already fall-out as
countries like India, a major client for Iranian oil and a big
player on the IAEA's 35-nation board, are feeling the pinch from
high prices for crude. 

Iran has 10 percent of the world's oil reserves and has threated
to use its supply of oil to the global market as a weapon. 

"All of us are worried about high oil prices," the diplomat
said. 

Iran on Sunday denounced the upcoming emergency IAEA meeting as
"political" but said it was not worried about the crisis ending
up at the Security Council. 

"We are not worried by the Security Council, but it is the wrong
method," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told
reporters. 

A week ago Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also
vowed his country would not back down over sensitive nuclear
work, even if ordered to do so by the Security Council. 

Also piling on the pressure is Israel" /> Israel. 

The Jewish state has come to view the Islamic republic as its
number one enemy and its fears were heightened in October when
Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." 

Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz warned that his government
would not tolerate a "nuclear option" for Iran. 

On Thursday, French President Jacques Chirac" /> President
Jacques Chiracwarned that France could use nuclear weapons
against state sponsors of terrorism -- although he did not
single out any country. 	 		 			
 							 				 					 					 					 					 					 					 					 					
Copyright Š 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: Iran again denies moving funds out of Europe -

 Sun Jan 22, 6:09 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's central bank and foreign ministry
has repeated denials the Islamic republic was moving its foreign
currency reserves out of Europe amid rising tensions over its
nuclear programme. 

 "The Central Bank is managing, according to Iran's national
interests, the currency reserves of the country and is keeping
these reserves in major international banks, notably in Europe
and other countries," said a Central Bank statement read out on
state television. 

"Iran has not moved funds," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid
Reza Asefi also told reporters Sunday. 

Central bank chief Ebrahim Sheibani had said on Wednesday --
according to comments that were only reported two days later by
Iranian news agencies -- that Iran was moving funds from Europe
to Asia. 

But the deputy head of the bank, Mohammad-Jafar Mojarad, issued
a denial on Saturday. 

"At the moment, Iran does not have any schedule to transfer its
foreign exchange accounts to the named countries," Mojarad told
the state news agency IRNA when asked if Iran had transferred
the accounts to Asia. 

The international crisis over Iran's nuclear programme escalated
when the Islamic republic resumed sensitive uranium enrichment
research on January 10, despite calls by European negotiators to
maintain a halt to such activities. 

Britain, France and Germany have called an emergency meeting of
the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agencyfor February 2, as Western countries aim to gather
support for referring Iran to the UN Security Council for
possible sanctions. 

A referral to the Security Council is widely expected, and this
would leave Iran exposed to the danger of sanctions. 

Although diplomats insist it is too early to discuss sanctions
or indeed military action, Iran does have reason to be wary: in
the wake of the 1979 Islamic revolution that deposed the
US-backed monarchy, its foreign currency reserves in the United
States were frozen. 

Officials say the cash frozen in the US now amounts to at least
eight billion dollars. 

	 		 			
Copyright Š 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: Iran defies nuclear pressure, brandishes Iraq influence

 Sun Jan 22, 1:09 PM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iransaid it was not worried if the
crisis over its disputed nuclear drive ended up at the Security
Council, and brandished its influence in Iraq" /> Iraqin the
form of support from radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr. 

 "We are not worried by the Security Council, but it is the
wrong method," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told
reporters. "An emergency meeting of the board of governors of
the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agencyis not necessary. It is a political act." 

Iran faces the threat of being hauled to New York for resuming
sensitive nuclear fuel research work that the Western powers and
Israel" /> Israelfear would give the clerical regime the
know-how to build a bomb. 

Tehran insists such work is legal given it has signed the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has branded atomic weapons
"un-Islamic" -- but a lengthy IAEA probe has yet to confirm the
claimed civilian nature of the programme and has uncovered
suspect activities. 

Britain, France and Germany have called an urgent meeting of the
IAEA's 35-nation board for February 2, and are confident of
getting a referral even though they are still struggling to get
Russia and China on board. 

"It is clear in advance that the result of a meeting that takes
place under the pressure of certain countries will be
political," Asefi said. 

The West wants Iran to voluntarily limit its fuel cycle work so
that enrichment does not take place in the country. Uranium
enrichment can make reactor fuel, but the technology is dual-use
and would give Iran the strategic option to enrich to levels
required for making the core of a weapon. 

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already vowed
his country would not back down, even if ordered to do so by the
Security Council. 

The country has been brandishing its oil wealth and influence in
the already troubled region in what some Western diplomats have
described as a concerted effort to dissuade countries from
siding with the US hard line. 

Radical Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr -- a key opponent of US
forces -- said on a visit to Tehran that his Mehdi Army militia
would "support" any neighbouring country if they were attacked. 

In December, the radical Palestinian group Hamas also vowed to
step up attacks against Israel if the Jewish state takes
military action against Iran and said it and the Islamic
republic formed a "united front". 

The prospect of military action against Iran has been evoked in
Israel, which has come to view the Islamic republic as its
number one enemy. Its fears were heightened in October when
Ahmadinejad called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the
map." 

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear armed power in
the Middle East, although it has never confirmed or denied
having a nuclear arsenal. 

And on Thursday, President Jacques Chirac" /> President Jacques
Chiracwarned that France could use nuclear weapons against state
sponsors of terrorism -- although he did not single out any
country. 

Iran, however, was been quick to blast Chirac's remarks as
"shameful" and "unacceptable". 

Iran also gave a fresh show of its determination, enrolling some
1,000 athletes to form a human shield in front of a key nuclear
facility near the historic central city of Isfahan. 

"Since we have reached this technology indigenously and with our
own scientists, we will safeguard it at any cost," the director
of the facility, Behrouz Samani, said at the event. 

Still seen by Moscow as a way out of the impasse is a proposal
for Iran to enrich uranium on Russian soil, something which Iran
has implicitly rejected but not totally ruled out. 

"The Russian plan should be taken as a complimenting enrichment
inside the country (Iran)," Asefi said, again insisting on
Iran's wish to master the fuel cycle on its own soil. 

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani also said he would be
heading to Moscow to further discuss the proposal, but did not
give a date. 

Larijani also denied allegations the Islamic republic had
acquired advanced centrifuges on the black market for its
nuclear programme. 	 		 			
 							 				 					 					 					 					 					 					 					 					
Copyright Š 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: Israel hardens line as pressure on Iran grows

HERZLIYA, Israel (AFP) - Israel is taking advantage of the
growing international pressure on arch enemy Tehran to dangle
the threat of pre-emptive action to stop Iran's nuclear
programme in its tracks.

Army chief of staff Dan Halutz became the latest senior defence
official to fire a warning shot across Tehran's bows by telling
a security conference that Israel would not be "helpless" in the
face of Tehran if it acquired nuclear weapons.

His comments followed a pledged by Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz 
that Israel, widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state 
in the Middle East, would not tolerate a "a nuclear option" for 
Iran while reaffirming his commitment to diplomacy over the 
escalating crisis.

Israel has come to view the regime in Tehran as its number one
enemy, with its fears reinforced by comments from Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahamadinejad that the Jewish state should be
"wiped off the face of the map."

Questioned about how the defence establishment was preparing
itself with the challenge posed by Iran, Halutz refused to give
details but nevertheless made clear that he had plans up his
sleeve.

"I am not going to deal with the solutions to the Iranian
nuclear problem," he said Sunday. "Israel is not helpless --
that it is enough of an answer."

In his speech to the same conference on Saturday, the
Iranian-born Mofaz said that Israel "must treat the (Iranian
nuclear) threat responsibly and with utmost seriousness."

"We are giving priority at this stage to diplomatic action...
but in any case we cannot tolerate a nuclear option for Iran and
we must prepare ourselves," Mofaz said.

"We must develop the option of our defence with all that
implies," he said without providing further details.

Israel managed to halt Iraq's nuclear programme in 1981 when it
carried out an air strike on the Osirak plant.

And while officials have said diplomacy is still the order of
the day on Iran, the outgoing head of military intelligence,
Aharon Zeevi, said last month that a repeat peformance was
"difficult but not impossible".

The hardening in tone has not been universally welcomed in
Israel.

"I do not see the point in these sensational declarations,"
former defence minister Moshe Arens said in an interview with
Israeli radio.

"With such a delicate subject, it would be better to act with
discretion and public threats don't serve any purpose."

Arens' comments make interesting reading for the leader of his
own right-wing Likud party, Benjamin Netanyahu, who said
recently Israel needed to confront Iran by "acting in the spirit
of Menachem Begin", a reference to the premier who ordered the
Osirak strike.

Israel appears to have been emboldened by the concerted drive by
Western powers to bring Iran before the UN Security Council,
with the prospect of sanctions.

Iran says its nuclear programme is legal as it is a signatory to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and merely designed
to meet its energy needs.

Israel however is convinced Tehran is on a drive to equip itself
with nuclear weapons.

Although Israel has never publicly admitted possessing a nuclear
arsenal, it is generally thought it has at least 200 atomic
warheads.

Tensions between the two countries are also being stoked by
repeated Israeli accusations that Iran is funding attacks by
Palestinian militant groups.

Mofaz blamed Iran and its ally Syria for a Palestinian suicide
bombing in Tel Aviv Thursday. Iran said the allegations were
baseless.

Despite Israel's worries about Ahmadinejad, officials have
acknowledged that Iran is still years away from acquiring
nuclear weapons.

"Israel is exaggerating the threat and these belligerent
comments risk escalating tension instead of lowering it," said
the Israeli analyst Dan Pedatzur. 
                                
    Copyright Š 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 Eric Margolis: Foreign Correspondent : NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN WITH IRAN 

Š 2006 Eric Margolis                  

Archives > January 16, 2006 
	
Iran has thrown down the gauntlet to the US and EU by resuming
uranium enrichment laboratory tests. Tehran is not heeding a
mounting chorus of warnings from its foes in the west and even
its friends in Moscow. 

`We wonâ be bullied,â said Iranâs Persident, Mahmoud
Ahamdinejad, who denied Iran has nuclear ambitions and insisted
his nation had every right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty to enrich uranium to produce electrical power. 

In a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black, the US
and Israel - both nuclear powers - accuse Iran of secretly
developing nuclear weapons in violation of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. They offer no confirming proof of this charge, just more
so-called leaks from `high-level administration sourcesâ in
the US accusing Iran of working on a nuclear delivery system. We
saw precisely the same pattern in the run-up to the invasion of
Iraq. 

Tehran accuses the west of nuclear apartheid and hypocrisy,
citing the Bush Administrationâs recent pact to provide fuel
and technology to Indiaâs nuclear programs, which Washington
formerly condemned. India has an estimated 100 nuclear weapons
and is building land and sea-launched missiles that can strike
the continental United States. Only Muslim nations, (Pakistan
excepted since itâs a reliable US ally) it seems, are not to
be allowed nuclear weapons. 

Given that US and Israel are already probing Iranâs defenses
and may soon outright attack Iran, and threats from the EU to
impose sanctions, one suspects Iran would not likely risk so
much unless it is racing to make nuclear weapons. Or, it has
simply decided to seek a showdown with the US and its allies. 

Note: Iran has not violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty(which nuclear-armed Israel, India, North Korea and
Pakistan never even signed). So Iran may be punished for
agreeing to international inspection of nuclear facilities while
those nations that refused to cooperate with efforts to limit
nuclear weapons are being studiously ignored. In fact, the head
of the UN nuclear agency was recently in Israel and failed to
say anything about its secret nuclear arsenal, estimated at 200
nuclear warheads. 

UN monitors say Iran may have concealed some questionable
activities â even these charges are hotly disputed - but did
not violate the treaty. Western experts believe if Iran is
indeed secretly working on nuclear arms, it is still 5-10 years
away from being able to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. 

The US recently admitted to losing thousands of documents and
tins of radioactive material from its nuclear program. Iran is
being asked to adhere to a much higher level of accountability
and record-keeping than the USA. 

A `deliverable nuclear warheadâ means a compact, lightweight
nuclear device that can withstand the g-forces and heat of being
carried in a missile warhead. The recent brouhaha over a New
York Times story claiming leaked data from a purloined Iranian
laptop computer showing Iran was working on a nuclear missile
warhead has been dismissed by a leading American expert as
erroneous. 

The design in question dealt with a conventional missile
warhead, not one designed to carry a nuclear weapon. But no
matter. The New York Times, continuing to act as a mouthpiece
for administration war propaganda, trumpeted these latest
spurious charges.
 
Why would Iran seek nuclear arms? What motivates Iranâs new
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to challenge the west? 

Iranians see themselves threatened by the US, Britain, Israel
and Russia. Iran is now surrounded by US bases in Iraq,
Afghanistan, the Gulf, and Pakistan. Iranians feel historically
exploited and victimized by the great powers â and indeed,
they were.
 
In 1941, Britain and Soviets invaded Iran. This forgotten part
of WWII was an aggression every bit as criminal as Hitlerâs
1939 invasion of Poland. 

In 1952, the US and Britain overthrew Iranâs democratic
government after it tried to take the national oil company away
from British control. They imposed their puppet, the grotesque
Shah Reza Pahlevi, who inflicted a reign of terror and unbridled
thievery on Iranians. 

In 1980, the US and Britain engineered Saddam Husseinâs
invasion of Iran in an attempt to crush its new revolutionary
Islamic government. That war inflicted nearly one million
casualties on Iran. President Ahmadinejad led volunteers in the
war. 

Iranâs suffering at foreign hands has produced national fury,
paranoia, and xenophobia. Many Iranians have a `the world is
against usâ mentality, fear and hatred of Israel, which
threatens Iran with nuclear weapons, and belief the US or Russia
intends to seize Iranâs oil. 

The US invasion of Iraq has heightened these fears. Allocation
of funds by the US Congress to overthrow Iranâs elected
government, and the conviction among Iranians that Israel
controls US foreign policy accentuates Iranâs sense of growing
peril.
 
Accordingly, some militants insist Iran must have nuclear
weapons for self-defense. They point to nuclear-armed North
Korea, which forced Washington to back off threats of invasion
when it dug and threatened to fight to the death. Iraqâs
lesson is not lost on Iranians: if Saddam had nuclear weapons,
the US would not have invaded his nation.
 
Ironically, hard-line President Ahmadinejad is the only
democratically elected leader in the Mideast. But since taking
office, he has ignited an international firestorm by calling for
Israel to be `wiped off the map,â and the Jewish holocaust `a
myth.â While popular at home, these inflammatory statements
have brought international condemnation down in Iran. 

This recalls the PLOâs idiotic former spokesman, Ahmad
Shukairy, who proclaimed, on the eve of the 1967 Arab-Israeli
War, `we will drive the Jews into the sea!â This ludicrous
bombast gave Israel a perfect excuse to launch a surprise attack
on the Arabs, and seize large swathes of their territory. 

Similarly, Ahmadinejad just gave Israel a perfect excuse to
attack Iran. When this happens, there will be scant sympathy
around the globe for Iran . 

There is little doubt Israel is preparing to attack Iranâs
nuclear infrastructure, repeating its 1981 destruction of
Iraqâs Osirak reactor. The US has provided Israel long-ranged
F-15I strike aircraft and new deep penetrating bombs for this
mission. Israeli aircraft need only overfly Jordan, which is a
virtual US-Israeli protectorate, then US-controlled Iraq, to
reach Iran. A similar route would be used to attack Pakistanâs
nuclear infrastructure.
 
The western media is saying a leader who utters such dangerous
nonsense as Ahmadinejad cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Iranians would reply that unlike the US, Iran has not invaded
any other countries. 

Speaking of dangerous nonsense, was it not George Bush â who
commands the US nuclear button â who claimed Iraq had wmdâs
that menaced the world? Or that Iraqi germ-dispensing drones
were poised to attack a sleeping USA from lurking freighters in
the North Atlantic?
 
Ahmadinejad is picking this fight because his challenge to the
west and Israel hugely appeals to most Iranians. He seems to be
actually daring the US to attack Iran. 

Some Islamic militants are actually hoping for a US invasion of
Iran, which has 68 million people. Such an adventure, they
believe, would result in a major American defeat, just as the
Germans were broken in Russia. 

Ahmadinejad comes from the generation of Shia fighters that
faced eight years of savage, bloody war with Iraq â twice the
length of World War I. During this holocaust, they faced massed
bombardments, poison gas attacks, and the nightmare of trench
warfare. 

Iran used human wave suicide attacks, and sent teenage
volunteers to clear Iraqi minefields with their bodies. It was
the realization of the Shia creed of sacrifice and martyrdom in
a fight against hopeless odds. 

Having faced Saddamâs fury in an eight-year war in which
400,00 Iranian soldiers died and 600,000 were wounded, Iranians
do not fear George Bush. 

Like Bush, Ahmadinejad boasts, `bringâem on.â He assumes the
over-stretched US military can barely hold on to Iraq, never
mind invade Iran. A shutoff of Iranian oil exports would send
gas prices skyrocketing. And he knows that US forces in Iraq are
hostages to its Shia majority. Any attack on Iraq would invite
reprisals by Shias against US forces spread across Iraq. 

So, at least for now, it appears President Ahmadinejad has
decided to do a North Korea: that is, defy the western powers,
dig in, and be ready to fight to the last man. 

But Iran must also face the very real threat of punishing
UN-imposed sanctions, , unless they are vetoed by China or
Russia or even a US naval blockade The EU is proposing sanctions
as a way of trying to divert the US from military action, which
would damage Europe more than the United States.
 
Both Iran and its western oil customers may end up the losers in
such a confrontation. 

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2006
 
WRITERâS NOTEBOOK

*This week we laud the United States for its superb technology
and brilliant scientists who sent a space probe on a 3 billion
mile, 7-year odyssey around the sun to collect space dust, and
then returned, right on schedule, landing in Utah at the Dugway
Proving Grounds just a few miles from its intended aim point.
Truly, a near miraculous achievement in which all Americans
should take enormous pride. Now, if they can just do something
about all those perennially late airline
flightsâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚ.
 
*A US air strike on a Pakistani village late last week that
killed at least 18 civilians, many of them children, at the
religious feast of the Eid, provoked outrage and fury across
Pakistan. Acting on reports al-Qaida number two, Dr Ayman
al-Zawahiri was in the remote village, CIA Predator drones and
Air Force F-16âs heavily bombed a tribal compound. This was an
outright act of war against a close ally and worthy of Murder
Inc. No such attacks are acceptable without positive
identification of the intended targets. The attack once again
shows Pakistanis their military regime has become more
responsive to the demands of Washington than its own people. 

*Canadian elections are about as exciting as votes in Finland,
but this weekend marks a really interesting race between the
party of power, the Liberals, and the upstart Conservatives. The
Liberals have been in power far too long, becoming deeply
corrupt and arrogant. But they have frightened many Canadians
seeking change and cleaner government by comparing the
Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, toâŚ.George Bush. Well,
Harper is no Bush. In fact, heâs a rather unimpressive
politician with no charisma or strategic view, but at least he
has not been named in corruption. 

Alas, Canadaâs Conservatives have missed a golden opportunity
to turn their country into an economic powerhouse and world pace
setter by slashing high taxes, trimming regulations, and
reducing the size of their do-nothing, largely unnecessary,
bloated and voracious federal government. Canada would shine if
it adopted Switzerlandâs system of powerful Cantons and
minimalist federal government.
 
*Itâs amazing that the major US TV networks keep using
Pentagon-issued terminology in their new broadcasts long after
we have learned that much of what we were told about Iraq was a
pack of outright lies. US forces are `rebuilding Iraq,â says
US TV, heedless that it was the US that destroyed Iraq, which
was one of the Arab Worldâs most developed nations before
1991. `Terroristsâ are attacking US troops in Iraq, even
though the Geneva Conventions give all peoples the right to
oppose foreign invaders. Whenever civilians are killed by the US
military, the Pentagon promises `an investigation,â which, of
course, never happens. Iraq is the `frontline in the war on
terrorâ â except there was no terrorism there before the US
invasion. And so onâŚ..
 
*I am saddened to watch the new Boeing 777 twin-engine airliner
outselling the excellent Airbus four-engined A340 by ten to one.
Operating the 777 is cheaper, so airlines are snapping it up.
But think next time you are flying over the North Atlantic or
Pacific if you would rather be aboard a two or four-engine
plane. Engines are very reliable these days, but accidents and
shut-downs do happen â you just donât read about them. I
always prefer the A340 â itâs just more comfortable and
secure.
 
*A propos, I find American Airlines has pulled up its socks and
now again has pretty decent service and on-time ops. The same
cannot be said for Air Canada, which used to be a fine airline,
but is now degenerating into an ugly little sister of evil
Aeroflot â socialist services at capitalist prices. I find
British Airways to be very good and fly them often; ditto for
Air France. Lufthansa is austere and unfriendly but gets you
there alive. Avoid dreaded Alitalia, the flying labor strike.
 
***
 
PM 		
 	 	 	 	 	 		 	 				 		 		 		Comments: 		 				

About that airstrike in Pakistan&. 

1. Pakistans Govt. itself was involved, for sure. So it isnt
exactly an act of war. 

2. Even though it all went tits-up, I.. we Pakistanis.. still
have faith in our Govt. I didnt even know there was a protest
in Karachi. I live here and I didnt see it. Nobody really cares
what happens to a bunch of Taliban supporters. 

3. Our relationship with the US is growing. Despite everything. 

4. Somebody just rocket attacked a post in Bannu. This isnt an
American attack. Somebody wants to crack the US-Pakistan
alliance. 

5. Our intelligence sources say, Al-Qaeda was present in the
area and 4 or 5 of them did die. So some good came out of it, I
guess. If Zawahiri or any Al-Qaeda dies, it is good for the
country. These people dont belong here. 

Having said all that, I have to say, Im not comfortable with
the Americans at all. I dont trust them or like them. They are
crazy. They talk funny, they walk funny and they are sexually
dysfunctional. And worst of all, they dont play Cricket.
 - 

a similar route would be used to attack Pakistans nuclear
infrastructure 

Yeah& right& 

If they couldve, they wouldve. 		
Posted by Rampart at January 17, 2006 01:01 PM 				

About the A340 versus 777 thing, are you sure that it isnt a
case of the Boeing aircraft being superior in some way. If you
want to do a fair two versus four engines comparison, you may
wish to compare A340 and A330 sales, as the Airbus A330 is
essentially the same airframe as the A340, but with two engines
instead of four. 

Also, I know that Eric wants to restore flight engineers, but
Id be interested to know what his role would be. Is Eric a
full-bore traditionalist when it comes to flight deck design, or
would he be essentially as a backup for the electronic flight
instruments? 		
Posted by George Carty at January 18, 2006 04:34 AM 				

If there is any dysfunctional party in this whole gamble, its
the Govt. of Pakistan and not the American people. 

The rocket attack is not to crack US-Pakistan Alliance but to
create hatred among the two nations which of course is Indian
strategy to first Isolate Pakistan and then crush it, an old
dream which they will never achieve. 

Israel case is unique they did destroyed the Iraqi nuclear
reactor; they made attempts on Pakistan nuclear facilities. So,
why not they can try their luck again but they dont need to fly
from Israel when they can fly from an aircraft carrier. But one
thing which I donât understand is the Israel fear, because
Israel is a tiny place and there are a lot of Muslims living in
Israel and no one will try to kill Muslims even if they hat Jews
nobody will go to such an extent. Itâs not possible. Second,
it will not be possible for an extremist government at all to
use nuclear weapon as they will be following the strict code of
Islam which strictly prohibit killing innocent people whether
Jews or any other religion. 		
Posted by Peace at January 18, 2006 11:09 AM 				

Peace: 

Though I dont agree with you about the Govt. of Pakistan being
dysfunctional, I certainly do agree with you 200% about who is
behind these other rocket attacks which target our para-military
posts. Of course India is being it. Ever since the Yarami
Yindoos slithered back into Afdirtistan, weve had many little
troubles&. including the arms being supplied to criminals in
Balochistan. 

As for nukes& the Israeli fear is based on the fact that 80% of
the Jewish population lives on a strip of land that is 10 miles
wide and 100 miles long. As they say& they are only one nuke
wide. They cant afford to take a single hit. 

And yes, killing civilians is un-islamic. But I doubt that will
stop anyone from pressing DA BUTTON. 		
Posted by Rampart at January 18, 2006 01:33 PM 				

Rampart:
 >I certainly do agree with you 200% about who is behind these
other rocket attacks which target our para-military posts.< 

Aaaaah, do you think that maybe the one behind the paramilitary
posts on this forum (the one with the interestingly obscene
prose) is from India too? I wonder. (Im chuckling to myself,
because your phrase rang a bell in my mind on the subject) 		
Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at January 19, 2006 11:44 AM 				

Eric: 777s? A340? Bring back the Boeing 314, the Yankee Clipper
flying boats. Now THERE was a plane. And why the hell doesnt my
typewriter work on this thing???
 Bill 		
Posted by Bill at January 19, 2006 11:46 AM 				

Osamas truce offer => It is obvious now that Bush has been
misleading the people. It is better for you not to fight the
Muslims on their territory and we offer a long-term truce. 

&soooo& PR strategy to make himself look like a peace-maker - or
the crushing realisation that 

1. (since 1776) America is willing to endure endless attrition
and global condemnation in order to win any war that is
important to them; and 

2. Their bombs-by-remote-control will never stop (given the
latest assertion that the widely-condemned recent US
drone-bombing killed 4 Al-Quaida execs) 

&just wondering. 		
Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at January 19, 2006 12:16 PM 				

â˘ The sorrows of empire : militarism, secrecy, and the end of
the Republic, by Johnson, Chalmers A. 

â˘ The new Pearl Harbor : disturbing questions about the Bush
administration and 9/11 by Griffin, David Ray. 

â˘ Ghost wars : the secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and
bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001 by
Coll, Steve. 

â˘ In the Hand of the Taliban: Her Extraordinary Story by Yvonn
Ridley. 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html

May be it wont make any sense either. 		
Posted by Peace at January 19, 2006 03:57 PM 				

JonnyBoy: 

Im sorry, youve lost me. There be an Indian here? Who are you
talking about? Tell me so I can bite his arse off. 

A post btw, is our english for checkpoint or
observation-post. Someone is busy blowing ours up and it
doesnt make sense for the Americans to be doing that. (this is
a separate issue than the missile-strike) 

And what phrase did I use that rang a bell? Yarami Yindoo?
Substitute the Ys with Hs and you get a swear-word that
ought to be tattooed on every Indians forehead. We just use the
Y in case Eric has automatic swear-word blocking enabled. 		
Posted by Rampart at January 20, 2006 07:34 AM 				

Hello there!
 Concerning Iran.
 Greenback versas Euro.
 The smoke and mirrors of nuclear technolgy is great for the
read. ***Chuckle Chuckle*** 

IRAN HAS OIL, JUST LIKE CANADA. 
Iran has created a new monetary burse. This means that to buy
oil from Iran you must use EURO dollars to exchange for the
Iranian Oil. The GREENBACK will no longer be accepted. This
said, what would happen to the GREENBACK, and all BANKS dealing
in the GREENBACK. What will those with interest owed and
interest in do? Maybe PROTECT THE INTEREST. 

The ships are already at sea. 

^^Pray for all those whom choose freedom to choose.^^ 		
Posted by Why is a Cause, Not an Effect at January 21, 2006
05:33 PM 				

What will happen to greenback? Greenback will turn into toilet
paper, thats what will happen. 

What does the US make anyway? Everything & every consumer item
of any use& can be had from China& or any of dozens of Asian
countries. The Dollar cant fly on its own. 

The only option for them to stop this from happening is to do
something very stupid& like attack Iran. 		
Posted by Rampart at January 22, 2006 01:47 AM 		 	 	 	 	 					
			

 			Post a comment 			 				 

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you
haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved
by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then,
it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) 

*****************************************************************
 20 Lew Rockwell: Iran's Bomb 

by Charley Reese
 

There's been a lot of talk recently about Israel and/or the
United States bombing the nuclear facilities in Iran. I wouldn't
worry about that. I believe they are both bluffing. 

In the first place, just the talk has kicked up the price of
oil. In the second place, there is no proof that Iran really
wants to develop nuclear weapons. So far, what the Iranians have
done and propose to do are legal. They have a reasonable
explanation for why they want to develop nuclear power. Oil is
their biggest and most valuable export. The less they use for
domestic purposes, the more they will have to export. 

On the other hand, they are surrounded by nuclear powers 
Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India and the U.S. (through its heavy
presence in the Persian Gulf and Iraq). So maybe they do want to
develop a nuclear bomb. Personally, I don't care if they do.
Having lived most of my life with 30,000 nuclear warheads and
the means to deliver them in the Soviet Union, I'm not going to
worry about the Iranians having six or seven. 

I'm not one of those people who think the world will end with a
nuclear explosion. There have been a lot of nuclear explosions.
We dropped two on Japan, and all the nuclear powers tested their
bombs in the atmosphere as well as underground. Despite the
urban legends about plutonium, we are all still here. A nuclear
weapon is, after all, a bomb, and like all bombs there is a
limit to its radius of destruction. As Brother Dave Gardner put
it, the place to be when a nuclear bomb goes off is wherever you
can say, "What was that?" 

In the meantime, what the United States should do is talk to the
Iranians, instead of talking at them, threatening them and
insulting them. Civil discourse and honest diplomacy are too
much to ask of this reckless and immature administration, which,
despite evidence to the contrary, seems to believe it can bully
the whole world into doing its bidding. 

Right now, the U.S. is banking on getting the International
Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
Winning this vote is not a certainty, but even if the U.S. does,
Russia or China would likely veto any attempt to apply sanctions
on Iran. A high-ranking Chinese official has just publicly
announced that Iran is to become China's major trading partner.
Russia has a heavy investment in Iran's nuclear facilities.
President George W. Bush is about to have his bubble of
delusions pricked. We are not the world's only superpower, and
there are plenty of people who don't jump when Bush snaps his
fingers. 

As for the Israelis, they would attack Iran in a New York second
 if they had the capability, and I don't believe they do. If
they take a northern route, they will need permission from
Turkey to use its airspace. They won't get it. If they fly to
the south through airspace we control, they would need our
permission, and that's not at all certain. Moreover, they don't
have the planes capable of taking enough ordnance to do
sufficient damage to fortified, underground installations that
are widely dispersed. 

Iran, despite its problems, is not without the means to
retaliate, whether attacked by Israel or the U.S. One thing the
Iranians might do is wreck the oil facilities in Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia, as well as closing the valves on their own oil.
This would throw the world oil market into chaos, and the world
economy would quickly follow. 

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are far too close to the oil
industry to risk that kind of worldwide economic train wreck. 

Presumably, we didn't want Israel to have the bomb, but the
Israelis built them anyway. Ditto Pakistan, India and North
Korea. In the end, despite the hot rhetoric, if the Iranians
want a bomb, they will probably end up building it. That might
cause the Israelis to lose a little sleep  though not much, as
they have 200 nuclear weapons  but it shouldn't bother us in
the least. 

The Iranians are just as sensible and levelheaded as anyone
else. Don't buy the propaganda that they are all a bunch of
crazies. They've been around a lot longer than we have. I would
trust them with nuclear weapons as much as  perhaps even a hair
more than  I trust Bush. Americans must stop allowing
politicians and propagandists to scare them into reckless
behavior. 

January 21, 2006 
Charley Reese [send 
  
        to LewRockwell.com Home Page  
*****************************************************************
 21 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Return to nuclear talks   
        
With news of a positive note coming both from Pyongyang and
Washington, the six parties to the talks on North Korea's
nuclear weapons program may well dust off their September 2005
accord on denuclearization and prepare to restart negotiations
on its implementation.

 If no progress should be made in the nuclear talks, it would
hamper North Korea's effort to revive its moribund economy with
outside help and hinder the U.S. effort to stop the spread of
nuclear weapons. Nor would it serve the interests of other
parties.

 It was heartening to hear that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il
committed again to denuclearization during his recent China
tour. Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency reported
last week that Kim and Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed to
maintain the "stand of seeking a negotiated peaceful solution"
to the nuclear issue.

 Washington also made an encouraging gesture when it stressed
the need to break the deadlock in negotiations and persuade
Pyongyang to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. It said that
it sent a "strong, clear message that we are prepared to resume
the six-party talks," which have been stalled since November
last year.

 But the major obstacle to restarting the talks is the financial
sanctions Washington imposed on North Korea, which is accused of
counterfeiting U.S. $100 bills and circulating them massively.
During his talks with Hu, Kim alluded to the sanctions when he
called for a joint effort with the Chinese "to overcome the
difficulties in the six-way talks and to find a way to move
forward."

 In response, Washington demanded Pyongyang return to the talks
"at the earliest possible date" and "without preconditions." It
maintained the financial sanctions and the talks are not
connected in any way.

 On the contrary, the imposition of the sanctions and the fate
of the talks remain closely related insofar as Pyongyang is
balking at the idea of returning to the nuclear negotiations,
citing the punitive measures as a hindrance.

 Not that North Korea did well to deny any wrongdoing, saying
that U.S. evidence to justify the sanctions is "baseless"
fiction. No such allegation came from China when Washington
accused one of its banks in Macau of being a front for North
Korea's forgery. The U.S. Treasury Department told American
financial institutions in September to stop dealing with the
Macau bank.

 It is Pyongyang, not Washington, that will have to take the
initiative in settling the dispute. Just as it acknowledged a
couple of years ago that it had previously abducted Japanese
citizens, so it should admit to engaging in counterfeiting, if
it actually did so. The next step would have to be to promise
not to repeat the illicit business. Then it could ask Washington
to lift the sanctions as soon as possible.

 It would not do Pyongyang any good if it should say, as
reported to that effect by a Japanese news agency, that it would
crack down on the illegal financial activities and punish those
involved if the United States could prove they took place.

 Such remarks would be misleading. In a tightly controlled
society like North Korea, however, who would be capable of
producing such high-quality fake dollar bills as $100
"supernotes" if not instructed and assisted by a government
agency? Pyongyang would have to stop the charade if it wished to
regain even a semblance of trust from the international
community.

 Should Pyongyang decide to repent its past wrongdoing and take
remedial measures, Washington would be well advised to
reciprocate it by lessening the scope of and reducing the
duration of its financial sanctions. Then they would have to
hasten to reopen negotiations on the denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula, in which they and other parties have large
stakes.

2006.01.23
 
*****************************************************************
 22 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: South warns North on counterfeits

January 23, 2006 KST 14:24

  January 23, 2006 ¤Ń Amid tightening U.S. efforts to end North
Korea's illegal financial activities, including counterfeiting
U.S. currency, South Korea's Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said
over the weekend that Seoul is deeply concerned over the matter
and has already delivered its warning to Pyongyang. 

In an interview with CNN on Saturday, Mr. Ban said, "We have
conveyed our concerns to North Korean authorities." He also
added that Seoul understands the U.S. position that sanctions
against the North are nothing more than Washington's law
enforcement. "At the same time," he said, "we hope that this
kind of counterfeiting or illicit activities by North Korea will
not stand in the way of the six-party talks."

 Mr. Ban was in Washington to attend strategic talks with his
U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. 
Meanwhile in Seoul, a delegation from the U.S. Treasury
Department arrived Saturday to consult with the South Korean
government regarding North Korea's alleged money laundering and
printing of fake U.S. dollars. Washington believes that the
North has been financing its nuclear weapons programs through
drug smuggling and currency counterfeiting. 

Daniel Glacer, deputy assistant secretary for terrorist
financing and financial crimes at the treasury, led the
delegation. The team will stay in Korea until Tuesday. The
officials scheduled a series of meetings with officials at
Seoul's Foreign, Finance and Unification ministries as well as
the National Intelligence Service. 

The team last week visited Hong Kong and Macao to investigate
the case involving Banco Delta Asia's suspected money laundering
of North Korea's dirty currency. 

After U.S. warnings and withdrawals of funds by other
depositors, the Macao-based bank cut off its dealings with
Pyongyang. The North has been complaining about the U.S. actions
and refusing to schedule the next round of six-party talks. 

by Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr>   
	  
   
by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 23 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: [OUTLOOK]New U.S. diplomacy carries risks

January 23, 2006 KST 14:24 (GMT+9)                                                      
 		 	   	   		 	   	   		 	   	   		 	   	 	 
  In the first strategic consultation for allied partnership
ever between the foreign ministers of the United States and
Korea, the two countries have reached a fundamental agreement on
the much-debated "strategic flexibility." Seoul acknowledges
that the United States has the strategic flexibility to relocate
its forces in Korea to conflicts in other parts of the world;
Washington respects Korea's position that U.S. forces will not
intervene in regional conflicts in Northeast Asia. The agreement
merges the positions of the two countries together in a written
statement.

 In the short run, we will not encounter serious trouble.
Beijing wants to maintain peaceful relations with the United
States in order to devote itself to economic development, and
Washington hopes to see China as a responsible counterpart to
keep its democratic and peaceful diplomacy on the rails.
However, in the long run, the merger might crack if the
relationship between the United States and China worsens. 
We have cleared one high wave, of military transformation.
However, the ocean never rests. Now the wave of transformational
diplomacy awaits. We need to study the characteristics of the
coming wave and exploit it. 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave a lecture titled
"Transformational Diplomacy" at Georgetown University in
Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. At her confirmation hearing early
last year, Ms. Rice gave advance notice that the U.S. Department
of State would follow the principles of transformational
diplomacy. She outlined the specifics at her recent lecture. The
State Department gave an exceptionally detailed explanation of
the concept after the speech.

 Along with military transformation, transformational diplomacy
is the driving force to promote the national security strategy
of the United States in the 21st century. A military
transformation is now under way. Intelligence gathering and
networking are the central axes, in order to respond to the new
security threats, such as terrorism.

 Similarly, transformational diplomacy aims to widen the
knowledge network for the worldwide propagation of liberty,
which is Washington's new goal for the 21st century. 

First, let's take a look at the network diplomacy. Washington
plans to rearrange its diplomats. It will drastically change the
current Europe-oriented structure, in which Germany, whose
population is 80 million, and India, whose population is more
than 1 billion, are assigned the same number of diplomats.
Instead of placing diplomats mainly in the capitals of each
nation, Washington plans to expand diplomatic centers to cover
multiple nations in a region at the same time and to use
region-based diplomacy and one-man post diplomacy.

 Let's look at the knowledge diplomacy. In the new network, the
United States will propagate the American model of liberty
directly around the world with the help of rapidly developing
information technology, as well as military and economic
diplomacy. A specific example is "Cafe U.S.A.," an online
community run by the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, which lists
U.S.-Korea news and issues. Washington also hopes to transform
its modern diplomats into multi-functional diplomats fit for the
21st century.

 East Asia, including the Korean Peninsula, is one of the
regions going through these changes. Just as military
transformation has given ubiquity to the U.S. troops in Korea,
transformational diplomacy has begun to cast a net of new
diplomacy. In order to propagate freedom in a region inhibited
by 2 billion people, 30 percent of the world's population of 6.5
billion, Washington is reconstructing the conventional
state-oriented diplomacy into a more multi-dimensional and
robust structure.

 If we don't have a proper understanding of how the meaning of
diplomacy between Seoul and Washington is changing amid
North-East Asian diplomacy set for the propagation of freedom,
we are destined to once again experience a collision between
19th century conventional diplomacy and the 21st century new
diplomacy of the United States.

 Transformational diplomacy approaches the North Korean nuclear
issue, the biggest pending matter regarding peace on the Korean
Peninsula and North-East Asia, from a new angle. If the
six-party talks, a tool of modern diplomacy, fail to resolve the
nuclear problem easily, Washington will more aggressively seek a
solution through transformational diplomacy. 
In that case, North Korea's governing philosophy of peace under
an absolute leader, and the American position of peace under
liberal democracy will collide directly, and Seoul, which
focuses on inter-Korean peace, will be forced to make a very
difficult choice. 

* The writer is a professor of international relations at Seoul
National University. Translated by JoongAng Daily staff.
 
by Ha Young-sun   
	  
  2006.01.22       

Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 24 Korea Times: NK Leader's Outings Soared Last Year 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Seo Dong-shin Staff Reporter

 North Korean leader Kim Jong-il last year made the most annual
public appearances since he took over from his father in 1994,
the Unification Ministry said Sunday. 

The public appearances of the reclusive leader were, as usual,
largely ones related to military affairs or meetings with
officials of the communist NorthĄŻs traditional allies such as
China and Russia, the ministry said in an analysis.

 ``Following the year 2003 and 2004, Kim focused more than half
of his public activities on military-related affairs,ĄŻĄŻ the
analysis said. ``Checking up the militaryĄŻs war preparedness,
Kim showed his commitment to protect the system and `songun
politicsĄŻ both in and outside his country.ĄŻĄŻ Songun means
military-first in Korean, under which the North drives its
policy centering on the military. 

Kim has steadily increased his number of public appearances with
military reference since 2002, apparently feeling threatened by
the nuclear crisis in October 2002, when the United States
confronted the North with allegations of secret enrichment of
uranium, as well as by the Iraq War in March 2003, the ministry
said.

 Out of 99 public appearances in 2002, 38 were military-related.
In 2004, it was 60 out of 92, and last year 70 out of 131,
according to the data.

 The ministry attributed the sudden rise in the number of public
appearances last year to a variety of festivities marking the
fifth anniversary of the June 15 Inter-Korean Joint Declarations
and the 60th anniversary of KoreaĄŻs liberation from the
Japanese colonial rule as well as the foundation of the NorthĄŻs
WorkersĄŻ Party.

 ``Meetings with foreigners is disproportionately focused on
those from traditional allies like China and Russia,ĄŻĄŻ the
ministry said. ``Kim tends to use the improvements in the
bilateral relations with them to break through the difficulties
regarding the nuclear crisis and to lighten the economic
hardships.ĄŻĄŻ

 Noting that the frequency of KimĄŻs visits to the sites of
agricultural and light industries has been also on the rise, the
ministry predicted that the tendency would continue this year as
well.

 ``While showing that there is no change in the songun policy of
placing the greatest priority on military visits, Kim is
expected to also focus on visiting sites where he can encourage
economic development,ĄŻĄŻ the ministry said, citing the NorthĄŻs
official New YearĄŻs editorial that emphasized rebuilding and
modernization of its economy and KimĄŻs recent visit to China.

 During his stay in China, Kim inspected special economic zones
in the southern part of that country. 

saltwall@koreatimes.co.kr 01-22-2006 20:07         
  
*****************************************************************
 25 AFP: US team in Seoul to discuss NKorean financial wrongdoing -
     
 Sun Jan 22, 5:18 AM ET 		 	 

SEOUL (AFP) - US Treasury officials have arrived in Seoul to
discuss North Korea" /> North Korea's alleged dollar
counterfeiting and laundering activities, which prompted
Washington to impose tough sanctions. 


 A US team headed by Daniel Glaser, the deputy assistant
secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes, arrived
here late Saturday for a four-day visit, South Korean foreign
ministry spokesman Ko Ki-Seok said. 

"He visits South Korea" /> South Koreafrom January 21 through
24," Ko told AFP, adding Glaser's full itinerary was not
immediately available. Officials at the US embassy refused to
elaborate on the agenda for Glaser's visit. 

The US team was due to brief South Korean government and
intelligence officials on Monday about its investigations of
alleged North Korean financial crimes, Seoul's Yonhap news
agency reported, citing an unnamed source. 

Glaser visited Hong Kong and Macau last week to discuss US
concerns about illicit North Korean financial activities before
coming to Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo, according to the US Treasury
Department" /> Treasury Department. 

He called for "the need for rapid practical steps" to stop North
Korea's counterfeiting and laundering activities after his tour
of the southern Chinese territories. 

The US Treasury Department in September told US financial
institutions to stop dealing with Banco Delta Asia, a Macau
bank, which it accused of being a front for North Korean
counterfeiting. 

A month later Washington blacklisted eight North Korean
companies allegedly involved in the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. 

Denying the US claims, North Korea has denounced the US
sanctions and boycotted the six-way talks aimed at ending its
nuclear weapons drive. 

Pyongyang has said it will only return to the talks -- which
also involve the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and
Russia -- if Washington lifts the sanctions. The last round of
negotiations ended in stalemate in November. 

North Korea agreed in September to give up its nuclear weapons
program in return for a US security guarantee and other economic
and diplomatic benefits. 

China reportedly proposed that the talks resume in early
February when North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il visited Beijing
last week. 

The Seoul-based JoongAng daily quoted a diplomatic source on
Saturday as saying China had asked North Korea to return to the
six-party forum during the second week of February. 

	 		 			
Copyright Š 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 26 Daily News of Newburyport: Scientific fact takes a back seat in George Bush's White House

Sunday, January 22, 2006   

The Food and Drug Administration bans over-the-counter sales of
an emergency contraceptive that its own science advisers say
would prevent half the nation's annual 3 million unintended
pregnancies.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wipes out
references to the proper use of condoms to prevent both
pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, and instead warns
that condoms might fail.

The Department of Health and Human Services cooks the books on
"abstinence-only" sex education by conveniently forgetting that
such programs have not been proven to diminish sexual activity
or teenage pregnancies.

The Department of Defense forsakes plans to mandate testing for
perchlorate, a chemical in solid rocket fuel that could endanger
the health of developing fetuses and infants should it
contaminate water or food supplies.

The Environmental Protection Agency suddenly changes its mind as
to whether the chemical benzene could pollute underground
sources of drinking water. First, it was yes, and then, it was
no. Benzene is used in a technology favored by Halliburton, the
company Vice President Dick Cheney used to run.

On and on it goes, from censoring a talk on agricultural
pollution, to trying to convince the public that abortions cause
breast cancer, to diminishing the reality of global warming.

It might be a bit of a jump to suggest that the Bush
administration is leading America backward into the Dark Ages.
But its attitude toward science threatens our health,
technological progress and economy.

With a few exceptions, the Bush attack on science has received
little media attention. Shame on the media, because this is one
huge story.

In February 2004, a group of 60 scientists, including Nobel
laureates and science advisers to past presidents, charged the
Bush administration with manipulating science and censoring
scientists for political reasons.

Princeton University physicist Val Fitch, a Nobel Prize
recipient who served on a science advisory committee under
President Richard Nixon, told the Knight-Ridder news service, "I
don't recall it ever being so blatant in the past. It's just
time after time after time. The facts have been distorted."

In August 2003, U.S. House Democratic staffers reported, "The
administration's political interference with science has led to
misleading statements by the president, inaccurate responses to
Congress, altered Web sites, suppressed agency reports,
erroneous international communications, and the gagging of
scientists."

Who benefits? The right-wing social conservatives and certain
industries.

How does the Bush White House accomplish this agenda? "By
manipulating scientific advisory committees," the staff
reported, "by distorting and suppressing scientific information,
and by interfering with scientific research and analysis."

Three national experts on lead poisoning were shooed off the
Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and
replaced with folks with ties to the lead industry. A nominee
for chairman of the Reproductive Health Drug Advisory Committee
was an anti-abortion activist who had recommended that women
seeking relief of premenstrual symptoms read the Bible.

Whether the issue is work place safety or stem cell research,
the Bush presidency is setting America back years. The insanity
has leached into Congress, which last month cut federal
scientific research funds, this at a time when leaders of all
political persuasions in both the public and private sectors say
that America must keep its scientific and technological edge to
compete in the global economy.

As bad as the congressional cuts are, at least the rationale was
budget control, not an attempt to placate corporate contributors
fearing regulation or Bible-thumpers who see science as an enemy
of God.

It's not just Democrats who worry. Russell Train and William
Ruckelshaus, Environmental Protection Agency administrators in
previous GOP administrations, have criticized the Bush White
House for skewing what should be objective scientific inquiry.

But most congressional Republicans fall in line, as they did on
May 18, 2004, when House Democrats John Tierney of
Massachusetts' North Shore and Henry Waxman of California tried
to create an independent commission to investigate how the Bush
administration was politicizing science: It failed by 25 votes.

"Leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, have said the
political and ideological distortion of science is a major block
to effective government on a wide range of health and
environmental issues," Tierney said that day.

Two months later, the number of scientists calling for the
"restoration of scientific integrity in federal policy-making"
grew from 60 to more than 5,000, including 48 Nobel laureates,
62 National Medal of Science recipients and 127 members of the
National Academy of Sciences.

But why should Bush listen? He talks directly to the gods of
corporate America and the God of the universe. 

Scientists? We don't need no stinking scientists!

Alan Lupo, a veteran Boston columnist who writes regularly for
these pages, can be reached at alupo@comcast.net   
  
Š Copyright Eagle Tribune Publishing Company. All rights
reserved. 
 100 Turnpike Street, North Andover, MA 01845  978-946-2000 
*****************************************************************
 27 Independent: Bush wades in to help GE in BNFL sell-off 

Blair lobbied over $4bn disposal of Westinghouse 

By Katherine Griffiths in New York 

Published: 22 January 2006 

George Bush has been using his special relationship with Tony
Blair to push for a US company to win the fight for
Westinghouse, the Pittsburgh-based nuclear business put up for
sale by its current owner, British Nuclear Fuels. 

The discreet lobbying emerged as final bids of about $4bn
(Ł2.25bn) - twice its initial valuation - were submitted
yesterday for Westinghouse, acquired by BNFL in 1999. 

The US President voiced support for a bid by General Electric,
the giant US conglomerate, in a conversation he had with the
Prime Minister in recent days. America's Commerce Secretary,
Carlos Gutierrez, has also written to Alan Johnson, the Trade
and Industry Secretary, backing GE's bid. 

The efforts by Mr Bush and Mr Gutierrez reflect mounting concern
on Capitol Hill about the ownership of Westinghouse, which
designs and builds nuclear reactors. It has been British owned
since 1999; despite this, several members of the administration
do not now want it to be sold to a foreign bidder. 

Two of the final bidders are Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
and Toshiba. Some US politicians fear that one of these
companies could share Westinghouse's cutting-edge nuclear
technology with China. The third bidder to submit an offer by
yesterday's deadline was GE. 

In recent weeks Toshiba and Mitsubishi have looked like the
favourites because their offers were the highest. 

It is possible that GE, which has recently teamed up with
another Japanese company, Hitachi, has raised its own offer. 

However, if GE were to win Westinghouse without offering the
highest price, there could be a political backlash in the UK.
The proceeds from the sale, minus $600m for historic clean-up
liabilities, would go to the Treasury because BNFL is state
owned. If Westinghouse were to go to GE for political reasons,
it would be British taxpayers who would suffer financially,
which could trigger calls for a judicial review of the deal. 

Downing Street would not comment on Mr Bush's remarks to Mr
Blair over GE. They are understood to have been part of a wider
discussion over the joint strike fighter project. 

Mr Gutierrez said in his letter of 12 January to Mr Johnson that
"the Bush administration supports General Electric's bid".
Neither the DTI nor GE would comment. NM Rothschild, which has
handled the sale for BNFL, also declined to comment. 

Several other companies have expressed interest in Westinghouse
but have dropped out. They include the Louisiana-based
engineering company Shaw, whose bid was rejected by BNFL's board
and Rothschild in the first round of bidding. 

Another group, led by the former Exelon chief executive, Corbin
McNeil, and including the private equity firm Texas Pacific
Group, also dropped out. 

Š 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 28 Indian Express: Atomic lethargy

Monday, January 23, 2006          

That the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was unhappy about 
separating its civilian and military programmes was evident when 
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush signed 
the nuclear deal last July. Since then the DAE has found it 
difficult to come up, either quickly or credibly, with a 
separation plan that holds the key to ending Indias anomalous 
status in the global nuclear order. The failure of the latest 
round of consultations between Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and 
US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns last week has been 
blamed on DAEs reluctance to put its fast breeder programme on 
the civilian list.

Forget the Americans for a moment. Indian public has a right to
know the nature of the breeder programme  is it civilian or
military? The DAE apparently wants it both ways: a peaceful
facility with future military options. It is this twisted logic,
backed by decades of political self-deception, that has landed
India in a nuclear mess. It neither has a successful civilian
nuclear power programme nor a purposeful weapons programme.
Sanctimonious rhetoric over the decades from the Indian
political leadership that the nations nuclear programme was
entirely for peaceful purposes resulted in a mixed mandate for
the DAE and the loss of operational clarity. Separating civilian
and military programmes and making them both efficient has been
a long-neglected national need. After claiming the lions share
of the nations R money for nearly six decades, the DAE today
produces barely 3000 MW of power. On the strategic front,
instead of building the necessary plutonium production reactors,
the DAE has got into the bad habit of using its civilian
programme for military needs.

Why is the DAE, once a shining example of scientific
internationalism under its founder Homi Bhabha, now so opposed
to external engagement? Sanctions against the DAE since the
nuclear test of May 1974 have steadily forced it into the dark
corner of scientific isolationism. Manmohan Singh, however,
cannot let the DAEs fear of natural light undermine the
historic nuclear accord with the US. The DAEs concerns about
intellectual property relating to fast breeder reactors are not
impossible to negotiate with the Bush administration and the
International Atomic Energy Agency. The PM, however, must make
it clear to the DAE that he would not allow individual
prejudices of a particular department come in the way of
pursuing the national interest. After all the government is more
than the sum of its parts.

              Š 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 29 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine, Russia approve pricing mechanism for nuclear fuel

21.01.2006, 22.57

KIEV, January 21 (Itar-Tass) -- The Ukrainian company Energoatom
and the Russian company TVEL have developed and approved a
pricing mechanism for nuclear fuel to be supplied to Ukrainian
atomic power stations in 2006 and beyond. 

The agreement was reached at the talks between Ukrainian Fuel
and Energy Minister Ivan Plachkov and the head of Russias
Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, as well as
Energoatom President Yuri Nedashkovsky and TVEL Vice President
Anton Badenkov. 

Ukraine was supposed to start buying nuclear fuel from Russia in
2005 at the base price set in 2000. During this period,
Ukrainian nuclear power plants bought fuel assemblies with a
discount that was gradually reduced from 28 percent to 9
percent. However Energoatom convinced TVEL to keep the discount
for the base price. It also promised to buy more fuel. 

Kiriyenko confirmed that Russia would keep discounts on the
nuclear fuel for Ukrainian nuclear power plants. 

He said the two countries were finishing talks on new deliveries
of nuclear fuel for the period ending in 2010. The document will
envisage mutual deliveries for nuclear power engineering,
including uranium deliveries from Ukraine. 

Kiriyenko specified that the prices of nuclear fuel would be
fixed, depending on the situation in the world energy market. 

Badenkov said Energoatom, which is the operator of the existing
Ukrainian nuclear power plants (NPPs), had fully paid for the
nuclear fuel suppied in 2005. Fresh fuel will be delivered to
all of the 15 power units of the Ukrainian NPPs in 2006. 

TVEL, which produces nuclear fuel, has contracts with Ukraine
for about 50 years to come. 

All of the 15 power units of the Ukrainian NPPs work on Russian
fuel. Contracts for its supplies have been signed for the period
ending in 2010, and for some power units for the entire period
of operation. New power units  No. 2 at the Khmelnitsky NPP and
No. 4 at the Rovno NPP -- will be functioning until 2050, as a
minimum. 

Ukrainian NPPs account for 53 percent of national electricity
generation. 


Š ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 30 Tucson Citizen: Nuclear reactor restarted, solutions sought for coolant line

 The Arizona Republic 


PHOENIX - A shut-down reactor at the nation's largest nuclear
plant has been restarted, but the unit could operate at reduced
power levels for weeks as utility officials explore solutions to
a vibrating coolant pipe.

One of three reactors at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station had been taken out of service after operators discovered
a problem with a cooling line used when the unit shuts down. The
line experienced an "acoustic impact" that vibrated the line
beyond acceptable levels.

The reactor was restarted Friday, although crews failed to find
a quick fix. Plant operators say Palo Verde can operate safely
at reduced power levels until the problem is fixed. The other
two reactors at the plant remain at full power.

Palo Verde, about 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, supplies
electricity to about 4 million customers in Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas and California.

Arizona Public Service, which owns 29.5 percent of the plant and
operates it for a consortium of utility companies in four
states, has known about the vibrations since 2001, but the
problem became more pronounced after the utility installed new
steam generators this fall during the reactor's scheduled
refueling.

The utility detected the increased rattle and hum after
restarting the reactor before Christmas. After taking the
reactor out of service Tuesday, the utility attempted to weigh
down the pipe, a fix that proved unsuccessful.

Now, the utility has identified other potential short-term
remedies, including installation of hydraulic shock absorbers, a
dampener or clamps and springs that would offset the vibrations.

A permanent fix could include relocating a part on the shutdown
cooling line. Such a fix wouldn't be attempted until the reactor
receives its next refueling in about 18 months.

The loss of power in the reactor shouldn't immediately affect
the utility's ability to send electricity to homes and
businesses in metropolitan Phoenix. Electricity use is at its
lowest this time of year.

"The thing we need to be concerned about is the possibility of
these problems extending into the summer months when we
absolutely need that power to meet Arizona's electricity needs,"
said Kris Mayes, a member of the Arizona Corporation Commission,
which regulates electric utilities.

Palo Verde has been among the nation's top performing plants
since it opened in 1986. Its three reactors can produce nearly
4,000 megawatts of electricity.

The plant has experienced numerous outages over the past two
years that have resulted in more than a dozen shutdowns. Most
recently, two operating reactors at the plant were shut down in
October after regulators raised concerns about the emergency
cooling system design. The plant was restarted a week later
after a review. 								 								 								 							   							  
								 									ADVERTISEMENT 															 								
www.tucsoncitizen.com| Copyright Š 2006 Tucson Citizen

 All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy           
*****************************************************************
 31 Guardian Unlimited: Blair warned on 'rush for nuclear'
 
Peter Hain sounds the alert on hidden costs as Number 10 gears up 
to combat energy shortage           
 		
Gaby Hinsliff and Ned Temko
Sunday January 22, 2006
 		
A senior cabinet minister has warned the Prime Minister that 
controversial proposals to build new nuclear power stations 
across Britain have hidden costs and consequences for climate 
change.

Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Secretary, said the 
nuclear industry must prove it was a better bet than wind and 
wave power, arguing that its process - touted as better for the 
environment than dirty coal-fired stations - actually produced 
high amounts of carbon, which is linked to global warming.

His words will be seen not just as a shot across the bows of 
Downing Street, which wants a new generation of nuclear power 
stations, but as the outbreak of 'green wars' with the new Tory 
leader, David Cameron. Both men pride themselves on 
eco-friendliness.

Hain accused the Conservative leader of doing a U-turn on the
issue, revealing that the Tory leader had once criticised a
planned wind farm as a 'bird blender' - a reference to local
fears of birds flying into the spinning turbines - and yet made
great public play last week of switching his home energy bills
to a green supplier specialising in power derived from just such
wind farms.

The attack comes ahead of a government energy review to be
launched this week. This is designed to combat fears that the
lights in Britain could go out within two decades, as dwindling
domestic reserves force this country to depend on oil and gas
primarily from Russia and the Middle East.

Although the review has been viewed merely as a technicality
ahead of approving a new generation of nuclear power stations,
Hain told The Observer there would be no blank cheque for the
nuclear industry.

'The review has got to have the drains up on the costs of
nuclear: not just the upfront cost, the decommissioning costs,
the waste storage costs - they all in themselves have quite high
carbon emission consequences,' he said. 'There has to be an
assessment of what you could do with the billions that would be
spent on nuclear power, [if you spent it] on renewable energy.'

Hain's family home in south Wales is equipped with photovoltaic
cells, which trap solar energy to provide heating and hot water.
Not to be outdone, Cameron is considering installing a wind
turbine on his roof. Beneath the green stand-off lies a deeper
battle, however, for liberal voters. Hain admitted that Labour
had 'lost a lot of progressive opinion' which it must recapture
with new ideas.
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited Š Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 32 London Times: Nuclear revival doubles value of Westinghouse - 

Sunday Times -
                          
The Sunday Times        January 22, 2006

Dominic O'Connell and Tracey Boles

THE sale of Westinghouse, the nuclear-reactor maker, is set to 
raise almost $5 billion (2.8 billion) for the government, twice 
the original estimate. Bidders were this weekend submitting final 
offers to BNFL, the state nuclear agency that owns Westinghouse. 
BNFL's board, led by chairman Gordon Campbell, is expected to 
select a preferred bidder on Thursday.

The rising price of Westinghouse confirms the global revival of 
interest in nuclear power. This will be underlined when Malcolm 
Wicks, the energy minister, starts a review of energy policy 
tomorrow.

He is expected to give the clearest hint yet that Labour will 
give the green light to the controversial construction of new 
nuclear power stations. A team has been set up at the Department 
of Trade and Industry to look at new nuclear plants.Westinghouse 
and Canada's Candu are regarded as favourites to build the 
plants.

Wicks's consultation document will propose greater use of clean 
coal and innovative technologies such as carbon capture and 
undersea carbon-dioxide storage to bring down levels of 
greenhouse gases. Decisions are expected in the summer.

Analysts had thought Westinghouse might fetch $2 billion. But a 
last-minute bidding war between two Japanese groups, Toshiba and 
Mitsubishi, and the American conglomerate General Electric, is 
understood to have pushed offers close to $5 billion.

A blow-out price would be a coup for Campbell and BNFL's senior 
management. Whitehall sources said yesterday it had resisted 
Treasury pressure to go for a quick sale of Westinghouse 12 
months ago, arguing that growing interest in nuclear power would 
push up the price.

Sources close to the negotiations said the Japanese bidders 
appeared to be in the lead on price, but that American concerns 
over the sale could yet hamstring the deal.

Last week the Japanese bidders appeared to be trying to head off 
American criticism by forging alliances with American partners. 
Mitsubishi teamed up with the Washington Group, an influential 
American defence-services and construction company, while Toshiba 
has joined forces with the Shaw Group, and GE was reported 
yesterday to have found a Japanese partner in Hitachi.

Meanwhile, the government is drawing up plans for a mandatory 
emissions-trading scheme for British industry that goes far 
beyond the one already in place in Europe. It precedes a review 
of the government's flagging climate-change programme expected in 
a few weeks.

The wide-ranging emissions-trading scheme is one option being 
seriously considered as Britain struggles to meet its 
climate-change obligations. Britain has pledged to make 
significant carbon savings by 2010.

The scheme will extend to sectors not covered by the European 
scheme or current climate- change agreements, including 
retailing, manufacturing and the public sector.

BNFL had intended to use Westinghouse as a cornerstone of an 
international nuclear- energy business. But Labour has instigated 
a shake-up of the state nuclear industry. A new agency, the 
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, has assumed responsibility for 
the 60 billion clean-up of Britain's nuclear legacy, while BNFL 
is to be broken up and sold off. 



Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 33 Casper Star-Trib: Wyo has equal say in proposed buyout
 
Casper, Wyoming - Saturday, January 21, 2006    
  
By ROBERT W. BLACK
Star-Tribune capital bureau 

[oas:casperstartribune.net/news/wyoming:Middle1]   

CHEYENNE -- Wyoming, the state with the fewest souls, will have
a hearty say in a major corporate transaction -- one that would
affect nearly half the state's residents.

Wyoming is one of six states in which PacifiCorp operates, so
state regulators have the power to approve or reject a $9.4
billion bid by MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. to acquire the
Portland, Ore.-based utility that supplies 70 percent of
Wyoming's power.

PacifiCorp operates in Wyoming as Pacific Power and is the
largest utility in the state with 128,000 customers, according
to Bob Tarantola, Wyoming vice president for Pacific Power.

At a hearing to be conducted Monday by the Wyoming Public
Service Commission, each of two dozen interested parties --
mainly large industrial users -- will be allowed to testify on
the proposed buyout. They will also face cross-examination by
the commission and its staff. 

"The procedure is very similar to that found in a civil trial in
court," said Steve Oxley, PSC secretary and chief counsel.

The hearing, open to the public, begins at 9 a.m. Monday in
Suite 300 of the Hansen Building at 2515 Warren Ave. in Cheyenne.

Wyoming has about 223,000 households, and of those, 101,000
receive electricity from Pacific Power. The utility also
supplies power to 24,000 commercial, 2,300 industrial and 400
irrigation customers.

The industrial base accounts for 60 percent of Pacific Power's
Wyoming revenues, Tarantola said. Customers such as BP Amoco,
Marathon Oil, Exxon Mobil and southwest Wyoming's soda ash
producers will be represented at the hearing.

On Friday, many of those industrial users joined the Wyoming
Infrastructure Authority and Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocate
in signing an agreement with PacifiCorp and MidAmerican Energy
to protect Pacific Power customers from large rate hikes and
boost Wyoming's energy output.

"We intervened to seek commitments from MidAmerican as a
condition of this acquisition they're making, that they take a
serious look at making investments in Wyoming, including
transmission facilities and new generating facilities," said
Steve Waddington, executive director of the Infrastructure
Authority.

The commitments, he said, "augur the potential for significant
investment and jobs in Wyoming, including electrical
transmission and new clean-coal generation facilities."

The agreement, if approved by the Public Service Commission,
will also enhance reliability and efficiency of the electricity
delivery system and improve customer service, according to Bryce
Freeman, administrator of the Office of Consumer Advocate.

In addition, the deal provides that MidAmerican and PacifiCorp
will not support legislation that would repeal the office.

Settlement agreements had earlier been reached with intervening
parties in four other states where PacifiCorp operates --
California, Idaho, Oregon and Utah -- according to Keith Hartje,
a spokesman for MidAmerican Energy. Talks are continuing in
Washington.

Regulators in Oregon initially balked at the sale because of
concern that consumers weren't being afforded enough protection
from rate hikes. But those wrinkles have been ironed out and
last month, the Oregon Public Utility Commission signed an
agreement similar to Wyoming's.

However, the sale itself has not yet been approved by regulators
in any of the six states.

On the national level, the proposal has been OK'd by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and Department of Justice. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will also weigh in because of
PacifiCorp's interest in the now-closed Trojan Nuclear Power
Plant in Oregon.

MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. was purchased in 2000 by
Berkshire Hathaway Inc., whose CEO is famed investor Warren
Buffett.

Buffett is ranked the second-wealthiest American by Forbes
magazine with a net worth of $40 billion. Berkshire Hathaway is
ranked 12th on the Fortune 500 with revenues of $74.3 billion in
2004.

Among MidAmerican's subsidiaries is the Kern River pipeline,
which stretches from southwestern Wyoming to Southern California.

MidAmerican provides electricity or natural gas to 5 million
customers worldwide and had $20 billion in assets and $6.6
billion in revenue in 2004, according to its Web site.

PacifiCorp, which has 1.6 million customers, merged with
Glasgow, Scotland-based ScottishPower in 1999.

Under terms announced last May, MidAmerican would buy PacifiCorp
for $9.4 billion, which includes $5.1 billion in cash and
assumption of $4.3 billion in debt.

Capital bureau reporter Robert W. Black can be reached at (307)
632-1244 or robert.black@casperstartribune.net. 


  Copyright Š 2006 by the Casper Star-Tribune published by Lee
*****************************************************************
 34 RIA Novosti: Russia wants to build NPPs with Ukraine in third countries - PM
 
21/ 01/ 2006                                  

KIEV, January 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has asked Ukraine to
partner with it in constructing nuclear power plants in third
countries, the Ukrainian prime minister said Saturday. Yuriy
Yekhanurov said he had discussed nuclear fuel supplies to
Ukraine, the disposal of nuclear waste and the joint use of
nuclear power plants with Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the
Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power. 

Kiriyenko said Russia was interested in Ukrainian products,
including turbines, automatic control systems and pumps. 

He said his meeting with Yekhanurov "would boost the development
of bilateral relations in the nuclear sphere". 

"Ukraine and Russia have serious plans to build nuclear power
plants," he said. 

Kiriyenko also said the two countries were drafting a new
agreement on nuclear fuel supplies until 2010. 

"Prices would be mutually beneficial," he said. 


		Š 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 35 BBC: Call to halt nuclear power plans
 
Last Updated: Monday, 23 January 2006
 
[Dounreay power station]                                

The energy review will look at the need for more nuclear plants                                                                

Opposition parties and green campaigners have claimed Scotland 
does not need new nuclear power stations. 

The SNP, Scottish Greens and Friends of the Earth said there was 
already plenty of wind, tidal and wave power. 

The UK Government is due to announce an energy review on Monday 
looking at the issue of nuclear provision. 

The Scottish Executive said there should be no more nuclear 
plants should be built until radioactive waste issues have been 
tackled. 

The SNP has highlighted a successful hydrogen scheme on the 
Shetland island of Unst and plans for a hydrogen power station in 
Peterhead. 

Scotland's politicians and t Scottish Executive need to take a 
tough stance during this review Duncan McLaren          

The party believes Westminster has already made up its mind to 
justify more nuclear power stations. 

However, the Department of Trade and Industry said that was not 
the case. 

Friends of the Earth Scotland has identified 15 sustainable 
energy solutions that it said could meet much of Scotland's 
energy needs. 

Chief Executive Duncan McLaren said: "Scotland is well placed to 
become a world leader in developing a low-carbon, nuclear-free 
economy. 

"However, that will not happen if Tony Blair pushes the nuclear 
power button. 

Renewable schemes 

"Scotland's politicians and the Scottish Executive need to take a 
tough stance during this review. 

"Scotland must not allow itself to be bullied into accepting new 
nuclear power stations just because Tony Blair thinks it is a 
good idea." 

It has emerged household energy bills in Scotland will be cut by 
Ł30,000 a year due to domestic renewable power schemes. 

[House with solar panels]                               

The Scottish Greens want solar panels installed in more homes                                                               

Last year the executive funded 215 micro-renewable home projects, 
including solar water heating and ground source heat pumps. 

And almost Ł2.5m has been allocated for the current financial 
year. 

Shiona Baird, the Scottish Green Party's energy spokeswoman said 
micro-renewables and energy efficiency was a much better way to 
tackle climate change than building new nuclear power stations. 

Ms Baird is proposing a Holyrood bill to give householders and 
businesses council tax breaks and business rates rebates in 
return for installing renewable energy devices such as solar 
roofs and mini-wind turbines. 

Solar panels 

It would also require all new buildings to be installed with 
solar panels on their roofs and it would set targets for 
expanding micro-power across Scotland's local authority areas. 

An executive spokesman said: "We recognise the important role 
micro-generation of renewable energy should play in the drive to 
meet climate change targets, as well as its potential to create 
employment - in manufacturing and installation - and to alleviate 
fuel poverty." 

He said the executive was working closely with the Department of 
Trade and Industry on proposed strategies.                                                       



*****************************************************************
 36 ePolitix.com: Government to reopen nuclear debate
 
  [Dounreay nuclear power plant]   
    
Ministers are today set to launch a new consultation on the UK's
future energy needs. 

The government will restart the debate on the future of nuclear
power as it begins the latest stage of its energy review. 

But respondents will also be asked to consider all other forms
of power as part of the review, ahead of recommendations to be
made to Tony Blair in the summer. 

Although Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister in charge of the
review, insists he is "nuclear neutral", the prime minister is
understood to be minded to order a new generation of nuclear
stations. 

And Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Norman Baker said the
review was a smokescreen. 

"This is an energy review without a purpose," he said. 

"The government published a credible white paper on the issue
only a few years ago, and they should be implementing that
rather than beginning another review. 

"This review is simply a retrospective way of justifying the
prime minister's wish to build a new generation of nuclear power
stations, something the earlier white paper did not recommend. 

"The government is all too aware that the UK can have an energy
mix which keeps the lights on and secures supply that does not
include nuclear power." 

However green campaigners are set to use the opportunity to
lobby hard for renewables. 

"UK energy policy is at a crossroads," Friends of the Earth
executive director Tony Juniper said. 

"We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by
cutting waste, harnessing the power of renewables and using
fossil fuels more efficiently. 

"The government must set us on the path to a clean, safe and
sustainable future and turn its back once and for all on the
failed, dangerous and expensive experiment of nuclear power."   
 
Published: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:01:00 GMT+00
 Author: Daniel Forman 


About ePolitix.com 
*****************************************************************
 37 Moscow Times: Ukraine and Russia Discuss Nuclear Cooperation

Monday, January 23, 2006. Issue 3336. Page 3.     

The Associated Press 

AP Sergei Kiriyenko                   

KIEV -- The chief of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Sergei
Kiriyenko, held talks Saturday with Ukrainian Prime Minister
Yuriy Yekhanurov aimed at expanding cooperation in nuclear
energy, amid Kiev's interest in producing its own nuclear fuel
for power plants. 

The talks focused on a new five-year agreement over the supply
of atomic fuel to Ukraine, both sides said. 

"The experts are working well. They are achieving an optimal
balance," Kiriyenko said, referring to the ongoing talks. 

Ukraine currently has four operating nuclear power plants that
produce about half of its electricity production, but it depends
on Russia for fuel. 

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko suggested earlier this
month that Ukraine start to consider enriching its own uranium
to produce fuel. The proposal is part of Yushchenko's effort to
increase Ukraine's energy independence following a bitter
dispute with Russia over natural gas prices. 

Ukraine currently supplies Russia with raw uranium, then buys it
back after enrichment. 

By enriching uranium itself, Ukraine could theoretically develop
nuclear arms, but Yushchenko insisted his country -- a member of
the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog
-- had only peaceful intentions. 	

Ukraine renounced nuclear weapons after the Soviet Union's
collapse and transferred some 1,300 Soviet-built nuclear
warheads to Russia for disarming. 

President Vladimir Putin and Yushchenko highlighted ties in the
nuclear sector as a promising area of cooperation during their
recent meeting in Kazakhstan. 

Yekhanurov said the Russians raised the possibility of working
jointly to build nuclear power plants in a third country. He did
not specify what country. 

Nuclear energy, however, remains a politically sensitive issue
in Ukraine, the site of the world's worst nuclear accident, when
a reactor at the Chernobyl power plant exploded and caught fire
in 1986. 


         Š Copyright 2006 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.           
*****************************************************************
 38 Herald News: Exelon to test Braceville drinking water

  [SuburbanChicagoNews.com]   

 28 homes: In response to IEPA citation over tritium levels 

By Kim SmithSTAFF WRITER 

BRACEVILLE  Workers from the Exelon Nuclear Braidwood Station
will be out knocking on the doors of 28 homes Monday morning
offering to test their drinking water supplies.

 In December, the Braidwood area facility was cited by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for high levels of
tritium, a potentially dangerous isotope found in the
groundwater.

 "We more than likely will not find any," said Exelon spokesman
Bob Osgood. "We are doing this as a precaution."

 Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that emits
a low level of radiation and is a natural part of water. It is
found in more concentrated levels in water used in nuclear
reactors. High exposure to tritium increases the risk of
developing cancer.

 Local drinking-water wells tested so far show no tritium
concentrations above the federal standard. 

But higher than normal concentrations of tritium were discovered
in November close to an underground pipe inside the plant's
northern boundary, said a spokesman for the Exelon Nuclear
Braidwood Station.

 Shortly afterward, the company launched a remediation program,
the spokesman said.

 The public faced no health threats as a result of this
discovery.

 Osgood said the 28 homes to be visited are near the Kankakee
River in the area of Smiley Road.

 More information on tritium can be found on the EPA's Web Site,
www.epa.gov.

 
- Reporter Kim Smith can be reached at (815) 729-6067 or via
e-mail at ksmith@scn1.com.

 01/22/06 
          
      SuburbanChicagoNews.com  Š  Digital Chicago & Sun-Times
*****************************************************************
 39 Sunday Herald: Sleaze probe into nuclear lobbying at Holyrood - 

  By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor 
 
 PARLIAMENT bosses have been asked to investigate whether a
controversial Holyrood body has flouted anti-sleaze rules.

The cross-party group (CPG) on the civil nuclear industry has
failed to register a number of trips and dinners financed by
organisations that support the controversial energy source.

The body, which is supposed to be neutral, has also failed to
declare the administrative support it receives from nuclear
power firm British Energy.

Critics say the group has broken the MSPs code of conduct and
compromised the forums impartiality by accepting financial
benefits from outfits that back new reactors. They want
parliament to examine the role of commercial lobbyists in
arranging meetings between their pro-nuclear clients and
politicians.

The CPG was set up by MSPs to promote consideration and
discussion of the civil nuclear industry, including planning
issues and decommissioning. 

But the Sunday Herald can reveal that the group, chaired by
pro-nuclear Labour MSP John Home Roberston, may have broken
rules by failing to declare the backing it receives from the
industry.

The CPG didnt mention on its website that secretarial support is
provided by British Energy, the pro-nuclear company that runs
eight power stations in the UK. Services include drafting
agendas and taking minutes of meetings, none of which is made
available to the public.

The groups register also leaves the financial benefits section
blank, despite Holyrood rules requiring CPGs to register
financial or other benefits exceeding Ł250 received from any
source.

But last August, nuclear plant operator British Nuclear Fuels
Limited funded accommodation costs for MSPs to visit the
reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

Weeks later, the CPG and its Westminster equivalent, the
all-party group on nuclear energy, attended a dinner paid for
them by the nuclear industry. This was preceded months earlier
by a trip to Torness, home to one of Scotlands nuclear plants,
part of which was funded by British Energy.

Presentations have also been given to the CPG by the Nuclear
Decommission Agency (NDA) and radioactive waste body Nirex,
which last week briefed MSPs in parliament.

Alex Johnstone MSP, co-convener of the CPG, said: If there is
any doubt that the rules have been followed to the letter, it
would be appropriate for these events to be considered.

Another concern is that commercial lobbyists seem to be helping
pro-nuclear groups access MSPs. The NDA, which is stepping up
its Scottish activities, relies on public affairs firm Bell
Pottinger to liaise with the parliament.

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), responsible
for decommissioning existing facilities, employs lobbyists
Grayling Political Strategy to organise events such as the
stakeholder reception this Wednesday. In addition, Nirex pays
US-owned Fleishman Hillard to keep abreast of nuclear issues at
Holyrood and to maintain a dialogue with the CPG.

After the Sunday Herald started making enquiries about the group
last week, the name of a well-known lobbyist mentioned on the
website was erased.

Green MSP Chris Ballance, who is a member of the CPG, admitted:
I have always been concerned with the pro-nuclear direction of
the group, as it is supposed to be impartial.

SSP leader Colin Fox demanded an inquiry and said. The standards
committee should investigate this cross party group as soon as
possible. Given the undeclared financial help it has received,
it seems it is a front for the nuclear lobby. 

22 January 2006                                                                                                                                                                 
 					 
 Š newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved 			 		
*****************************************************************
 40 Rutland Herald: Yankee power boost may exceed 'fence-line' standard

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
January 21, 2006 

By Herald Staff   

BRATTLEBORO  The Windham Regional Commission has raised more
questions about whether Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant can
keep within state limits on released radiation if it boosts
power production.

In a letter to state Health Commissioner Paul Jarris, the
executive director of the regional commission wrote that he'd
received confidential information that the plant would exceed
the state standard of 20 millirems of radiation once it boosts
power production by 20 percent.

"I recently was told that relevant state agencies have been
advised by ENVY (Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee) that the
fence-line radiation dose after power uprate will be
significantly higher than previously expected or predicted,"
James Matteau wrote.

Health Department spokesman Robert Stirewalt said Thursday that
Jarris would not comment on the letter until he had had a chance
to respond personally to Matteau's concerns. Stirewalt said it
would be early next week before Jarris would speak publicly on
the ongoing controversy on "fence-line" radiation releases.

Stirewalt said that Jarris wanted to talk to his staff experts
about the issue before commenting.

Last year, the state said one of its radiation monitors measured
24.9 millirems at the fence line around the Vernon reactor,
while Vermont Yankee claimed its monitors showed only 12
millirems of direct gamma radiations were released.

A millirem is one-thousandth of a rem. A full millirem is about
how much radiation a person would be exposed to on a
coast-to-coast airline flight, according to documents on
hyperphysics posted online by Georgia State University.

Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, the owner of
Vermont Yankee, said the company was firmly committed to meeting
the state standard, which is 25 percent stricter than the
federal limit of 25 millirems.

Two years ago, during state hearings on the proposed power
boost, Entergy site vice president Jay Thayer said the state
standard would be met, or the plant would reduce power.

Williams said Entergy and the Health Department had agreed on a
third party to try and resolve the disputes over the fence-line
radiation readings. Last year, the state said its tests showed
Entergy was in violation of the state standard at one location.
Entergy contested that reading.

"We fully intend to stay within the state limit," Williams said.

Matteau said the problem was how the radiation was measured and
at what location.

By state law, the Windham Regional Commission  the region's
planning and development review group  is a party to Vermont
Yankee's plans for a power boost, a 20-year license extension
and plans to build a high-level radioactive waste facility on
the grounds of the Vernon reactor.

Matteau said he couldn't say who was the source of his
confidential information.



"But I talked to the folks at the Health Department and the
Public Service Department and I can't get to the bottom of (the
radiation issue)," he said.

"Too many of these discussions take place among individuals
behind closed doors and the public doesn't know squat," he said.

"I've asked the Health Department to give me an explanation, we
need some public accountability," Matteau said.

Contact Susan Smallheer at .
   
*****************************************************************
 41 toledoblade.com: FirstEnergy to pay $28 million fine for lying; Davis-Besses
punishment largest in nuclear industry

Article published Saturday, January 21, 2006
 
  [Photo] 
U.S. Attorney Greg White explains the $28 million fine. 
( ASSOCIATED PRESS ) 

By BLADE STAFF WRITER

CLEVELAND  FirstEnergy Corp.s nuclear subsidiary will pay a
record $28 million fine to avoid being criminally prosecuted for
lying to the government about the dangerous condition of
Davis-Besses old reactor head, U.S. Attorney Greg White said
here yesterday.

The subsidiary, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., gets 60 days
to pay that amount. It must cooperate with the government in the
prosecution of three former Davis-Besse employees who have been
indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of making false
statements to a federal agency.

The $28 million fine is in addition to a $5.45 million civil
penalty from April, 2005, which the company already has paid.

The latter had been the largest fine ever imposed in U.S.
nuclear history until yesterday.

Neither of those fines can legally be passed on to ratepayers,
prosecutors said.

David M. Uhlmann, chief of the U.S. Department of Justices
environmental crimes section, said the $28 million fine is to
let operators of Americas 104 nuclear plants know that the
government will deal with them harshly if any of them are caught
lying again.

[FENOC] violated that duty and, as a consequence, they breached
the public trust, Mr. Uhlmann said.

But U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a Cleveland Democrat who has
called for FirstEnergys operating license at Davis-Besse to be
revoked, said the fine was a slap on the wrist for a utility
that put the health and well-being on millions of residents of
northern Ohio at grave risk.

FIRSTENERGY                   
 		   
 The $28 million fine is in addition to a $5.45 million
civil penalty from April, 2005. The latter had been the largest
fine ever imposed in U.S. nuclear history until yesterdays.

 The fines cannot legally be passed on to ratepayers.

 The chief of the U.S. Department of Justices environmental
crimes section said FirstEnergy showed brazen arrogance by
withholding information in the fall of 2001 when the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission was debating whether Davis-Besse was too
dangerous to keep operating past Dec. 31 of that year.

 FirstEnergy has spent $605 million to replace Davis-Besses
old reactor head, make numerous other modifications, and buy
replacement power during the two years that the plant was shut
down.   	 

The congressman said in a prepared statement that a $28 million
fine  as enormous as it sounds  still represents less than 1
percent of the utilitys 2004 profit.

That, he said, allows for business as usual at FirstEnergy.

Mr. Uhlmann said the company showed brazen arrogance by
withholding information in the fall of 2001 when the NRC was
debating internally whether Davis-Besse was too dangerous to
keep operating past Dec. 31 of that year, he said.

Ultimately, senior NRC officials overrode a staff recommendation
to shut down the plant immediately. They struck a compromise to
let it keep operating until Feb. 16, 2002  six weeks shy of its
planned shutdown date of March 31, 2002.

The agency now says it would never have done that if it had
known at the time that the plants old reactor head was on the
verge of rupturing.

At a joint news conference in Mr. Whites office, the Justice
Department and the NRC announced criminal indictments against
Andrew J. Siemaszko, a former Davis-Besse systems engineer;
David C. Geisen, a former Davis-Besse engineering manager, and
Rodney M. Cook, an outside contractor-consultant who had worked
at Davis-Besse for many years.

Mr. Siemaszko and Mr. Geisen were each indicted on five counts.
Mr. Cook was indicted on four. Each faces up to five years in
prison and a fine of up to $250,000, Mr. White said.

  [Photo] 
Uhlmann 

Their cases would be heard later this year in U.S. District
Court in Toledo if they go to trial, said Mr. White, who did not
rule out the possibility of pleas being negotiated.

Mr. Siemaszko, 51, of Spring, Texas, and Mr. Cook, 55, of
Millington, Tenn., could not be reached for comment.

Richard Hibey, an attorney representing Mr. Geisen, 45, of
DePere, Wis., said in a prepared statement yesterday that the
indictment is unsupported by facts and contradicts logic.

Mr. White said the grand jury looked at other people, but that
there was not enough evidence to criminally indict officials
higher up in the company.

Nobody at the NRC has been disciplined for what happened at
Davis-Besse, despite the agencys admission that its oversight
at the plant had lapsed.

There was no need for discipline at the NRC. [FirstEnergy] was
not forthright with us, said Martin Virgilio, deputy executive
director of the NRCs materials, research, state, and compliance
programs.

Gary Leidich, FENOC president and chief nuclear officer, said in
a prepared statement that the company is eager to move on. 

The agreement closes an important chapter on the Davis-Besse
reactor head issue for the company, he said.

FirstEnergy has spent some $605 million to replace Davis-Besses
old reactor head, make numerous other modifications, and buy
replacement power during the two years that the plant was shut
down. It has been running without incident since the NRC
authorized restart in March, 2004.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., as it exists today, is a new
company, Richard Wilkins, a company spokesman, said.

Federal prosecutors said they were willing to let the utility
avoid criminal prosecution because they, too, have concluded
the corporate culture of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. is a
far different one than it was four years ago, Mr. Uhlmann said.

About 85 percent of the $28 million fine  some $23.7 million 
will be paid to the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The other 15 percent  some $4.3 million  is to be spent on
community service projects, including $800,000 for a wetlands
restoration project at the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, plus
$550,000 for improvements to the refuges Visitors Center.

Another $500,000 is to help the Ottawa County Emergency
Management Agency improve its communications system, and
$500,000 more is dedicated for energy-efficient technology
research at the University of Toledo College of Engineering.

The Cuyahoga Valley National Park and Habitat for Humanitys
northern Ohio chapter are to receive $1 million apiece. The
parks money will go toward extending Towpath Trail, while
Habitats will be used for the construction of energy-efficient
homes.

Mr. Geisen was the only one of the three men who continued to
work in the nuclear industry up until recently. Earlier this
month, the NRC barred him from the industry for five years. He
began work as an engineer at the Kewaunee nuclear plant near
Green Bay, Wis., shortly after leaving Davis-Besse.

Last year, Mr. Siemaszko became the first of the former
Davis-Besse employees to have a five-year employment sanction
imposed on him. 

Two others received the same penalty this month, while one 
Prasoon Goyal, 60, of Toledo  received a one-year ban on work
in the nuclear industry.

Prosecutors said that Mr. Goyal, a former senior design
engineer, will not be charged with a crime because he has agreed
to cooperate with the government in its case against the other
three.

Mr. Siemaszko, who was once in charge of inspecting the reactor
head, has claimed that FirstEnergy officials ignored his demands
to do more maintenance on it during the plants 2000 outage.

Two watchdog groups, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Ohio
Citizen Action, recently were granted the right to help him with
his appeal of the NRCs employment sanction. 

Those two groups have accused the NRC of working with the
company to make Mr. Siemaszko a scapegoat.

Their sentiment was echoed yesterday by Jim Riccio, Greenpeaces
nuclear policy analyst in Washington, who said the indictment of
Mr. Siemaszko is akin to shooting the messenger.

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 42 toledoblade.com: U.S. indicts trio in Davis-Besse inquiry

Article published Friday, January 20, 2006
 
 Reactor head facts withheld, government says
 
  [Photo] 
Siemaszko 

By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER

CLEVELAND  Two former Davis-Besse engineers and an outside
consultant who was contracted for years to work for FirstEnergy
Corp.s nuclear division have been indicted by a federal grand
jury, according to a copy of the indictment obtained yesterday
by The Blade.

Andrew Siemaszko, a former systems engineer, and David Geisen, a
former engineering manager, were charged with five counts of
making false statements to a federal agency.
Contractor-consultant Rodney Cook was charged with four counts
of making false statements to a federal agency.

The indictment alleges that information about the status of the
nuclear plants old reactor head deliberately was withheld from
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, causing federal regulators to
underestimate the amount of danger that existed at the plant
along the Lake Erie shoreline near Oak Harbor, Ohio.

The reactor head nearly burst open in 2002 because of acid that
had been allowed to escape from the reactor and burn a cavity
deep into the devices steel lid over a number of years.

If the reactor head had burst, radioactive steam would have
formed in the containment building and put northern Ohio on the
brink of a nuclear accident akin to what happened in the partial
meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in central
Pennsylvania in 1979, the NRC has said.

The reactor was shut down for two years but returned to full
power in March, 2004. Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., which owns
Davis-Besse, spent $605 million making repairs, including
replacing the reactor head, and buying replacement power because
of the shutdown.

FirstEnergy agreed to pay a record $5 million fine to the
federal government for failing to stop the acid leak and other
issues and $450,000 for providing false and misleading
information to the government.

Gregory White, the U.S. attorney in Cleveland, last night
declined comment on the indictments, saying he has called a news
conference for 11 a.m. today to discuss them.

The indictment says the men did knowingly and willfully conceal
and cover up, and cause to be concealed and covered up vital
information about the old reactor head. It alleges they used
tricks, schemes, and devices to hide material facts.

Company and NRC investigations concluded that the rust had been
expanding for at least four years and that Davis-Besses
managers ignored the evidence because they were focused on
profits rather than safety.

The indictment accuses the men of misleading regulators in the
fall of 2001 into believing the plant was safe so inspectors
would delay visits until the spring of 2002 during a scheduled
shutdown for refueling.

Mr. Siemaszko was responsible for making sure the reactor vessel
head was cleaned and inspected. The NRC has said he deliberately
provided false information about the plants conditions.

Mr. Siemaszko has said he told supervisors the reactor needed to
be cleaned. He said managers rejected his requests.

All three signed off on reports from the company to the NRC in
2001 that concealed information about problems with the reactor
vessel head, where inspectors eventually found the cracks and
leak, the indictment states.

The indictment also accuses the men of omitting important facts
about previous company inspections, including the fact that
employees had trouble accessing the equipment that needed
inspecting because of leaks.

The three also are accused of omitting parts of a videotape that
was sent to the NRC that was to show inspections of the reactor
vessel head. Parts showing substantial deposits of boric acid
were edited out, according to the indictment.

Each count, upon conviction, carries a maximum penalty of five
years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

It was not known if others might be indicted.

Richard Wilkins, a spokesman for FirstEnergy, said the utility
had little to say. Everyones entitled to the presumption of
innocence until proven guilty.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland), who tried to get the
NRC to revoke FirstEnergys operating license, expressed dismay
that senior utility officials were not named.

The congressman, in a prepared statement, said that the buck
does not stop with a couple of midlevel managers and a
consultant. Those at the top levels of FirstEnergy must also be
held accountable.

Howard Whitcomb, a former Davis-Besse employee who once was an
NRC resident inspector in South Carolina, agreed.

Mr. Whitcomb, who now practices law in both Oak Harbor and
Toledo, said the information that is alleged to have been
withheld is not relegated to lower level engineers.

The Andrew Siemaszkos are more the worker bees, he said.

On April 21, 2005, the NRC imposed a five-year ban on further
employment in the nuclear industry against Mr. Siemaszko  a
decision which has rankled activists in Ohio and Washington.

Several of them have rallied around Mr. Siemaszko, describing
him as a whistleblower who tried to reveal the plants problems
during its 2000 outage, only to be set up as a scapegoat by
FirstEnergy and the NRC. The company and the agency deny those
allegations.

Ohio Citizen Action, the states largest environmental group, as
well as the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge,
Mass., recently were granted intervener status on Mr.
Siemaszkos behalf for his appeal of the proposed NRC employment
sanction. That appeal is now being heard by the NRCs Atomic
Licensing and Safety Board.

Mr. Siemaszko and Mr. Cook were not available for comment. Mr.
Geisen, contacted at his home in Wisconsin, said he was
instructed by his attorney to keep quiet.

Im innocent, he said. Well just have to go through the
paces here.

Mr. Geisen was one of four additional former Davis-Besse
employees the NRC took employment sanctions against this month.
Like Mr. Siemaszko, he received a five-year suspension from the
industry.

Mr. Geisen had been employed for the last three years as an
engineer at the Kewaunee nuclear plant 27 miles east of Green
Bay, Wis. He said he will appeal that sanction.

Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 43 Fayetteville Online:  Lawmaker to appeal for nuclear plant

Published on Sunday, January 22, 2006

 By Don Worthington Staff writer

State Sen. Larry Shaw says he hopes to convince the Fayetteville
City Council to support building a nuclear power plant in the
region. 

Shaw has asked to speak at Mondays 7 p.m. City Council meeting. 

Shaw said Friday that the chances of Progress Energy building a
nuclear power plant in either Hoke or Harnett counties are
encouraging  if the utility is interested in new sites. 

Were on the short list, Shaw said. 

Progress Energy is applying for a combined construction permit
and operating license for two plants from the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The locations and the identity of
contractors to build the reactors must be included in the
application. 

Obtaining a license does not obligate Progress Energy to build
the plant. 

The utility is expected to announce a site, possibly next week,
said company spokesman Keith Poston. 

Shaw said he met with Progress Energy officials about the
possibility of a regional site on Jan. 9. Poston confirmed the
meeting. 

Shaw said getting support resolutions from regional governments
is crucial. 

There needs to be a unified front, he said. Progress Energy
will go where they are welcome. 

The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners has passed a
resolution supporting the idea. 

Progress Energy has four nuclear reactors in the Carolinas,
including the Shearon Harris plant, about 25 miles southwest of
Raleigh. 

Available land at the Shearon Harris site makes it a logical
site for expansion. 

Shearon Harris is the newest nuclear plant in the country. It
began generating electricity in 1987. 

In other business, the council is holding a public hearing on
whether to name Eastside Park for former Councilwoman Mable
Smith. 

The councils policy requires a public hearing before naming a
park or a building. 

The council also is reviewing the policy. Some council members
dont think parks or buildings should be named for living
people. Staff writer Don Worthington can be reached at
worthingtond@fayettevillenc.com or 486-3511.     

Copyright 2006 The Fayetteville (NC) Observer
*****************************************************************
 44 Interfax: Rosatom chief says there are no problems with fresh fuel
supplies to Ukrainian NPPs 

Interfax-Ukraine News Agency

Kyiv, January 21 

(Interfax-Ukraine) - Russian Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) chief 
Sergei Kiriyenko states that there are no problems with fresh 
nuclear fuel supplies to Ukrainian NPPs. "There have been none 
and there will be no problems with fresh fuel supplies to 
Ukraine," he said at a press conference in Kyiv on Saturday. 

Kiriyenko noted that a group of Ukrainian and Russian experts
has recently finished working on fresh nuclear fuel supplies for
Ukrainian NPPs this year. "I believe that we will harmonize all
the necessary issues soon," he said. 

15:33:17 EET-2 
    
Š 1992-2005, Interfax-Ukraine. All rights reserved
 All information placed on this web-site is designed for
internal use only. Its reproduction or distribution in any form
is prohibited without a written permission of Interfax-Ukraine. 
*****************************************************************
 45 Scotsman.com: Why won't timid Blair face facts on nuclear power?
 
 Mon 23 Jan 2006 
 
FOCUS
 	Richard Sadler 

WE'VE had the dodgy dossier on Iraq. Stand by for the dodgy
dossier on nuclear power. Only three years ago, the nuclear
option was dismissed as "unattractive" after an exhaustive study
by a team of top government-appointed scientists. 	

Their white paper concluded that the best way of tackling
Britain's energy shortage - while at the same time... 	
The full article contains 913 words and appears in The Scotsman
newspaper. 	 	 
 







*****************************************************************
 46 Decatur Daily: Browns Ferry reactor resumes operation

SUNDAY, JANUARY 22, 2006   
  
By Martin Burkey 
DAILY Staff Writer mburkey@decaturdaily.com ˇ 340-2441 

A Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant reactor, shut down Tuesday to
replace a leaking water pump seal, resumed operation at 4 a.m.
Saturday, TVA officials said. 

Engineers shut down the Unit 3 reactor last Sunday at 12:30 p.m.
when workers found excessive leaks in a couple of seals in the
reactor's re-circulation pumps. The pumps carry water through
the reactor, keeping it cool and creating steam to drive the
power turbines. 

Browns Ferry spokesman Craig Beasley said engineers are
continuing to investigate the problem. The seals normally are
changed during a reactor's 24-month refueling cycle, he said. 

Although engineers reconnected the unit to the TVA power grid,
it won't return to full power immediately, Beasley said. Workers
will bring it up slowly to check its performance. 

Browns Ferry has three reactors, but only two are operational.
Unit 1 is not operating but is in the restart process, which is
more than 70 percent complete. TVA plans to resume operations in
May 2007. 

A bad relay at Athens Utilities, not the downed reactor, was
responsible for a power outage in Limestone County on Wednesday. 

Beasley said he didn't know whether the Tennessee Valley
Authority had to buy power while the unit was offline. 

"I'm reluctant to say that's the case because we have a lot of
available generation capability and because of the way the
weather has been," he said. 

"We're buying and selling power all the time, as well as
producing. The loss of this unit did not jeopardize our ability
to supply the demand for power in the Tennessee Valley area." 
Copyright 2005 THE DECATUR DAILY. All rights reserved.

 AP contributed to this report. --> 
    
  THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 
35609 (256) 353-4612
   
      www.decaturdaily.com   
*****************************************************************
 47 Brattleboro Reformer: Students offer energy plan to lawmakers

January 22, 2006 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
By ROSS SNEYD 
Associated Press

MONTPELIER -- Planning the state's energy future is a high
priority for the Legislature this year and lawmakers on Friday
got a comprehensive plan from an unexpected source: high school
seniors from The Sharon Academy.

 House Natural Resources Committee members called the students'
choices interesting. The students called, for example, for
relicensing the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant when its
current license expires in 2012.

 "One of our key motivators for these choices was to keep power
sources inside Vermont," said one of the students, Sam Drazin of
Norwich.

 The well-spoken, well-informed group of students has spent the
semester studying where Vermont gets its electricity now and the
challenges the state faces to keep the lights on. Contracts for
two-thirds of the state's power supply expire beginning in 2012.

 Vermont Yankee is one of them, providing a third of the total.
Another third comes from Hydro-Quebec. 

The students concluded that the state is in a position where it
will have to continue relying on those sources -- although they
would reduce the supply from Hydro-Quebec -- as it continues to
develop alternatives, including windmills, wood burners, solar
projects and new small-scale hydroelectric dams.

 Their rationale was that the state should put itself in a
position to control more of its fortunes by keeping generation
within Vermont's borders as much as possible.

 "A certain degree of independence is always a good thing," said
student Thomas Leddy-Cecere of Strafford. "You can be affected
by things that are more under your control."

 Student Jessica Wolfe of Strafford said it was about keeping
jobs and tax revenues in the state, as well.

 But Wolfe and others conceded there was a lot of debate at
their school about continued reliance on nuclear power. "We had
a two-hour class discussion. I'd say people eventually got
pretty sick of arguing about it," she said, drawing knowing
laughter from the lawmakers.

 The students suggested a new breakdown for energy supplies.
Nuclear would remain as a third of the power supply.
Hydro-Quebec would drop from a third to 26 percent. Bio-mass,
often thought of as wood burners, would rise to 20 percent from
5 percent. Wind supply would go from less than 1 percent to 10
percent. In-state hydroelectric production should grow from
around 6 percent to 10 percent. And solar production would inch
up from 0.05 percent to 0.5 percent.

 Legislators were effusive in their praise for the students and
their work, especially after the students defended it in
questioning. "You ought to stop by the governor's office because
we're still waiting for his (plan)," Senate President Pro Tem
Peter Welch said. "I admire your ambition and appreciate the
work you've done. It's a coherent and sensible plan."

 The Department of Public Service issued a 20-year electric plan
last year and is working on a comprehensive energy plan,
according to its Web site.

 The presentation, which the Natural Resources Committee did not
solicit, dovetailed with the work the panel is doing this year.
"We were absolutely thrilled at the proposal," said committee
Chairman Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury. "You may not have been
aware what an important issue this is for the Legislature." 

Copyright Š 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This

*****************************************************************
 48 SABCnews.com: Repairs at Koeberg not responsible for power cuts                                                                       

South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright Š 2000 - 2005 
SABC                        

[The Koeberg nuclear power station ]                                            
   					
January 21, 2006, 08:45

Eskom and the city of Cape Town say an electricity black-out in
the city has nothing to do with the maintenance work at Koeberg
Nuclear Power Station. 

Koeberg warned earlier this week that power cuts could happen
over the next three months in the Western, Eastern and Northern
Cape while engineers do repair work to one of Koeberg's
generators. 

Charles Kadalie of the City of Cape Town says the latest
black-out started when a fault occurred at the Montague main
station which supplied electricity from Eskom to the city. He
says the city is charging its gas turbines to augment power to
the city.
 
A significant section of the city was still without power late
last night, including Milnerton, large portions of the CBD,
Woodstock and surrounding areas.
 
*****************************************************************
 49 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear threat is real, says Carr - 

National - smh.com.au
 
By Michael Gawenda Herald Correspondent in Los Angeles

January 23, 2006
 	 	

THE threat of a nuclear attack by terrorists on an American or
Australian city is a real one for which governments in both
countries must plan, according to the former premier, Bob Carr,
and the former governor of California, Pete Wilson. 

They were speaking at a forum sponsored by the Australia-America
Leadership Dialogue at the University of California in Los
Angeles. 

Mr Carr and Mr Wilson agreed al-Qaeda had been trying to get its
hands on a nuclear weapon for at least five years and there was
a good chance that it would succeed. 

"In 2001, al-Qaeda chatter tracked by US intelligence was about
one of their primary goals. This was to produce what they called
an 'American Hiroshima'," Mr Carr said. 

Mr Wilson said the "nightmare scenario" of terrorists detonating
a nuclear weapon was more than a remote possibility. 

He said the US Department of Homeland Security was focused on
prevention, rather than developing plans for dealing with the
crisis, should an attack occur. 

"The consequences [of an attack] in terms of communications
breakdowns and pressure on medical facilities would be
unimaginable," Mr Wilson said. "So concentrating on prevention
makes sense, but we still have to consider and plan for what we
would do if it did happen." 

Mr Carr told the audience of policy analysts and academics that
last week's audio-tape warning by Osama bin Laden that al-Qaeda
was planning attacks on the US was a reminder that the
"evil-doers" were still determined to launch attacks on Western
cities that would cause the maximum amount of damage and death. 

"Western cities must have comprehensive evacuation plans drawn
up and there have to be detailed plans for communicating with
the people about what they should do," Mr Carr said. 

Copyright Š 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. <img
*****************************************************************
 50 Heads roll at Veterans Administration - DU scandal blamed
 
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 05:44:11 -0600 (CST)

January 11, 2006
San Francisco Bay View
(USA National Black Newspaper)
www.sfbayview.com

===

Heads roll at Veterans Administration

Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed

by

Bob Nichols
Project Censored Award Winner

Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can
truly be called a nuclear war.

Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans
Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the
growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.

Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau,
executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated,
The real reason for Mr. Principis departure was really never given,
however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming
depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the Gulf War Syndrome has fed
a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US
Military.

Bernklau continued, This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of
our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the
cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now
being revealed.

He added, Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf
War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on
Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of Disabled Vets
means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form
of permanent medical problems! The disability rate for the wars of the last
century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam.

The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,
wrote Bernklau. He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these
facts, but now, thanks to Morets report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or
to cover up!

Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA
Central Office, recently reported that Gulf Era Veterans now on medical
disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans, said Berklau.

The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual
death sentence, stated Berklau. Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist,
who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also
involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid
malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as spectacular  and
a matter of concern!

When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for destroying things and
killing people, Fulk was more specific: I would say it is the perfect
weapon for killing lots of people!

Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline.

-----

Email Bob Nichols at bobnichols@cox.net

---

References

1. Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death
sentence here and abroad by Leuren Moret,
http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml
2. Veterans for Constitutional Law, 112 Jefferson Ave., Port Jefferson
NY 11777, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director, (516) 474-4261, fax
516-474-1968.
3. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter. Email Gary Kohls,
gkohls@cpinternet.com, with Subscribe in the subject line.

=======

http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml

=======
*****************************************************************
 51 News-Miner: Nothing depleted about 'depleted uranium'

Opinion

By Abel Bult-Ito
Community Perspective

 Iraqi and visiting doctors, and a number of news reports, have
reported that birth defects and cancers in Iraqi children have
increased five- to 10-fold since the 1991 Gulf War and continue
to increase sharply, to over 30-fold in some areas in southern
Iraq. Currently, more than 50 percent of Iraqi cancer patients
are children under the age of 5, up from 13 percent. Children
are especially vulnerable because they tend to play in areas
that are heavily polluted by depleted uranium.

 The Pentagon has been using radioactive weapons for at least a
decade and a half with full complicity of at least three White
House administrations and Republican and Democratic
congressional legislators. Conservatively, at least 300 tons and
1,700 tons of depleted uranium were used in the Gulf War and the
current Iraq War, respectively. This is about 70 grams of
depleted uranium per Iraqi citizen, and if inhaled or ingested,
it is enough to kill them all. 			

 Is this not radioactive genocide, especially when our troops
used and continue to use most of the depleted uranium munitions
in densely populated areas such as Baghdad and Fallujah?
Depleted uranium has a half-life of billions of years.
Consequently, Iraq will be a wasteland forever and essentially
uninhabitable for anyone.

 After the 1991 Gulf War, about 1 in 4, or 150,000, U.S.
veterans came down with what is referred to as "Gulf War
Syndrome." Most of the ailments characteristic of Gulf War
Syndrome are consistent with radiation or heavy-metal poisoning.
Veterans' children are now also born with higher proportions of
birth defects and other genetic disorders, according to sporadic
accounts. The Pentagon continues to deny the harmful effects of
depleted uranium or its role in Gulf War Syndrome.

 As described by a report of the World Health Organization
Depleted Uranium Mission to Kosovo, uranium can be found in
rocks and soil and contributes to natural background levels of
radioactivity. Depleted uranium is a waste product of uranium
enrichment for nuclear reactors and is about 60 percent as
radioactive as naturally occurring uranium. Depleted uranium is
considered weakly radioactive.

 Nevertheless, depleted uranium is considered nuclear waste and
has to be disposed of accordingly, which is expensive and a
potential environmental hazard. The nuclear industry must be
very pleased the U.S. military has found a way to get this stuff
off their hands cheaply.

 Depleted uranium is really a misnomer, because the potentially
harmful effects are by no means depleted. Research reports have
found that when depleted uranium is ingested or inhaled, it can
cause cancers and birth defects. It has considerable heavy-metal
toxicity.

 As stated in the WHO report, because of its high density,
depleted uranium is used in armor-piercing ammunition and as
reinforcement against conventional weapons. Upon impact, the
depleted uranium fragments burn at intense heat, and 10 to 35
percent of it becomes aerosolized. This aerosolized uranium
"dust" is the most harmful component because it can easily be
ingested or inhaled. 

Wind and people walking through it also easily disperse the
depleted uranium dust. This dust is a predominant byproduct of
military use of depleted uranium, in contrast to, for example,
exposures in uranium mines or nuclear reactors.

 Our troops in Iraq will be severely affected by this
radioactive war, not only because a lot more depleted uranium
has been used and continues to be used, but also because they
have been there a lot longer than during the Gulf War. Hundreds
of thousands of our troops will come down with Gulf War Syndrome
as a result of depleted uranium poisoning, and thousands will
die from it. Thousands of their children will be born with
genetic diseases, cancers and birth defects. 

The continued use of depleted uranium harms our own troops and
innocent civilians exposed to our war machine, is un-American,
and a crime against humanity. We need a worldwide ban on
depleted uranium use.

 You have probably noticed Fairbanks Daily News-Miner staff
writer's reports as an "embedded journalist" with the 172nd
Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Mosul, Iraq. Her "feel-good"
stories do not tell you the reality of what is happening in
Iraq. Will she report on depleted uranium poisoning as a result
of heavy U.S. bombing of Mosul?

 Sadly, she and those of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team,
if they survive the war, will have a high chance of coming down
with Gulf War Syndrome. How much support do you think they will
then get from our government or their employers?

 Abel Bult-Ito is an associate professor of biology at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks and is a member of the Fairbanks
Coalition for Peace and Justice.

MediaNews Group, Inc. and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Inc. 		 	
*****************************************************************
 52 London Times: Focus: Sellafield: The real fallout - 

Sunday Times - 

Jan 22 2006

The government campaign against the British nuclear plant -which 
has been quashed by a European court - succeeded only in turning 
the public against nuclear power. But in the event of an energy 
crisis, what will the options be, asks John Burns
If Fianna Fail's ard fheis in 2000 is remembered at all, it is 
because anti-abortion protesters rushed the stage when Bertie 
Ahern was giving his leader's address. Nobody now recalls what he 
said, but Ahern actually used the event at the RDS in Dublin to 
signal an important change of policy by his government.

"Enough is enough," thundered the taoiseach. "We want to see an 
end to Sellafield operations." The nuclear reprocessing plant in 
Cumbria was a "clear and unacceptable danger to the Irish 
people", Ahern told 5,000 party members to tumultuous applause.

Slagging off Sellafield has always been a crowd pleaser. For a 
party leader nervous about losing seats along the east coast to 
the Green party, as Ahern was in 2000, talking tough about the 
nuclear plant makes good political sense.

But talk was cheap; a serious attempt to shut the plant would be 
expensive. Every attorney-general up until then had advised that 
there wasn't enough scientific evidence upon which to mount a 
successful legal challenge against Britain. Ahern told his then 
attorney-general, Michael McDowell, to look again.

At the next ard fheis in 2001, Ahern was in election mode and 
revved up the rhetoric. Sellafield was now "the single most 
serious threat to our environment" and the "surviving dinosaur of 
a defunct military-industrial complex". The taoiseach declared: 
"We demand that Sellafield is shut. It is not acceptable that the 
Irish Sea is used as a kitchen sink by the nuclear industry."

Within days, a legal challenge began. McDowell led a team of 
lawyers to Hamburg to ask a United Nations tribunal to shut 
Sellafield.

Last week, the government's campaign ended in embarrassment and 
defeat. Its case was brought to the wrong court, and is about to 
be thrown out. About ?1.5m has been spent, and another legal bill 
is on the way. The government's rhetoric against Sellafield has 
succeeded in turning Irish public opinion not only against the 
plant, but against nuclear energy in general. What are the 
chances of Ireland going nuclear now?

IT WAS the fire at the Windscale nuclear reactor in 1957 that 
first blackened public opinion. Radiation from the accident was 
blamed for an apparent cluster of Down's syndrome births in Co 
Louth. In fact, as a study by University College Dublin published 
last year proved, no radiation reached Ireland.

"The idea of taking international action against Sellafield goes 
back to the Greenpeace campaign of the 1980s and 1990s," said 
Veronica McDermott, a former public affairs consultant at British 
Nuclear Fuels.

"But although Greenpeace was urging that international action, 
the consistent position of successive governments was that there 
wasn't much point unless there was some hope of success. And the 
attorneys-general said the chances of success in a case of that 
type would be negligible. So why did they suddenly change their 
position in 2001?" One reason was the revelation that workers at 
Sellafield had been falsifying quality-control records for 
plutonium fuel. Then the 9/11 attacks prompted speculation that 
Sellafield was a likely target for terrorists. The British 
government's decision in October 2001 to licence a mixed-oxide 
(Mox) recycling plant at Sellafield was the last straw for Ahern 
and his cabinet.

Ireland attacked on two fronts. It brought a case under the Ospar 
convention, which was heard in October 2002. Ireland's arguments 
were presented to the tribunal by Rory Brady, the 
attorney-general, who described the Irish Sea as "one of the most 
radioactively polluted in the world". Martin Cullen, the then 
environment minister, watched from the wings and described his 
presentation as a "tour de force". Ireland lost.

The second front was the United Nations Convention on the Law of 
the Sea (Unclos). McDowell presented Ireland's case in November 
2001, asking a tribunal in Hamburg to order an immediate 
suspension of the Mox plant. "This is about protecting the Irish 
Sea from further radioactive pollution," said McDowell. "The Mox 
plant can only serve to increase the attractiveness of subjecting 
Sellafield to terrorist attack."

The tribunal gave a first ruling within a month: Ireland lost. 
The "urgency of the situation" did not require the closure of the 
Mox plant. Ireland and Britain should co-operate, stop fighting 
and share information, the court added.

A full hearing was due in 2002, with McDowell saying the 
government "is determined to buy in all the necessary scientific 
back-up that is needed to fight this case". But Britain wasn't 
having to expend much effort to defend itself. Its 
attorney-general argued simply that Unclos had no jurisdiction in 
the matter. The European commission agreed. It took a case to the 
European Court of Justice to force Ahern's government to drop the 
case.

Last week an advocate- general in the court issued an initial 
ruling. "Ireland has failed to fulfil its Treaty of Rome 
obligations," said Miguel Poiares Maduro. The EU court was the 
proper forum to sort out a row between member states, he said.

This means the end of Ireland's case, because it is considered 
bad form for one EU country to bring another to the court of 
justice, and it hasn't happened since the 1970s.

"It should have been clear that Ireland was going to be in breach 
of the Treaty of Rome," argued McDermott. "Ireland is usually a 
champion of the EU - at least paying lip service to the concept - 
and yet the government was quite happy to risk being taken to the 
court of justice.

"I think it was a political decision, taken for domestic 
perceptions. To be seen to be doing something about Sellafield 
shut down the issue before the 2002 election."

All was not lost, the government still contends. The legal cases 
forced Britain to be more open with information about Sellafield.

In fact, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) 
has never been denied access to the plant, and visited it in 
2000. There has been a "regular flow of information" across the 
Irish Sea, says Ann McGarry, its chief executive, and an 
arrangement that Ireland will be told of any incidents at the 
plant.

The RPII last visited Sellafield in 2004 and found no cause for 
concern. Radioactivity levels in the Irish sea are in decline.

"I'm always reluctant to say that we don't need to worry," said 
McGarry. "But as of now we have no particular concerns. 
Discharges from Sellafield are below the levels set by the 
Environment Agency. Mox is still being commissioned and we have 
not noticed anything untoward."

Nevertheless, a bit of Brit-bashing always goes down well and 
Dick Roche, the environment minister, has on at least three 
occasions grabbed headlines by comparing Sellafield management to 
Homer Simpson, the cartoon character who works as a safety 
inspector at the fictional Springfield nuclear plant.

POLITICAL opposition to Sellafield in Ireland has an offshoot: 
profound institutional and public hostility to nuclear energy. 
Even before he produces an official energy policy, Noel Dempsey, 
the natural resources minister, has said he is anti-nuclear 
because the "environmental, health and safety impact outweighs 
the benefit". A 1999 act makes it illegal to use nuclear power in 
the production of electricity.

In the 1970s, Des O'Malley proposed a nuclear power plant at 
Carnsore in Wexford, but the plan was swept away on a tide of 
public protest and to the accompaniment of a Christy Moore 
ballad.

Since then Ireland has become more dependent on oil and gas than 
almost any other European country. "If gas was turned off in the 
morning, we would be in big trouble," said Martin Howley, 
co-author of Energy in Ireland. "Everybody would, but other 
countries would have more to fall back on."

The Kinsale gas field is running out, and the Corrib field may 
never be developed due to local opposition. So Ireland imports 
almost 90% of its supplies, and renewable sources such as hydro 
and wind have been slow to take off. They contributed only 2.2% 
to primary energy in 2004, and the figure has been hovering at 
about 2% since 1990.

It seems surprising, then, that the nuclear option is never even 
discussed. "It would be very difficult for any government to 
introduce that, judging from the experience of the past," said 
Howley.

Fiona O'Malley, Des's daughter, is in charge of formulating the 
Progressive Democrats' energy policy, which is due to be unveiled 
shortly, and it will rule out nuclear.

"The economic indicators for the renewables are so positive that 
you would not take the nuclear option; you don't have to," she 
said. "We have no nuclear infrastructure in Ireland, and you have 
to factor in the high cost of decommissioning plants, the high 
security risk, and the fact that plutonium itself is a limited 
resource. For a whole lot of reasons it just isn't on."

O'Malley's long-term solution is for "a strong and vibrant 
deep-sea offshore wind-farm network", with more onshore farms for 
the short term. But given that Ireland's energy demands will rise 
by 37% up to 2020, some would argue that wind and waves won't be 
enough.

Demand for electricity is particularly high, up 60% in the past 
10 years, and there is already muttering from industry about the 
rising cost, inevitable when the ESB depends so heavily on 
imported gas.

"The hard reality is that Ireland is at the very end of a 
pipeline," said McDermott. "This needs long-term strategic 
decisions, not short-term political consideration.

"I detect a slight change in attitude among the Irish public, 
however. People are beginning to debate the real issue. It has to 
do with the price of oil going up, and Vladimir Putin having his 
hands on the gas tap. It's happening in spite of the 
politicians."

The decision to go nuclear could eventually be out of the 
government's hands. An energy review ordered by Tony Blair is 
expected to recommend more nuclear power stations. In the future, 
when electricity comes down a pipeline from Britain, the chances 
are it'll be atomic anyway.

 

	 	   

  
  


*****************************************************************
 53 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast plume growing, tests find

01/21/2006 | 

 DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer 

TALLEVAST - An independent consultant has confirmed that the
Tallevast plume extends nearly to U.S. 301. 

"We have confirmed that the plume stretches throughout Tallevast
and beyond and has reached three different aquifer zones," said
Michael Graves, a geologist with Environmental Sciences
&Technologies Inc. 

Moreover, the plume may be moving more rapidly than previously
thought. 

Graves' firm was selected by the resident advocacy group Family
Community United Strong (FOCUS) and its technical consultant
Timothy Varney to run independent tests on private drinking
water and irrigation wells and sample soil taken from residents'
yards. 

Lockheed Martin Corp., which is responsible for cleaning up the
plume, paid the $95,000 bill for Graves' analysis. 

Recent retests on four of the wells in Graves' study showed
contamination levels of 1,4-Dioxane are nearly double those
cited in his report. 

Graves presented his findings Friday to FOCUS leaders and Varney
in Tallevast. 

Reports have also been sent to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and Lockheed. 

Gayle Rymer, Lockheed spokeswoman, said Friday that Graves'
report contained no surprises but that his data will be used to
determine what additional areas might need to be tested. 

The plume underneath Tallevast stems from the former Loral
American Beryllium Co. plant at 1600 Tallevast Road. 

Loral operated the plant for more than three decades, making
parts for nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors for the federal
government. 

Lockheed assumed ownership of the plant in 1996 in a corporate
buyout of Loral. 

Although Lockheed discovered the contamination in 2000 when
preparing to sell the property, area residents did not learn of
the toxic plume until three years later. 

Tallevast residents have consistently challenged Lockheed's data
on the size of the plume, which they believe extends far beyond
the 131-acre boundary drawn by the defense giant. 

Graves' report supports those challenges, FOCUS leaders said. 

The concentration of 1,4-Dioxane, one of the toxic contaminates
found in Tallevast groundwater, strongly suggests a
south-southeasterly migrating plume is developing, Graves said. 

Results from tests on the well on cattlewoman Heidi Booth's
property near the Tallevast Post Office indicate the plume has
reached the upper level of the Florida Aquifer System, Graves
said. 

Moreover, the levels are rising. 

Graves' first round of tests on Booth's well found 1,4-Dioxane
levels at 66 parts per billion. Florida's state drinking water
standard for 1,4-Dioxane is set at 2.3 parts per billion. 

In the second round of tests, Graves found levels of 1,4-Dioxane
at 124 parts per billion, or nearly more than double his first
tests. 

Retests on the private well in Billy and Laura Ward's property
at 1846 Tallevast Road found 1,4-Dioxane at 65 parts per billion
in the first round of tests. Retests on the Ward well came in at
85 parts per billion. 

Equally disturbing, retests on two wells that had previously
shown nondetect levels of 1,4-Dioxane came in with results well
above the state's drinking water standard. 

Frank and Bessie Williams' well at 1507 Tallevast Road came in
at 13.5 parts per billion on the second round of tests. 

Kelvin McKnight's well at 7624 19th St. E., came in at 53 parts
per billion the second time around. 

The higher results, Graves said, could mean that the plume is
spreading or that the methodology used in the second round of
tests produced more accurate results. 

But even the latest results are likely to be lower than the
levels that actually exist in the groundwater, said Varney. 

The process of sample collecting can cause some of the
contaminates to disperse or to change into a gaseous form before
analysis, said Varney. 

Seasonal changes and the direction of groundwater flow can also
affect the levels of contaminates found, said Graves. 

He will soon present a second proposal to Lockheed Martin to
conduct tests to build a groundwater flow model. 

Once that model is finalized, Graves hopes to construct another
model to show how each contaminate moves through that flow
system. 

Only then, said FOCUS leaders, will they know what toxins are
under their homes. 

Graves believes there may be as many as three plumes extending
from the same source beneath the former beryllium plant. 

Part of Graves' second proposal will include groundwater and
soil tests at nearby Kinnan Elementary School, 3415 Tallevast
Road. 

At a recent community meeting, Lockheed leaders said none of
their data indicate the Tallevast plume has reached the school. 

But Graves believes the plume is far from static. He believes
the underground contamination oscillates with seasonal changes,
shrinking and enlarging as rainy seasons come and go. With each
oscillation, the plume boundary increases as it swings back and
forth, Graves said. 

FOCUS leaders said Graves' results prove they were right in
forcing Lockheed to consider that the plume was moving eastward. 

Lockheed's current plume map shows the contamination stopping
far short of the Booth well. 

The defense giant is drilling more monitoring wells to determine
how far the toxins may have spread. 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at . 

HeraldToday.com 

*****************************************************************
 54 Taipei Times: Editorial: Mate, I nuked myself in the foot 

  Sat, Jan 21, 2006

The Australian newspaper on Wednesday reported that an
Australian government source has privately admitted that
Canberra cannot prevent Beijing from using uranium bought from
Australia in its nuclear arsenal, should the two countries
strike a trade deal. But this minor hitch is not likely to stop
sales of uranium to China, because Australia's Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) seems to believe, in all
seriousness, that China would honor an agreement in which the
"use of [Australian uranium] for nuclear weapons, nuclear
explosive devices, military nuclear propulsion [or] depleted
uranium munitions will be proscribed," as a DFAT spokesperson
put it.

 Whether or not Aussie uranium goes directly into Chinese
warheads -- or whether it is used in power stations in lieu of
uranium that goes into Chinese warheads -- makes little
difference. Canberra is about to do a deal with a regime with a
record of flouting international conventions, notwithstanding
the increased oversight that comes with participation in global
bodies.

 One can almost hear the Australian government's saliva
collecting in its mouth at the prospect of selling billions of
dollars of uranium from its huge reserves to an eager customer
for decades to come.

 Never mind that the customer is an unstable Third World despot
with a big chip on its shoulder -- and the owner of nuclear
warheads and other munitions pointing in potentially
inconvenient directions for Japan, South Korea, the Philippines,
Vietnam, Russia, India and Taiwan, not to mention US bases in
the region.

 The question that follows is whether Australia can be trusted
to do not only the lucrative thing for itself, but also the
smart thing for the region when it comes to nuclear
non-proliferation. The answer appears to be "no."

 We can expect to hear a lot of highfalutin language from
Australia in the weeks to come about the need to modernize China
and the role "clean" nuclear energy can play in a country
desperate for fuel.

 Such "global citizen" shtick won't wash. All of this is
happening as evidence emerges of tawdry connections between DFAT
and the Australian Wheat Board, which is under investigation for
feeding massive bribes to Iraqi officials while former Iraqi
president Saddam Hussein was still in power.

 What confidence is there to be had in Canberra now that we know
Prime Minister John Howard misled the public about the dangers
of non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and lectured
on the moral certitude of an invasion, at the same time as
people with close government connections -- with possible
government knowledge -- were spreading bags of filthy lucre
across Baghdad and beyond?

 In China's case, Canberra has been setting itself up for a
sublime strategic fall for some time, with Washington
increasingly concerned that Australia might act in a manner that
would compromise regional stability, and US strategy in
particular.

 Were it not so preoccupied with "homeland security" and the
grim situation in Iraq, perhaps Washington could better
recognize the folly of its deputy sheriff in Asia profiting
handsomely from the potential acceleration of China's nuclear
militarization.

 "She'll be right, mate," is the cry from an Australian who
would seek to soothe the tempers of people around him and shut
down an embarrassing conversation.

 To which Taiwanese can only reply, "It's not right, and you're
not my mate." 

This story has been viewed 622 times.     
  

Copyright Š 1999-2006 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 55 Las Vegas SUN: Mother defends Miss Nevada's pro-nuclear dump stance 

January 21, 2006 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Miss Nevada's controversial support of
construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility in
Nevada is drawing support from her biggest fan: her mother. 

Lena Wosik suggested judges were out of line when they asked her
daughter, Crystal Wosik, about the issue during the Miss America
pageant interview process. 

"They really nailed her on the interview," the mother told the
Las Vegas Review-Journal. "The judges were ruthless." 

In Thursday's interview, Miss Nevada was asked by one of the
judges about the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain. 

The facility has to go someplace, and Yucca Mountain is the
best-built facility in the country, Crystal Wosik replied. 

And if people die? 

"We just have to take one for the team," she replied. 

Her mother, an orthodontist assistant, said the interview
process leaves no room for middle ground. 

"You have to have strong beliefs, and they were putting her on
the spot," Lena Wosik said. 

"It's a tragedy that we have nuclear waste, but it's got to go
somewhere. I'm sure she'll get hate mail. I felt they should
have been asking about education," she added. 

Gov. Kenny Guinn and Nevada's congressional delegation have been
united in trying to derail the plan in Congress. The state has
filed several lawsuits in an attempt to block construction. 

Crystal Wosik, 23, of Las Vegas, competed Saturday night at the
first Miss America pageant to be held outside of Atlantic City
in about 85 years of the event. 

--- 

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com 

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 56 Sunday Herald: Privatised nuclear clean-up will cause accidents 

  By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor 
 
 PLANS to privatise the Ł56 billion clean-up of Britains ageing
nuclear sites will cause serious accidents, one of the industrys
most senior figures has warned.

Brian Watson, former director of the UKs largest nuclear site at
Sellafield in Cumbria, has accused ministers of pursuing
erroneous dogma that could result in costly mistakes.

His warning comes as Prime Minister Tony Blair prepares to
launch his long-awaited energy review this week. The review is
widely expected to launch a new programme of nuclear power
stations and is set to provoke bitter arguments.

Watson thinks that the introduction of competitive tendering for
decommissioning nuclear plants, to begin later this year, could
be disastrous. He fears the loss of control could be similar to
that of Railtrack, the private rail company that collapsed in
2001.

Competition is likely to lead to incidents of a serious nature
due to short-termism and lack of experience and knowledge, he
argued. If you get it wrong at Sellafield, there will be no
going back.

Cost-cutting could cause more accidents like the near disaster
that closed a Sellafield plutonium plant in 1999, he warned.
There is a real risk of loss of corporate memory  and a repeat
of the mistakes of the 1990s.

Watson worked at the Sellafield complex for more than 30 years
and was site director from 1999 until he retired in July 2004.
He made his comments in response to the strategy being proposed
by the governments Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).

I am seriously worried that it is driven by government dogma,
rather than facts, logic or common sense, he said. There was the
potential to seriously threaten all aspects of performance at
nuclear sites. 

A nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield was closed down
last April after it was discovered that radioactive liquid had
leaked from a broken pipe. Another plant, at Dounreay in
Caithness, has been shut since September because of a spillage
of radioactive waste.

Both sites are among the 20 that the NDA is planning to
privatise by bringing in commercial bidders. It has submitted a
plan to government ministers, who are expected to give the
go-ahead before the end of March.

The NDA argues that competitive tendering will make
decommissioning safer, not more dangerous. There is plenty of
evidence to suggest that safety is improved by bringing in
world-class contractors, said an NDA spokesman. It is not
surprising that some people have concerns, but as far as the NDA
is concerned safety is absolutely para mount. And the way safety
is regulated will not change. 

This was disputed by Greenpeace consultant Pete Roche.
Sellafield and Dounreay have hardly been paragons of safety as
nationalised companies, but things could well get worse, he
said. 

Blairs energy review, to be announced tomorrow, will trigger a
storm of protest. Labours own green wing, the Socialist
Environment and Resources Association (Sera), is this weekend
launching a campaign for the party to adopt a sustainable non-
nuclear energy policy.

Nuclear power was a dangerous irrelevance, said Seras Scottish
spokes woman, Claudia Beamish. We do not believe the issue of
nuclear waste can be satisfactorily resolved. 

22 January 2006                                                                                                                                                                 

 Š newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved 			 		
*****************************************************************
 57 reviewjournal.com: DOE renews contract
 
  Jan. 21, 2006

Bechtel to stay on job at Yucca Mountain         

By STEVE TETREAULT <br/>STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	
WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy on Friday executed a
one-year renewal of its contract with Bechtel SAIC, the prime
contractor for Yucca Mountain, a DOE spokesman said. 

The department exercised a one-year option to keep Bechtel on
the job, although with fewer responsibilities after a
reorganization of the nuclear waste project. 

The Bechtel contract that was initiated in March 2001 set a
five-year work period followed by one-year options for the
following five years. DOE notified Bechtel by letter on Friday
it was activating the initial option year that begins on April
1. 

DOE spokesman Allen Benson said the contract price for the
option year and work scope details will be negotiated with the
company. 

Bechtel was instructed in November to redesign canisters that
will be used to transport and store radioactive spent fuel, as
well as the aboveground complex at the Yucca site where fuel
will be stored before being inserted into an underground
repository. 

"This is critical work that needs to be done," Benson said.
"That is pretty much the focus of what they will be working on." 

The Energy Department announced this week Sandia National
Laboratories will assume responsibilities from Bechtel for
coordinating environmental science and technical work on the
project. 

Jason Bohne, a Bechtel spokesman, said the company welcomed the
contract extension. 

"We are committed to this project," Bohne said. "We want to be
involved now and through licensing and operations." 

Benson said the government has paid Bechtel $1.192 billion in
the past five years. 	   


Copyright Š Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 58 AU: Green Left Weekly: Act passed to impose nuke dump

Justin Tutty, Darwin 

The Radioactive Waste Management Act was passed by federal
parliament on December 8 after debate was postponed to allow 20
days for an inquiry into the legislation. The inquiry was
uncommonly brief  it failed to visit the threatened regions and
allocated only one day for hearings. Nonetheless, in the eight
days the inquiry was open to public input, 230 written
submissions were received. 

The act will allow a nuclear dump to be established in the
Northern Territory, despite promises by federal politicians that
this wouldnt occur. 

The act seeks to eliminate any protection in the 1999
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that
might impede siting of the dump. In addition to providing the
framework for environmental assessment, that legislation
specifically addresses nuclear actions, with detailed
reference to controlling the establishment of a facility for the
storage or disposal of radioactive waste. 

These actions are held by the EPBC Act to be matters of
national environmental significance. And for good reason:
radioactive materials present tangible risks to the environment,
human health and indeed all life. The long-lived radioactive
wastes from reprocessed nuclear fuels are highly dangerous
materials, which must be handled with extreme caution. This is
recognised and enshrined in both territory and federal
legislation, but the new act seeks to negate it. 

The act also presents an assault on legislation designed to
protect the values, rights and interests of Indigenous people.
These legal protections particularly serve many of the
communities around the three sites proposed for a nuclear dump
in the NT. The bill explicitly seeks to eliminate any protection
in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection
Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 that might hinder
construction and operation of a nuclear dump. 

While the bill may give the federal government the legal power
sought, the law remains only one force, which is up against many
others that will stand in opposition to the proposed dump  most
prominently the force of public opinion. 

[Justin Tutty is a member of Darwins No Waste Alliance.] 

From Green Left Weekly, January 25, 2006. 

www.greenleft.org.au

Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW     

*****************************************************************
 59 Chicago Sun-Times: Nuke utility to pay $28 mil. over cover-up of acid leak 

January 22, 2006

BY M.R. KROPKO 


CLEVELAND -- The owner of an Ohio nuclear plant agreed to pay a
record $28 million in fines, restitution and community service
Friday over the cover-up of an acid leak that nearly ate through
the reactor vessel's 6-inch-thick steel cap.

 FirstEnergy Corp. acknowledged that workers at its Davis-Besse
plant concealed the damage -- the most extensive corrosion ever
seen at a U.S. nuclear reactor.

 The utility and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that
the boric-acid hole had been growing for at least four years and
that Davis-Besse managers ignored and withheld evidence because
they were more interested in profits than safety at the plant,
situated on Lake Erie about 30 miles east of Toledo.

 On Thursday, a federal grand jury indicted two former
Davis-Besse employees and a contractor on charges of hiding the
damage from regulators.

 U.S. Attorney Greg White said the government can prosecute
FirstEnergy if it breaks the terms of the agreement, which
includes adopting certain safety standards and prohibits the
nation's fourth-largest investor-owned utility from passing
along the fine to its 4.4 million customers in New Jersey, Ohio
and Pennsylvania.

 FirstEnergy agreed to pay $23 million in fines and $5 million
in other spending, including reimbursements to the government
and donations to Habitat for Humanity projects and university
research into energy efficiency. The Justice Department said it
was a record fine for a nuclear plant.

 As part of the agreement, FirstEnergy acknowledged that the
government can prove that plant employees ''knowingly made false
representations to the NRC'' in trying to convince the
commission the plant was safe to operate.

 The company said in a statement that it accepts full
responsibility for the ''failure to accurately communicate with
the NRC.''

 ''We have learned much from this experience,'' said Gary R.
Leidich, president of the company's nuclear operations.

 The plant was closed for two years after the damage was
discovered in 2002 but returned to full power in 2004.
Akron-based FirstEnergy spent $600 million making repairs and
buying replacement power because of the shutdown. AP

 
*****************************************************************
 60 JournalStar.com: Clean-up bill looms for NU - 

Matthew Hansen


The NU Board of Regents passed a resolution Friday authorizing
the university to pay for the clean-up mandated by the
Environmental Protection Agency a year ago.

But its money the university doesnt have, which leaves President
J.B. Milliken and the regents in this bind: Either the
Legislature agrees to pay for the clean-up during its current
session, or the university slices $6 million out of its
already-trimmed budget.

Gov. Dave Heinemans proposed budget does not fund the clean-up
project, a gloomy prospect for university leaders.

We are frustrated and displeased as anyone about this, but we
have no control, Milliken said Friday.

At the end of the day, this bill is going to come due.

The complicated clean-up process began in 2002, when the U.S.
Justice Department sued the university to force it to
decontaminate part of what used to be the Nebraska Ordnance
Plant, a bomb-making site during World War II and the Korean War.

The university bought 9,600 acres of land near Mead during the
1960s and 1970s, after the ordnance plant closed.

The university has used the land mostly for agricultural
research and storage.

It also buried radioactive medical waste there in the 1970s  a
legal move at the time  and may have further contaminated the
area by cleaning pesticides off farm equipment and allowing them
to leak into the soil.

At one time university leaders hoped to avoid payment
altogether. The EPA and federal government thought differently.

Then university leaders hoped the Nebraskas Environmental Trust
would foot the bill. But the trust turned down their request for
funding last year and hasnt responded to one request this year.

Now, it appears the universitys only potential savior is the
Nebraska Legislature, which could ignore Heinemans proposed
budget and pay for some or all of the clean-up. 

The university has asked the Legislature for $5.8 million in a
budget deficit request.

Our first recourse, our logical resource, is to ask the
Legislature, Milliken said. We arent prepared to pay this in any
other way.

Beyond that, we have no choice but to pay it ourselves.

If the university does have to pay for the clean-up, the lions
share of the money would come from the budgets of the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln and the University of Nebraska Medical
Center because those institutions contaminated the site.

That means the University of Nebraska-Lincoln alone may face $6
million in cuts if the Legislature does not pay for the clean-up
or the universitys increased utility costs during the past year.

UNL Chancellor Harvey Perlman told the regents $6 million is
more than the total budgets of the College of Journalism and
Mass Communications and the College of Architecture combined.

It would be a serious, serious cut, said Regent Charles Wilson
of Lincoln.

In other news:

The board elected Regent Jim McClurg of Lincoln as its new
chairman. McClurg, who will serve a one-year term, was appointed
to the board in 2002 by then-Gov. Mike Johanns after Jay Matzke
resigned.

His 5th district includes a small slice of western Lincoln,
where McClurg lives, and runs across 17 counties in mostly rural
southeast and south central Nebraska.

McClurg is running for election in that district this year.

Regent Charles Wilson of Lincoln, the boards longest-tenured
regent, will serve as vice chairman. Wilson has served on the
board for 16 years.

Reach Matthew Hansen at 473-7245 or mhansen@journalstar.com
  
Š 2002-, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.   |  
*****************************************************************
 61 AFP: Iran wants China in on Russian uranium enrichment plan - 

 Saturday January 21, 12:13 PM 

BERLIN (AFP) - Iran wants China to be involved in possible
enrichment of uranium with Russia aimed at ensuring Tehran does
not develop nuclear weapons.

In its next edition to appear Monday, the weekly quotes top
government sources as saying Iran had told German Foreign
Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of its willingness to discuss
the Russian plan.

"One of the Iranians' conditions is that China also be involved
in this joint venture," German newspaper Der Sopiegel reported
Saturday.

The (Advertisement)
[ src=]  head of Russia's atomic energy agency, Sergei
Kiriyenko, said Friday that "Iranian partners", whom he did not
name, were due in Russia in the coming days to talk about the
plan, which Tehran had earlier officially snubbed.

Russia is building a nuclear power station at Bushehr in Iran,
and the United States and European Union suspect that Tehran is
using the project to mask a secret bomb-making program,
something hotly denied by the Iranian government.

Russia has offered to handle the enrichment of Iran's uranium
supplies on its soil as part of an effort to ease fears that the
civilian technology could be used for military purposes.

According to Der Spiegel, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had
backed the "Russian solution" in telephone calls with US
President George W. Bush and United Nations Secretary General
Kofi Annan.

Moscow's foreign ministry reported Friday that British Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw had telephoned his Russian counterpart
Sergei Lavrov to discuss the crisis.

On Thursday, Lavrov held talks in Moscow with French Foreign
Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy.

Britain, Germany and France have been leading the EU
negotiations with Iran aimed at ensuring its atomic programme
does not pose a threat.

Following the collapse of the talks as a result of Iranian
insistence on resuming nuclear research, the three asked
Wednesday for a meeting of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) on February 2, with a view to referring Iran to
the UN Security Council for action.

However the Western powers are anxious to ensure that any action
is not vetoed in the council by Russia or China. 

    Copyright Š 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 62 Dnevnik: Construction of Kozloduy radwaste repository faces 6-mo delay                                                                                                                           

The construction of the interim dry spent fuel storage facility
on the site of Bulgaria's Kozloduy nuclear power plant (NPP)
will miss its 2009 launch target by 6 months, the NPP's
executive director Ivan Ivanov said.

 In may 2004, the consortium of Germany's RWE NUKEM Corp. and
GNB won the 48.7 mln euro order to build the storage facility.

 The consortium will design and construct the facility where up
to 2,800 spent fuel assemblies will be stored for up to 50
years. 

The financing for the project, administered by the EBRD, is part
of the 200 mln euro provided by the European Commission for the
retirement of plant units 1 and 2.

 The Kozloduy NPP may finish 2005 in the red due to the lower
electricity prices fixed by the State Energy and Water
Regulatory Commission, said Ivanov.

 The size of the loss will not be known before May when the
financial analysis is due for release. In October 2005, the
regulator approved a price of 1.89 levs/mWh, disregarding a
proposal from the NPP for a tariff hike.

 The negative financial outturn will obstruct the repayment of
the loans taken out to modernise the power station. The 500 mln
euro project is due for completion by the end of 2006. (Dnevnik)
 	 
*****************************************************************
 63 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Preventing nuclear war should be first priority 

Today: January 22, 2006 at 7:55:31 PST 

Letter: Preventing nuclear war should be first priority 
Thanks to the Las Vegas Sun on Jan. 20 for running Cragg Hines'
column, "Iraq situation could impact willingness to deal with
Iran." We are wasting valuable resources in Iraq that we will
need to combat the most serious threat this nation has ever
faced: nuclear terrorism.

 Al-Qaida terrorists are planning an "America Hiroshima." They
have the money and the resolve, and it is easy to transport such
a weapon across our porous borders.

 All the terrorists need is a nuclear warhead. Such a device
could come from any one of several sources. A bomb could be
manufactured from enriched uranium currently being produced from
scores of nuclear power plants around the world. A device could
be purchased from one of the spin-off Soviet states where they
are currently being guarded by unpaid soldiers. Or a nuclear
weapon could be given to al-Qaida by North Korea or Iran.

 We need to be prepared to take military action against
individuals or nations that pose a nuclear threat. However, we
are expending all of our resources (money, military personnel
and public resolve) in Iraq, a country that does not pose a
threat. Our resources are not inexhaustible. They should be
reserved to combat nuclear terrorism.

 Albert G. Marquis

 Las Vegas

 
         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 64 Idaho Statesman: WGI expands jobs in nuclear facilities

                 01-22-2006                

Contract at Los Alamos laboratory will help company compete in
future bidding
 
A Washington Group International scientist at the Savannah River
Site in South Carolina conducts a pilot-scale test of a nuclear
waste-pretreatment system before sharing the technology with
other Department of Energy facilities in the nation. Related

Environmental management and radioactive waste cleanup contracts:
 Savannah River site in Aiken, S.C.
 West Valley Demonstration Project 		in western N.Y.
 Columbia River Corridor Closure 			Project near Richland, Wash.
 Hanford Waste Treatment Plant 			near Richland, Wash.
 Idaho Cleanup Project at Idaho 			National Laboratory in Idaho
Falls
 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 		in Paducah, Ky.

National Nuclear Security Administration:
 Los Alamos National Laboratory in 		Los Alamos, N.M.
 Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas
 Y-12 National Security Complex in 		Oak Ridge, Tenn.
 Savannah River site in Aiken, S.C.

Other DOE contracts:
 Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho 	Falls
 Oak Ridge site in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
 Savannah River site in Aiken, S.C. 	 	 	 
Melissa McGrath
 
The Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 01-22-2006
 Email This ArticlePrinter Friendly Page 

Washington Group International's success last month in winning a
multimillion dollar contract to manage the Los Alamos National
Laboratory means the Boise-based global engineering and
construction firm is now working in nearly all major nuclear
facilities in the United States.

Although the Department of Energy does not keep track of where
WGI ranks in comparison to other contractors, the Los Alamos
contract solidifies Washington Group's claim as one of the
largest and most experienced leaders in the delicate business of
handling hazardous materials.

WGI is working on several DOE projects to help clean up
radioactive waste and to build and manage nuclear facilities.
The firm also heads nuclear projects that are not part of the
DOE, such as the company's work to decommission nuclear weapons
in the United States and in countries that belonged to the
former Soviet Union.

The company's most recent award to help manage the Los Alamos
National Laboratory could help WGI compete for future contracts
at home and abroad, WGI officials said.

WGI was chosen to help run the Los Alamos lab because it is
"very strong" in managing projects that handle hazardous
materials, like plutonium, said David Pethick, senior vice
president for business development in WGI's Energy and
Environment business unit.

The Department of Energy is one of WGI's major customers. DOE
contracts make up most of the company's Energy and Environment
business unit, which contributed 13 percent, or about $400
million, of the $2.9 billion WGI posted in total sales last year.

In its most recent quarter, the Energy and Environment unit made
up more than 20 percent, or $173.7 million, of the $815 million
in sales the company posted.

In the environmental cleanup market, WGI said it holds the
largest share of DOE contracts among companies in that industry.

The seven-year Los Alamos contract is not a cleanup project, but
it will help WGI "expand our resume of capabilities" for
handling projects from the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), a division of the DOE that oversees
nuclear weapons programs, Pethick said.

In total, the Los Alamos contract could be worth more than $500
million, and WGI is estimated to get about 10 percent of that,
according to one analyst.

"The nice thing about these big federal government contracts is
that they are relatively safe, stable sources of revenue," said
John Rogers, an analyst with D.A. Davidson &Co. The contracts
are safe because the contracts are usually long term, and the
"government is good for the money," he explained.

The Los Alamos lab in northern New Mexico, one of three NNSA
nuclear weapons labs in the nation, is responsible for making
sure the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and secure.

For the first time in six decades, the DOE asked companies to
bid on a contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory. The
University of California has been managing the lab since it
opened in 1943.

UC and Bechtel Inc. are now leading the team  known as the Los
Alamos National Security LLC  that was awarded the contract.
The team also includes WGI and BWX Technologies Inc.

WGI already is working on a number of other DOE contracts
including projects at the Idaho National Laboratory, the Hanford
Waste Treatment Plant near Richland, Wash., and the Savannah
River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C.

The details of WGI's work at NNSA facilities  like Los Alamos
or the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas  are classified. But
in general WGI is helping to manage or design nuclear facilities
at several DOE sites, Pethick said.

This latest contract also will give WGI a steady stream of
income for at least seven years with the opportunity to get the
contract extended another 13 years. Each year, the team could
earn between $53 million and $80 million, depending on the
quality of performance.

Rogers estimated in a research note that WGI will get about 10
percent of the fees. He kept a "Buy" rating on the company's
stock.

"It's a nice win for them," Rogers said of the Los Alamos
contract. "They were not the lead on the contract, but they are
a partner in it and I think it is more evidence of their
credibility and expertise in some of the nuclear services."

The fact that WGI was asked to join the UC and Bechtel-led team
also should be considered a compliment to WGI's expertise in the
industry, Rogers said.

In 2006, WGI will continue to compete for more DOE contracts,
including the Nevada test site contract that WGI already entered
a proposal for, Pethick said.

But the company also expects to take its environmental cleanup
business overseas as the United Kingdom prepares to get rid of
its nuclear waste. Bidding for those projects will start later
this year and continue for the next five years, Pethick said.

The team that includes WGI will begin work at Los Alamos in
June.   

*****************************************************************
 65 LA Daily News: Rains clean up toxins at development site near lab

Article Launched: 01/21/2006 12:00:00 AM                                                        
               
Perchlorate no longer detected at Dayton Canyon Creek

  By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer   

  WEST HILLS - Heavy rainfall over New Year's weekend apparently
washed away much of the contamination from the site of a planned
luxury-home development, just days before state toxics officials
were supposed to begin digging up the chemical. 

Where officials found the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate at
up to 1,300 parts per million in the fall - roughly 166 times
higher than acceptable limits - they detected none of the
chemical in tests taken after the storm dumped about 3 inches of
rain on the site. 

Perchlorate is a salt that dissolves easily and moves with
water. 

"We wanted to do the right thing, we wanted to make sure we got
the perchlorate out of there, but it didn't happen. We had big
rains and now it's gone," said Sayareh Amir, branch chief of the
Department of Toxic Substances Control Southern California
Cleanup Operations. 

The discovery complicates an already controversial
investigation. 

Last spring, Centex Homes measured very high levels of
perchlorate in Dayton Canyon Creek, which flows through their
property at the west end of Roscoe Boulevard. The land is 1.3
miles downhill from the Santa Susana Field Lab, where the
chemical was used in rocket engine tests, prompting concern that
the perchlorate originated at the lab. 

In December, the DTSC announced it would launch an emergency
cleanup of the perchlorate Dec. 12, before the rain. But
community activists accused the agency of trying to rush the
cleanup and erase potential links to the field lab, so it
postponed the removal to give activists more time to review the
plan. 

Elizabeth Crawford with Physicians for Social Responsibility
said she was disappointed that environmental regulators didn't
move faster after the contamination was discovered in May. 

"This is exactly what we were afraid of, that perchlorate would
be liberated and move off-site," she said. 

Longtime lab watchdogs worry that Centex Homes and the DTSC will 
not investigate possible links to the field lab now that the high 
levels of perchlorate have dissipated. 

Dan Hirsch with the Committee to Bridge the Gap said the agency
will not conduct further tests for perchlorate until the rainy
season is over in late March. "If there's still perchlorate
anywhere on that property, further rain will cause it to migrate
more," he said. 

Amir considers the field lab a potential source of perchlorate
and plans to test the soil up to the lab boundary after the
rainy season. 

Despite high concentrations of perchlorate that may have been
washed from the creek into the Los Angeles River, officials said
they don't think the chemical will affect water quality or
groundwater supplies downstream. 

"I'm not concerned about a relatively small amount of
perchlorate during a large rain flow," said Jonathan Bishop,
executive director of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board. "We don't like it, but I'm not concerned that
this is going to affect drinking water downstream. It's just
moving during those rain events to infiltrate (into
groundwater)." 

Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746 

IF YOU GO: The West Hills Neighborhood Council's Ad Hoc Committee 
on Dayton Canyon will discuss the perchlorate issue at 7 p.m. 
Tuesday at West Valley Christian Church, Room 210, 22540 Sherman 
Way. 

                  Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************