*****************************************************************
01/23/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.19
*****************************************************************
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 IPS-English IRAN: Keeping Nuclear Negotiations Critical
2 [progchat_action] U.S. Still Short in Iran Security Council
3 AFP: UN nuclear agency to report on Iran
4 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: Time Is Now to Take Iran Before U.N.
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens Full-Scale Enrichment
6 AFP: Bush warns Iran on Israel
7 Xinhua: Indonesia to host talks between S. Korea, DPRK
8 US: Gathering at Ward Valley Commemorates the 7th Anniversary of
9 US: Newspaper Tree: Opinion: About the People's Right to Know -
10 Spain Herald: Nuclear Exterminator
11 AFP: Toshiba to buy Westinghouse for twice expected sum
12 Guardian Unlimited: Toshiba to buy BNFL's Westinghouse
13 AFP: China and Saudi Arabia forge closer energy ties during king's v
NUCLEAR REACTORS
14 US: [NukeNet] NRC annual conference, Mar. 7-9, Questions for them
15 London Times: The nucleus of the case - Comment -
16 US: JS Online: Editorial: A welcome development
17 BBC: Living near a nuclear power station
18 BBC: Call to halt nuclear power plans
19 Guardian Unlimited: No obstacles to atomic option, says 'nuclear
20 BBC: Nuclear reactors under spotlight
21 BBC: 'Decision time' on nuclear power
22 BBC: At-a-glance: Energy review
23 FT.com: Reactor policy to be made after 3-month public airing
24 US: News-Record.com: New nuclear reactor in N.C. considered
25 Independent: Mind the energy gap - experts query need for nuclear
26 Independent: How governments have failed to tackle an £85bn problem
27 US: York Daily Record: Worker falsified safety records
28 AFP: Cold snap affects Czech nuclear power plant reactor -
29 Xinhua: Belarus may start building nuclear power plant in 2008
30 Manufacturer.com: Energy review poses many questions
31 US: NRC: [License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80]
32 Scotsman.com News: Row over future of energy supplies
33 Scotsman.com News: 'No do-nothing option' over energy
34 Greenpeace: Choose Clean Energy
35 UPI: U.K. opens debate on nuclear power
36 Guardian Unlimited: Review to consider new nuclear power stations
37 Guardian Unlimited: No obstacles to atomic option, says energy minis
38 London Times: It's decision time on nuclear power, says minister
NUCLEAR SECURITY
39 US: "Could nuclear plants withstand an attack?" Baltimore Sun Op-Ed
40 US: WorldNetDaily: Another nuke exercise in Charleston
41 UPI: Leaders warn of nuclear terror strike
NUCLEAR SAFETY
42 [du-list] depleted uranium - a hidden looming worldwide
43 US: eattle Post-Intelligencer: No new trial for Hanford downwinder
44 Pacific Mag: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Scientists Study Thyroid Cancer Risk
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
45 US: Could California's proposed Route 241 be a nuke-waste highway?
46 Manchester Evening News: RTS in radioactive store coup
47 US: RIA Novosti: Kazakhstan, Japan to develop uranium deposit
48 BBC: BNFL to sell US power plant arm
49 Las Vegas SUN: Bush eyes Yucca funds
50 Independent: Danger: Nuclear Waste - Deal with disposal first, warn
51 US: LA Daily News: Board rightly rejects Boeing's request for looser
52 US: Creamer Media's Engineering News: Uranium survey planned for Can
53 US: ITAR-TASS: Kazakhstan planning to become biggest uranium produce
54 Portal da Cidadania: Brazil ready to begin enriching uranium
55 Portal da Cidadania: Greenpeace criticizes uranium enrichment factor
56 US: StockInterview.com: Uranium Mining Companies Cheer NRC Legal Dec
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
57 AP Wire: Savannah River Site plans to consolidate plutonium
58 Santa Fe New Mexican: Los Alamos director: outstanding year for lab
59 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg
60 lamonitor.com: Shades of Brockovich glimpsed here in L.A.
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IPS-English IRAN: Keeping Nuclear Negotiations Critical
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:57:32 -0800
ROMAIPS AP WD IP EN ML=20
IRAN: Keeping Nuclear Negotiations Critical
Saloumeh Peyman=20
TEHRAN, Jan 23(IPS)- By allowing inspectors from the International=20
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit and verify its nuclear programme =20
this week, Iran has indicated readiness to work with the United Nations=20
watchdog, while continuing to limit the role of the Western powers.=20
Ali Larijani, Iran's topmost security official, told the state-run=20
Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) on Sunday that the country=20
considered the IAEA as the pivot for talks on nuclear energy and=20
stressed the importance of cooperation with the Vienna-based, United=20
Nations body. =20
But Larijani, who is also chief negotiator at the IAEA, added that Iran=20
also welcomed the contribution of all countries in nuclear research and =20
peaceful nuclear activities. =94We have announced this time and again and=
=20
are now stressing it,'' IRNA quoted him as saying. =20
On the weekend, Tehran announced the expected arrival on Monday of a two-
man IAEA team and indicated Iranian determination to work with the=20
agency to verify that its national nuclear programme was not military in=20
nature. =20
The visit, officials said, is in keeping with the additional protocol=20
signed by Iran to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003,=20
providing =91'objective guarantee'' that its nuclear programme will not=20
deviate from civilian use.=20
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a rare press conference in the=20
capital on Saturday that Iran's programme conformed to the IAEA=20
requirements and the NPT better than those of Western=20
countries. ''Cameras, installed by IAEA, are present at all Iranian=20
nuclear sites, although the Western countries states do not allow the=20
U.N. to monitor their own nuclear programmes.''=20
On Friday, Ayatollah Jannati, secretary of the 'Guardian Council of the=20
Constitution', set out Iran's determination to assert=20
its ''inalienable'' rights. ''We appreciate President Ahmadinejad=20
because he is following a more aggressive foreign policy on human=20
rights and nuclear issues than the former governments of Khatami and=20
Rafsanjani''.
''President Ahmadinejad is asking =91'why only you (western powers) shoul=
d=20
send inspectors for human rights or nuclear issues to Iran -- we also=20
want to inspect you and report on your activities,'' Jannati said, after=20
Friday prayers.=20
Ahmad Ziadabadi , who was imprisoned during the Khatami presidency and=20
now works as a political analyst on Middle East affairs in London, told=20
IPS over phone: ''Iranian officials will likely go on provoking a=20
collision with the United States and the European troika ( Britain,=20
France and Germany) until the dossier ends up in United Nations Security=20
Council (UNSC).''=20
Despite moves by the EU3 to refer Iran's resumption of nuclear fuel=20
research to the UNSC, the mood within the country's top leadership=20
remains upbeat and the general belief was that it would be possible to=20
ride out international sanctions -- if it came to that.=20
''Taking into account the current context, the possibility of Iran's=20
case being sent to the security council is weak,=94 Iran's foreign=20
minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Wednesday.=20
A draft referral is expected to be put up at an emergency meeting of the=20
IAEA's 35-nation board early February for a final decision on a=20
referral.=20
''We are not worried by the Security Council, but it is the wrong=20
method,=94 foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters her=
e=20
at a routine Sunday briefing. =91'An emergency meeting of the board of=20
governors of the IAEA is a political act.=94=20
Importantly, the veto-holding powers China and Russia, which have major=20
economic stakes in Iran, have opposed imposing sanctions on Iran-- which=20
is one reason for the optimistic outlook among the country's top=20
leadership.
Asefi refuted suggestions by EU representative for foreign policy and=20
security Javier Solana that Russia had changed its stance on Iran. =94Th=
e=20
Russians believe that the nuclear issue should be resolved within the=20
framework of the IAEA and Solana's remarks are in conflict with Russia's=20
supervision over Iran's nuclear activities,=94 he said.=20
While China is a major buyer of Iranian crude (13 percent of total=20
imports comes is from Iran), Russia is building an 800 billion dollar=20
nuclear power plant at Bushehr, has a 700 million dollar contract to=20
supply Iran with anti-aircraft missile systems, and is a potential=20
partner in the proposed Iran-Pakistan- India gas pipeline worth seven=20
billion dollars.
Iran has warned that a referral to the UNSC would invite a limiting of=20
the access given to inspectors from the IAEA to its nuclear facilities=20
and also that the country may then begin full-scale uranium enrichment.
Besides, the possibility of a referral to the UNSC, with uncertain=20
results has already worried oil markets since either an embargo or a=20
decision by Iran that stops the country's daily crude oil supplies of=20
2.4 billion barrels could make sharply escalate prices. =20
State-run print and electronic media, through last week, echoed the =20
taunting approach of officialdom designed to give the impression that,=20
as one publication said: =91'the West does not dare to put Iran under an=
y=20
oil export sanction let alone carry out military attacks=94.=20
Newspapers have quoted the spokesman of the Iranian foreign ministry,=20
Hamid-Reza Asefi as saying: =F4 We have well considered the probability o=
f=20
the sanctions and we are fully ready to cope with it.=94=20
But there were also notes of caution. Kamal Athari, a journalist and=20
political activist said in an editorial in the daily Sarmayeh (capital)=20
on Jan. 16 that ''challenging America through military and economic=20
leverages is not wrong tactics-- the erroneous strategy is in relying=20
only on those tactics. Iran should engage international organisations=20
(such as the IAEA) and empower the Islamic republic through=20
democratisation and justice in Iranian society=94.
This week, the Iranian establishment seems keen to heed Atahari's=20
advice, at least on engaging the IAEA and carrying on diplomatic=20
lobbying especially with the non-aligned countries.=20
Alongside the baiting continues. Bragged Ahmadinejad: =91'They ( EU=20
troika ) talk tough against Iran's nuclear stance in front of TV cameras=20
but behind the negotiation table, they flatter and beg us to=20
compromise=94.=20
Abulhasan G., a media advisor for several privately-owned multinational=20
companies, told IPS: ''They (Iranian ruling establishment) are following=20
a two steps forward one step backward policy. They speak and act tough=20
only up to a point but as soon as things get critical they go back to=20
speaking softly .''
Accordingly, while Tehran has called for resumed talks with the European=20
troika, its representative at the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh has=20
declared as ''irreversible'' the decision to resume nuclear fuel=20
research. =20
Amir Asalanian, a college lecturer agreed with the analysis. =91'Two step=
s=20
forward was the President's press conference and resuming nuclear=20
research activities and one step backwards is the official statement of=20
readiness to negotiate with the EU troika and readiness to cooperate=20
with IAEA inspectors.''=20
''It seems there is a division of labour among Iranian officials, some=20
are assigned to speak tough, and some to speak softly. But, on the=20
whole, the nuclear policy has consistency and is aimed at eventually=20
indigenising the nuclear fuel cycle -- that is the bottom line,''=20
Abulhasan said. (END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/EN/ML/SP/RDR/06)=20
=20
=3D 01230427 ORP002
NNNN
*****************************************************************
2 [progchat_action] U.S. Still Short in Iran Security Council
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:56:35 -0600 (CST)
U.S. Still Short in Iran Security Council Push
Permanent Members Russia, China Favor Less Formal Action on Atomic Program
By Molly Moore Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, January 22, 2006; A21
PARIS, Jan. 21 -- The United States has been unable to win international
support to officially report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, despite two
years of diplomatic efforts and defiant new actions by the country to resume
uranium enrichment research, according to European diplomats involved in
negotiations.
With the International Atomic Energy Agency scheduled to discuss the crisis
on Feb. 2, U.S. and European officials are considering delaying a direct
confrontation with Iran in return for greater pressure from its allies to
halt its enrichment research, the European diplomats said. Some forms of
enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons, though Iran maintains
its research will be used only to produce electrical power.
Russia is concerned that a referral of Iran to the Security Council would
result in international sanctions against one of its major trading partners.
It has proposed a less formal approach that would allow the Security Council
to discuss Iran's case and provide guidelines for compliance with
international demands, the diplomats said. European diplomats discussed the
negotiations on the condition they not be identified because of the
sensitivity and volatility of the ongoing talks.
"The Russians say we have to take a very gradual, incremental approach,"
said a European diplomat close to the flurry of shuttle diplomacy this week
between European capitals and some of Iran's closest allies, including
Russia, China and India. "The objective is now to use the time until Feb. 2
to build a consensus. The wider the consensus, the stronger the message to
Iran."
The Bush administration's primary goal is to report Iran to the Security
Council, where the United States has more clout than it does inside the IAEA
and where Iran can be threatened with sanctions. With stronger support from
the Europeans in recent weeks, the White House appears closer to reaching
the Security Council than at any time in the two years since it began the
push.
Talks between Iran and the group known as the EU3 -- Britain, France and
Germany -- broke down last fall, pushing the European countries closer to
Washington's position.
Officials say the United States and the Europeans are already likely to win
enough votes at the IAEA meeting to report Iran but would then face problems
seeking Security Council action without the full support of Russia and
China. As permanent members of the council, they have veto power over its
decisions.
"We are ready to take action," said an EU3 official close to the
negotiations. "At the same time, we have to get everybody on board. Clearly
Russia and China are not yet on board for referral" to the Security Council.
"We want the IAEA board to remain united," the official said. "It has to be
carefully choreographed."
While several European diplomats said it was possible that Russia and China
could be persuaded to support a formal referral to the Security Council,
they also said Europeans are increasingly inclined to accept a version of
Russia's more flexible proposal.
"The name of the game is to try to line up the international community so
the Iranians can't play one against the other," said Francois Heisbourg, who
heads the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research.
Pursuing an informal path would give Iran more time to respond to questions
from U.N. inspectors and to explore a possible deal in which it would enrich
uranium in Russia rather than at home. If Iran provides the cooperation that
inspectors say they need and holds off on any additional research until the
IAEA meets again in March, it could greatly affect the council's response,
according to Western diplomats familiar with the negotiations.
On the other hand, if the IAEA board reports Iran to the Security Council,
Tehran has threatened to bar IAEA inspectors from its facilities. Some IAEA
board members consider the threat so potentially serious threat that they
support prolonging negotiations.
European diplomats say they would like the Security Council to issue a
statement supporting the inspection process but keeping the case under IAEA
authority if Iran cooperates. But if Iran cuts ties with the inspectors or
begins assembling centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant, the Europeans
would ask the council to step in with tougher measures, such as considering
a resolution to force cooperation.
European officials are being dispatched to the capitals of all key members
of the 35-country IAEA board and are using previously scheduled meetings and
bilateral visits to try to cement a consensus for pressure against Iran.
The United States is sending a large team to Vienna ahead of the Feb. 2 IAEA
session to meet with diplomats and promote its case. While U.S. officials
are saying publicly and privately that they have no intention of seeking
immediate sanctions against Iran, they are not laying out their specific
plan for action inside the Security Council.
"That has some countries worried," according to a Western diplomat, who said
the Bush administration's strategy remained overshadowed by the U.S.
invasion of Iraq.
"The Iraq experience colors everything about Iran," said Mark Fitzgerald, a
nonproliferation expert at the London-based International Institute for
Strategic Studies and a former U.S. State Department official. "Those who
want to give Iran the benefit of the doubt use the Iraq experience as a
reason for doing so: the misuse of intelligence, the mistakes in the
intelligence and the way the war has progressed."
Iranian diplomats also have been lobbying in Vienna and in other capitals.
Officials said the Iranians have been emphasizing that they have not resumed
enrichment work since cutting seals on equipment this month. In private
meetings, according to several diplomats, the Iranians are also emphasizing
willingness to return to negotiations and increased interest in enriching
their uranium in Russia. Those messages are influencing some of the IAEA
board members, including several European countries that want to avoid
escalating the crisis, diplomats said.
Staff writer Dafna Linzer in Vienna contributed to this report.
) 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/21/AR2006012101083_pf.html
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
*****************************************************************
3 AFP: UN nuclear agency to report on Iran
Tuesday January 24, 5:07 AM
Photo: AFP
VIENNA (AFP) - The UN atomic agency will file a progress report
on Iran's disputed nuclear program ahead of an emergency meeting
February 2, with a more detailed account coming in March, its
director, Mohamed ElBaradei, said.
The written report and meeting come at a time of escalating
tensions over an Iranian nuclear program which Tehran says is
for electricity but which the United States charges hides atomic
weapons work.
Iranian national security spokesman Hossein Entezami said in
Tehran Monday that Iran would end tough UN nuclear inspections
and resume ultra-sensitive uranium enrichment on an industrial
scale if it was hauled before the UN Security Council for
possible sanctions.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s 35-nation board
of governors has the power to refer Iran to the world body when
it meets in Vienna.
The report, which ElBaradei had at first not wanted to do even
in abridged form before a regularly scheduled IAEA board meeting
in March, is being filed with the board in answer to formal
requests from Australia, Britain, France and the United States,
according to letters made available to AFP.
Britain, Germany and France had called for the emergency meeting
after Iran on January 10 resumed uranium enrichment work aimed
at making what could serve either as fuel for atomic reactors or
the raw material for nuclear weapons.
The European Union and the United States are trying to convince
key Iranian trading partners Russia and China to back their hard
line against Iran, which includes the referral to the council,
but diplomats said the two sides still disagree on the wording
of a resolution for the February 2 meeting.
ElBaradei said in his letter that his deputy director general
for safeguards, Ollie Heinonen, "will provide to the board at
its 2 February meeting an update brief on where the agency
stands in its investigation of outstanding issues."
But he said his "work programme" with the Iranians was "with a
view to and in preparation for the submission of a detailed
report to the regular (IAEA) meeting . . . scheduled to begin on
6 March."
A diplomat close to the IAEA said Heinonen would be traveling to
Iran on Wednesday and is expecting the Iranians to come through
on long-standing IAEA requests, such as access to the Lavizan
site in Tehran.
"But it will take time to evaluate the results, even if a
breakthrough is made in access and in getting data, on P-2
centrifuge's for instance," the diplomat said.
Diplomats have told AFP that Iran may have received in 1997
three sophisticated P-2 centrifuges, which are machines capable
of enriching uranium, from the black-market network of disgraced
Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.
Iran denies having received imports of such centrifuges.
A diplomat said the IAEA has only recently obtained declassified
US intelligence on P-2 centrifuges as well as on alleged work by
Iran on adapting missiles for nuclear warheads.
ElBaradei said the IAEA was only able "to share with the Iranian
authorities as recently as a week ago, information relevant to
some of the issues under investigation.
"Due process, therefore, must take its course before the
Secretariat (the IAEA administration) is able to submit a
detailed report," ElBaradei said in his letter.
US ambassador to the IAEA Gregory Schulte asked in a letter to
ElBaradei for clarification of the "significance" of a document
Iran has shown to the IAEA about refining uranium into
hemisphere shapes that experts say can only be used as the core
of atom bombs.
Schulte also asked for ElBaradei to say, in a short progress
report, "what is the status of the IAEA efforts to investigate
indications of an Iranian nuclear weapons program."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met a senior official
from Iran in Moscow Monday and voiced hope that Tehran would
resume negotiations to resolve international concerns over its
nuclear program, news agencies said.
Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: Time Is Now to Take Iran Before U.N.
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday January 23, 2006 10:03 PM
AP Photo DCSW105
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
Monday ``the time has come'' to send Iran before the U.N.
Security Council over its disputed nuclear program, but she
seemed to acknowledge that U.N. action may not be swift.
Iran warned that it would intensify its nuclear development if
referred to the Security Council.
``It has been our belief, and it is that of the Europeans as
well and a number of other states, that the time has come for
referral'' to the United Nations body, Rice said following a
meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini.
Calling the case for referral ``very strong,'' Rice said the
United States will push for it at a special meeting of the U.N.
nuclear watchdog agency early next month.
She would not speculate on what action the Security Council
might take, or comment on whether the United States would be
satisfied with an outcome less punitive than international
economic sanctions.
``The Security Council can then take up the matter at a later
time, but the referral absolutely has to be made,'' Rice said.
On another topic, Rice was guarded about how the United States
would proceed if, as expected, the militant and political group
Hamas gains a substantial or dominant foothold in Palestinian
elections this week.
Rice repeated U.S. policy that Hamas is a terrorist
organization, and she said Washington will not change that
position. At the same time, she said Hamas poses a ``practical
problem'' for the U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Hamas has not renounced violence and does not recognize Israel's
right to exist.
``It probably goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that
it's hard to have negotiations with a party that you do not
recognize its right to exist,'' Rice said.
Israel, the U.S. and other nations are trying to come up with an
approach to a Palestinian government with a large Hamas
component. U.S. officials say they will not deal directly with
Hamas members, but they suggest Washington would not shun the
entire government.
On Iran, although Rice stressed the strength of international
resolve to stop Iran's march toward possible nuclear weapons,
she was reminded that even strong military allies may not share
the United States' preference for harsh repercussions for
Tehran.
Fini said he agrees that Iran's case should go to the Security
Council, which could take a range of steps up to broad trade
sanctions or an oil embargo. But Fini began remarks on Iran by
noting that Italy is Iran's largest European trading partner, a
reminder that economic measures against the oil exporter would
have consequences far beyond Iran.
``The Security Council will evaluate the issue, we hope, with
flexibility and with political farsightedness,'' Fini said.
European nations that have been negotiating with Iran began
drafting a referral resolution that stops short of asking the
Security Council to impose sanctions. The draft resolution asks
the body to press Tehran to reinstate a freeze on uranium
enrichment and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy
Agency investigation of suspect nuclear activities.
Iran claims its nuclear program is entirely devoted to
developing the technology needed to make nuclear energy. The
United States claims Iran is hiding a weapons program, or
ambitions for one, and that its past deceptions warrant review
by the Security Council.
Ending a 15-month hiatus during negotiations with European
countries over a way to ensure Iran cannot make a bomb, Tehran
removed IAEA seals from nuclear equipment Jan. 10 and announced
it would restart experiments.
Israel's defense minister implied over the weekend that if
diplomacy fails with Iran, Israel could resort to military
action to defend itself from a nation whose leader, hardline
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said the Jewish state should
be wiped off the map.
European diplomats have reacted with alarm. Fini called
Ahmadinejad's statements unacceptable but added: ``Being equally
firm, we want to stress and reiterate to our Israeli friends
that the only way to guarantee peace and security is the
diplomatic route.''
Rice said that while President Bush always reserves the right to
use force, U.S. military action against Iran ``is not on the
agenda because we have committed to the diplomatic course.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens Full-Scale Enrichment
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday January 23, 2006 10:03 PM
AP Photo XHS112
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran upped the ante Monday in its nuclear
standoff, warning that it will immediately begin developing a
full-scale uranium enrichment program if it is referred to the
U.N. Security Council.
The message, delivered by Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's senior
envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, reflected
Tehran's defiance in the face of growing international pressure
over its nuclear program. Enrichment can be used in electricity
production but it is also a pathway to making nuclear weapons.
Negotiations intensified ahead of a Feb. 2 meeting of the IAEA's
35-nation board to decide on referral.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, planned to travel
to Moscow on Tuesday to discuss a proposal to have Iran's
uranium enriched in Russia, then returned to Iran for use in the
country's reactors - a compromise that would provide more
oversight and ease tensions.
A European official said the two sides would discuss the
possibility of allowing Iran to conduct small-scale experimental
enrichment itself if it agreed to move all industrial production
to Russia.
The official, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing
confidential details of the negotiations, refused to say whether
Britain, France and Germany - the key European nations behind
the U.S.-supported push for referral - would tolerate such a
deal.
Those European nations and EU representatives also intensified
diplomatic efforts, with diplomats telling the AP they were
sending senior representatives to Brazil, Russia, China and
Indonesia to persuade the key IAEA board members to drop their
opposition to referral.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday called for a
step-by-step diplomatic approach in the standoff, saying she
wants ``the largest majority possible'' for whatever course of
action is decided upon by the IAEA.
While the Europeans believe they have enough votes to get Iran
hauled before the council Feb. 2, they want broad support,
including from key developing countries as well as skeptics
Russia and China.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
``referral absolutely has to be made'' on Feb. 2, while
remaining vague on what action the Security Council would take -
and when.
Iran removed IAEA seals from equipment Jan. 10 and announced it
would restart experiments, including what it described as
small-scale enrichment - a move that led the European
negotiators to call for the Feb. 2 emergency board session.
The Europeans also began drafting a resolution calling for the
Security Council to press Tehran to re-impose its freeze on
enrichment and fully cooperate with the U.N. agency in its
investigation of suspect nuclear activities - though it stops
short of asking for sanctions.
Soltaniyeh, in comments to The Associated Press, warned against
referral, suggesting such a ``hasty decision'' would backfire.
Whether Iran's suspension of its full-scale enrichment program
remains in effect ``depends on the decision of Feb. 2,'' he
said. If the board votes for referral, he said, Iran would
resume efforts to fully develop its nascent enrichment
activities.
Iran insists its nuclear ambitions do not go beyond wanting to
generate fuel, but concerns are growing that its focus is on
making nuclear weapons.
An exchange of letters, made available to the AP Monday,
reflected differences over Iran between IAEA chief Mohamed
ElBaradei and the United States, Britain, France and Australia -
other key supporters of referral.
In a letter dated Friday, Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S.
representative to the IAEA, asked ElBaradei to prepare a report
on the ``status of IAEA efforts to investigate indications of an
Iranian nuclear weapons program.'' Similar letters from the
other countries were dated Thursday and Monday.
In a reply Monday, ElBaradei wrote that a detailed report would
only be available in March, the next scheduled meeting of the
IAEA board. Instead, ElBaradei - who had argued against the
special Feb.2 meeting saying he needed until March to probe
Iran's nuclear program - offered an ``update brief'' for the
Feb. 2 meeting.
Separately, Merkel, speaking at a news conference with President
Jacques Chirac, defended the French leader's threat last week
that France might use its nuclear weapons against
state-sponsored terrorism or to thwart an attack involving
weapons of mass destruction - comments that drew criticism from
elsewhere in Europe and from Iran.
``We know that France is a country with nuclear capabilities,
capabilities that exist exclusively for deterrence and, for me,
there are no grounds there for criticism,'' she said.
Chirac said he had simply delivered a reminder of France's
nuclear doctrine.
``The nature of the threat, the defintion of a country's vital
interests, and thus the very nature of the response that might
be employed, evolves with time,'' he said.
---
On the Net: www.iaea.org
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
6 AFP: Bush warns Iran on Israel
Mon Jan 23, 4:11 PM ET
MANHATTAN, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" />
President George W. Bushsaid that the United States would defend
Israel" /> Israelagainst any Iranian threat and that the world
could not risk being "blackmailed" by a nuclear-armed Tehran.
"I am deeply concerned about Iran" /> Iran, as should a lot of
people be concerned about Iran," said Bush, who accuses the
Islamic republic of using a civilian nuclear program as cover
for efforts to get the atomic bomb.
"I'm concerned about a non transparent society's desire to
develop a nuclear weapon. The world cannot be put in a position
where we can be blackmailed by a nuclear weapon," Bush said
during a brief trip here.
The US president also took aim at recent anti-Israel comments by
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said that country
should be wiped off the map.
"I am concerned when the country of Iran's president announces
his desire to see that Israel gets destroyed. Israel's our ally.
We're committed to the safety of Israel, and it's a commitment
we will keep," said Bush.
If Iran, which denies it seeks atomic weapons, continues to
reject diplomatic efforts meant to soothe concerns, "the next
logical step" is to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council for
possible sanctions, said Bush.
The US president, who famously called Iran part of an "axis of
evil" with North Korea" /> North Koreaand Saddam Hussein" />
Saddam Hussein's Iraq" /> Iraq, said he wanted "the Iranian
people to hear loud and clear, and that is, we have no beef with
you."
"We are worried about a government ... whose aims and objectives
are not peaceful, and, therefore, we don't think that you should
have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
7 Xinhua: Indonesia to host talks between S. Korea, DPRK
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-23 16:21:10
JAKARTA, Jan. 23 (Xinhuanet) -- Indonesia will host a
bilateral talks of defense ministers of South Korea and the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) here this year, in
a bid to help reduce tension in the Korean Peninsula, Indonesian
Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono said Monday.
"President Susilo welcomes and Indonesia is ready to
facilitate the meeting," Juwono told reporters after
accompanying President Susilo Bambang Yudyoyono in a meeting
with visiting South Korean defense Minister Yoon Kwang Ung at
State Palace
"We expect the meeting would be held this year," he said.
He said that Indonesia supported the efforts to reach peace
in the Korean Peninsula.
"We insisted to become a bridge, in the level of defense
ministry. The most important thing is reducing of tension in the
Korean Peninsula."
He said that the meeting would be the third channel for the
settlement of the conflict of nuclear proliferation by the DPRK.
The six parties talks involving China, South Korea, DPRK,
Japan, the United States and Russia, has been an official
channel to dissolve the problem, and the meeting of separated
families members of the two countries in 1953 to 1954 have been
another informal channel.
"This is the third channel that was expected by President
Susilo," said Juwono.
On the same occasion, South Korean Defense Minister Yoon
Kwang Ung told a press conference that Indonesia was strategic
to play a role to bring the two countries into peace. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 Gathering at Ward Valley Commemorates the 7th Anniversary of
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:02:23 -0800
Gathering at Ward Valley Commemorates the 7th Anniversary of the Historic
Occupation and Action
Background
On February 12, 1998, the Fort Mojave, Chemehuevi, Quechan, Cocopah and
Colorado River Indian Tribes and environmental justice supporters began a
113 day occupation of the proposed nuclear waste dump site at Ward Valley.
The action was taken to stop attempts by the federal government to evict
the Tribes and supporters from the area to allow for test drilling which
would have desecrated the sacred land. Ceremonies were held throughout the
occupation, barricades were built, and the land was successfully defended:
the test drilling was canceled.
Subsequent to that action the land was removed for sale by the BLM and a
new law was passed in California that outlaws shallow-land burial of
"low-level" radioactive and specifically removes Ward Valley from
consideration of any radioactive waste dump.
On Saturday February 18, 2006 we will gather to celebrate and commerate
our victory. The gathering will begin at 10am AZ time (9am CA time) at
Ward Valley.
If you were at Ward Valley during the occupation or you would like more
information please contact Molly Johnson @ mollypj@yahoo.com We are
trying to compile a complete contact list of those that participated in
the occupation and would love to see you all there!!
--- Roger Herried wrote:
> Molly:
>
> If you or your group needs to do any historical research on Diablo,
> Below is a link to my California nuclear news archive. It has news
> stories that goes all the way back to 1980. Don't give this link out.
>
> http://www.energy-net.org/is/en/nuke/react/CAL/NEWS/0LIST.HTM
>
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without
regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to
do good": Thomas Paine
"One person's "bullshit" is another person's "Reality." - Lauren Sullivan
"..if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,
someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares
about the welfare of the people- their health, their housing, their
schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties.. if that is
what they mean by a "liberal" then I am proud to be a liberal." - John F.
Kennedy
Molly P Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place,San Miguel, CA 93451
805 467-2431
*****************************************************************
9 Newspaper Tree: Opinion: About the People's Right to Know -
Bill Weaver
January 23rd 2006
In 1971, when Maxwell Taylor, an ambassador at the time and a
former military general, was asked what he thought about the
peoples right to know what the government is doing, he responded
that he didnt believe in that as a general principle. Those with
power will forever want to control knowledge, especially in
democracies, where public knowledge is a prerequisite to
accountability. The recent revelation that President George W.
Bush secretly ordered warrantless surveillance of American
citizens is a good example of the presidential impulse to both
secrecy and the desire for knowledge beyond means that are
constitutionally and legally permissible.
But President Bushs actions are just the latest in a litany of
wiretap and surveillance abuses engaged in by presidents and
federal agencies over the last 75 years. Franklin D. Roosevelt,
through J. Edgar Hoover, bugged John F. Kennedy, Jr., during his
clandestine sexual encounters with Inga Arvad, and wiretapped
everyone from the always-suspect cultural Left to the Los
Angeles Chamber of Commerce. President Truman, from an excessive
concern with the lingering influence of Roosevelts
administration, engaged in electronic surveillance of former
Roosevelt aids. The Kennedy Administration was no less tempted,
and was the first known to have bugged a sitting member of
Congress.
Up until 1972, all presidents from FDR to Nixon claimed the
right to unrestricted surveillance of citizens and others for
national security purposes, and there were virtually no legal
restrictions on private efforts to wiretap citizens and place
them under surveillance. This led to a professional class of
wiretappers, a class one chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission decried as the least admirable of the groups of
creatures that qualify for membership in the human race. But in
1972, in the Keith Case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the
President had no constitutional authority to bug citizens for
domestic security purposes, and that decision along with the
disclosure of Richard Nixons extensive abuse of surveillance for
personal and political reasons caused Congress to intervene.
The Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
which is the sole source for authority to engage in national
security surveillance of persons in the United States. Eleven
FISA judges hear applications for warrants to engage in physical
surveillance and wiretaps on targets who appear to be acting as
agents of a foreign power. The FISA is a very forgiving statute,
and only three warrant applications have been denied out of some
20,000 submissions since 1978.
The Supreme Courts decision in the Keith Case and FISA act
together to insure that presidents do not engage in warrantless
surveillance of U.S. citizens. A return to the old ways coupled
with the vastly increased electronic capacity of the modern era
would mean that presidents could engage in extensive
surveillance of almost an unlimited number of citizens for
illicit purposes. Indeed, this apparently has already occurred.
I am the senior adviser to the National Security Whistleblowers
Coalition, an organization run by Sibel Edmonds and comprised,
except for me, exclusively of whistleblowers from agencies such
as the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defense Intelligence
Agency, National Security Agency, and the like. One of our
members related to me that he was tasked to FISA collections
targeting public officials in order to gather information for
purposes of manipulating political processes. Another of our
members is Russ Tice, who in the last several days has come
forward to admit that he is one of the sources of information
for the New York Times revelation of President Bushs wiretap
scheme carried out by the National Security Agency. He is now
the target of a criminal investigation and expects a very rough
road ahead.
Tice is a life-long Republican with a straight-up-and-down
stars-and-stripes character, and his only purpose in coming
forward was to alert Congress to what he believed to be
unconstitutional surveillance of United States citizens. He
revealed no classified information and will reveal no such
information except to the congressional intelligence oversight
committees; the committees explicitly tasked with oversight of
national security activity. Information mysteriously leaked to
Congress and the news media that Tice suffers from schizophrenic
paranoia, which, of course implies that for this reason he lacks
credibility. Any accusation of mental illness in our culture
immediately discredits the accused, whether the accusation is
true or not.
I have talked with Tice on numerous occasions and I remember the
first time he revealed to me that the government accused him of
mental illness. We were sitting in Pentagon City mall drinking
smoothies and began to chuckle at the ridiculousness of the
allegation, and soon we were laughing out loud. There is little
else to do, since once the accusation is made it has a tendency
to stick. Tice, a 20-year intelligence agent, is perfectly sane,
with a calm analytical character. Like other whistleblowers I
have talked with, he is terribly disillusioned with a government
and a country that he dearly loves. The last time I talked with
Tice was just a few minutes before I sat down to write this
column, and he had just finished an interview with Chris
Matthews on Hardball. [link] He is still disillusioned, but he
also sees hope.
Nine months before the NSA claimed Tice was mentally ill it
found after a mandatory periodic mental health examination that
he was perfectly normal. What happened in the intervening nine
months? Tice, according to regulations, reported suspicious
activity on the part of a co-worker. Tice worked with Special
Access Projects, or SAPs, the most secretive activities of the
U.S. government, where security is paramount. His co-worker
exhibited classic signs of compromise: living beyond apparent
means; accessing classified computers after hours and in areas
not related to her work; travel abroad to suspect locations.
Unfortunately for Tice the co-workers mother had occupied
extremely high-level policy-making positions in various
intelligence agencies.
After Tice reported his co-workers activity, he was referred to
a psychologist for engaging in unwarranted suspicion. Setting
aside for the moment that Tice was in the suspicion business, he
was not referred to just any psychologist, but to a special
mental health professional cleared to hear classified
information and employed by the NSA. Over the years, many
allegations have been made that NSA psychologists work with the
agency to identify troublesome employees and have the employees
declared mentally unfit for access to classified information.
Without a clearance and access, the employee is out of a job.
Tice had become a troublesome employee and the same psychologist
who had found him perfectly normal nine months earlier now
diagnosed him with compartmented paranoia, an apparently novel
diagnosis that no one seems to have ever heard of. Apparently,
he was paranoid because of his suspicions of his co-worker. This
reminds me of case notes I once read by an agent interpreting
intercept contents on a wiretap. The agent noted that the target
of the wiretap exhibited paranoid tendencies because one of the
intercepts caught the target musing that he may be under
surveillance by the government.
After his experience with NSA psychologists, Tice went to a
civilian psychologist for independent testing. The independent
test found him to be free of mental illness. But NSA finally
terminated Tice, and even though he has been out of work for the
better part of a year and was smeared and brutalized by his
former employer he still agonized in coming forward with
information that the President had authorized unconstitutional
surveillance of United States citizens.
One of the things that pushed Tice to the point of coming out
was the claim by President Bush that only a few thousand people
over the last three years have been affected by the NSA
surveillance policy. Tice told me months ago and has now told
the country through numerous news interviews over the last
several days, that the number of intercepted Americans is in the
millions, not the thousands, and that large telecommunication
companies are involved in aiding the NSA.
You may ask how this affects you, that you have little to hide,
but the program is quite insidious. All it takes is a minor
change to an NSA algorithm to listen not only for information of
terrorist activity but for information on people who are gay, or
having extramarital affairs, or who are making small drug buys.
Obviously technology may link telephone numbers with personal
information of the user, so that high interest communications
may be segmented off and specially handled.
For example, suppose a federal judge is found to be carrying on
an extramarital affair, or a district attorney is intercepted
buying marijuana for personal use, or an elected public official
is a closeted gay? That information may be saved and utilized to
manipulate judicial and political processes. This was J. Edgar
Hoovers dream. And since President Bush is engaging in his
surveillance without judicial oversight and under no recognized
process there is nothing to restrict how the information is
being used. Bush says that he needs this power to protect our
national security, but threats to national security come from
the inside, too. A runaway executive branch is more dangerous to
the United States than a dozen Osama Bin Ladens.
A little over fifty years ago, Attorney General Brownell said
that considerations of internal security and the national safety
are paramount and, therefore, may compel the unrestricted use of
this technique [wiretaps] in the national interest. Since
Richard Nixon, no president has made such a claim. President
Bush has taken one giant, unconstitutional step back in time. A
step back to when secret, political, and unseemly executive
branch surveillance was used as a political tool to undermine
democratic processes. As I prepared to send this column in to
the editor, Russ sent me an email explaining that two FBI agents
showed up at his door today. They did not have an arrest
warrant, but that may change. Tice is being excoriated,
subjected to investigation and smeared because he dares to
disagree with Ambassador Taylor and to hold the heretical view
that the public does indeed have the right to know what the
president is doing in the name of national security.
* * *
The opinions expressed here are Weavers personal views and are
not in any way attributable to the University of Texas at El
Paso or any of its various units.
Weaver is associate director of faculty for the Institute for
Policy and Economic Development in the Center for Law and Border
Studies at the University of Texas at El Paso, where he
specializes in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental
abuse, and law and bureaucracy. He also serves as the senior
adviser to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.
* * *
Related links:
-- ABC News story Jan. 10 on Russ Tice being a source for the NY
Times stories on governmental spying
-- Democracy Now! interview with Russ Tice
-- Reason interview with Russ Tice
">
e-mail this to a friend | print this article
Please e-mail publisher@newspapertree.com
109 Mesa, Suite 7B
El Paso, Texas 79901
Phone: (915) 533-2500
Fax: (915) 533-2503
home - archives - copyright
Click to Subscribeto this E-mail Newsletter.
Powered by Stanton Street Technology Group
*****************************************************************
10 Spain Herald: Nuclear Exterminator
[The Spain Herald] [ /]
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
[Gabriel Calzada]
Chirac
Nuclear Exterminator
The whole world knows about the grandeur of la France and that
its politicians stand above good and evil, coherence and
incoherence. Jacques Chirac demonstrated this again when he
declared his government was willing to fire atomic bombs against
"leaders of States who resort to terrorism against [France] or
consider using weapons of mass destruction." This is the same guy
who stated that the war in Iraq was unnecessary, unfair and
illegal as his own army was bombing the Ivory Coast. In short,
quite a statesman.
One of the main characteristics of nuclear weapons is that they
cannot discriminate. They wipe out everyone, both the guilty and
the innocent. The Theory of Just Warfare developed by the Spanish
scholastics during that country's Golden Age considered the
possibility to discriminate as a necessary condition for any
bellicose action to be deemed just. Up for debate is the matter
of innocent people dying despite discrimination. But Chirac has
no arguments because what he is proposing is to finish off
terrorist governments by exterminating their civilian population.
And it is most probable, in this case, the government leaders
would be the ones to survive. Given the problems the state
military machine is facing to stop international terrorism, the
French government decided to go one step further in its
particular interpretation of justice and threaten the civilian
population of countries whose leaders support terrorism.
Why doesn't the French government keep to threatening these
leaders with firing a conventional missile in the middle of one
of their ministerial meetings? Is there some kind of tactic
agreement between leaders to mutually respect one another, even
during war, and play out their disputes with the resources and
lives of their fellow citizens? What sense does it make to
threaten the lives of millions of innocent people because their
leaders support terrorism?
Answering these questions provides the reason why the world moved
from wars between warriors to total war. Before the French
Revolution, wars could last decades or centuries and the civilian
population hardly even noticed. It is only with the rise of the
modern state and its ability to suck resources from individuals
through coercive formulas that total war came on the scene.
Starting at the end of the 18 century, the population of an enemy
country, which had been conscripted, became a military objective.
In the end, with the development of the draft, all able-bodied
men automatically became a military resource. In the 20 century,
especially with income taxation and unbridled inflation as means
for financing wars, the idea of the civilian population as a
military resource took on more power. If an enemy state is
financing its war effort by robbing its residents of purchasing
power with inflation, every person living under such laws becomes
part of the entity trying to inflict harm on us.
Statism has put innocents in the line of fire. From Robespierre's
Committee for Public Safety's mass levy to Chirac's threat to use
nuclear weapons against terrorism, justice and respect for
individual liberty have done nothing but dissolve in state acid.
Gabriel Calzada Alvarez is the representative for CNE in Spain
and President of the Instituto Juan de Mariana
© Copyright Libertad Digital, S.A.Conde de Aranda 8 -
28001 Madrid - tel.: (+34) 91 781 22 41 - fax: (+34) 91 435 74
97
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: Toshiba to buy Westinghouse for twice expected sum
Mon Jan 23, 8:26 AM ET
TOKYO (AFP) - Japanese technology giant Toshiba will buy US
power plant maker Westinghouse for five billion dollars, more
than double the initially expected price amid renewed interest
in nuclear power, a report said.
British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), which currently controls
Westinghouse, will make its final decision at a board meeting on
Thursday, Britain's Financial Times said, citing a person close
to the British state-owned firm.
Toshiba declined to comment on the report.
Markets had expected a price in the range of two billion dollars
when BNFL put Westinghouse up for sale in July but bidding has
become exceptionally fierce in recent weeks, the newspaper said.
Toshiba was competing against General Electric of the United
States, which has formed a partnership with Japan's Hitachi, and
with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan.
Toshiba was favored because it would likely allow Westinghouse
to run the business on its own while GE's more aggressive style
could have jeopardized winning a contract in China, the report
said.
It said the bidding war had reached the highest levels of
government, with US President George W. Bush" /> President
George W. Busheven reportedly pressing British Prime Minister
Tony Blair" /> Tony Blairto choose GE.
Some US politicians have called for a US company to control
Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse given the sensitivity of nuclear
issues.
The Bush administration wants to relaunch construction of
nuclear reactors in the United States given the soaring cost of
crude oil.
The United States turned away from nuclear power after a 1979
meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. No new
reactor has been put into service in the United States since May
1996.
Japan depends on nuclear power for 30 percent of its energy
needs but the sector offers little growth for companies. Few
towns are willing to host nuclear plants and electricity demand
is slack in the slow growing Japanese economy.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
12 Guardian Unlimited: Toshiba to buy BNFL's Westinghouse
Terry Macalister and Mark Milner
Tuesday January 24, 2006
Mounting excitement worldwide about prospects for atomic power
stations has doubled the price that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd has
been offered for its Westinghouse subsidiary and is set to propel
British Energy into the FTSE 100.
Toshiba of Japan has put forward a $5bn (£2.8bn) offer for the
US-based nuclear engineering group and the BNFL board is expected
to formally agree a sale on Thursday, despite criticism in
Britain.
Meanwhile, British Energy, the biggest nuclear power provider in
the UK, will join the FTSE 100 index of leading shares on
Thursday morning, replacing O2, which has been acquired by
Telefónica.
Alan Johnson, the trade and industry secretary, was forced to
defend the BNFL move at the launch of the government's own energy
review, which could give the green light to new atomic plants in
Britain.
"We took a long hard look at the issue. We decided now was the
right time [to sell]. I think if we kept Westinghouse in public
ownership and if we did go down the nuclear new-build route that
would have created problems. If the government was the owner [of
the company] that made the kit, that would have created
competition problems," he explained.
"Westinghouse is currently putting four nuclear reactors in
China. It's a very high-risk strategy. We don't think the
taxpayer should be taking that risk. For those reasons, I think
it's not the job of government to keep hold of Westinghouse. It
is better for the UK to be getting a good price."
BNFL is in the middle of a wider sell-off, with proposals in
front of Mr Johnson calling for him to agree the sale of another
subsidiary, British Nuclear Group, which concentrates on the
decommissioning and cleaning up of nuclear power stations.
Toshiba apparently beat off competition from its local rival
Mitsubishi and General Electric Company of America to acquire
the Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse, which BNFL bought in 1999.
A spokesman for the British group insisted that no final
decision had yet been taken. "That process will take place at a
board meeting this week," he added. But well-informed sources,
who asked not to be named, told the Guardian that Toshiba had
put in the winning bid.
The Japanese companies are keen to move out of their own nuclear
market into faster-developing areas, such as China, which is
pushing ahead with a raft of new-builds to meet galloping energy
demand.
The decision has upset British critics who believe that the
country might need Westinghouse's expertise in the event of the
government giving the go-ahead - as expected - to build new
reactors. A sale to Toshiba is also likely to attract strong
opposition in Washington, where politicians including President
George Bush have been lobbying to put Westinghouse under the
control of a US firm such as General Electric.
Last night the trade union Prospect demanded that the sale meet
strict public interest criteria, similar to those the union is
seeking for the sale of the British Nuclear Group. Mike Graham,
Prospect's national secretary, noted that the expected sale
price was an "excellent return" on BNFL's original investment of
$1.2bn and said Westinghouse employees felt they should benefit
through a share issue.
When BNFL announced plans to sell Westinghouse last summer,
industry experts had predicted that it would sell for just $2bn.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
13 AFP: China and Saudi Arabia forge closer energy ties during king's visit
Tuesday January 24, 12:34 AM
BEIJING (AFP) - China and Saudi Arabia signed an energy
cooperation agreement during a landmark visit by Saudi King
Abdullah that both sides said would usher in an era of closer
economic ties.
King Abdullah, who arrived Sunday on his first trip outside the
Middle East since taking the throne in August, met President Hu
Jintao on Monday at the Great Hall of the People.
King Abdullah and Hu oversaw the signing of five agreements,
including one on "oil, natural gas and mineral cooperation," and
another on "economic, trade and technical cooperation".
Agreements were also signed to "avoid dual taxation", allow for
a Saudi loan to improve infrastructure in the city of Aksu in
China's oil-rich Xinjiang region, and to facilitate "cooperating
in vocational training".
Neither side immediately provided further details of the
agreements, although Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud
al-Faisal spelt out before the signing ceremonies the main
interest of both nations.
"China is one of the most important markets for oil and Saudi
oil is one of the most important sources of energy for China,"
said the prince, who is accompanying the king on Monday.
Prince Saud said the energy deal would set the framework for
specific energy investments, but agreements on the projects
would have to be signed between the two countries' oil
companies.
He suggested specific agreements could be signed soon.
The visit by the Saudi king comes at a time when China, the
world's second biggest oil consumer, is scouring the globe for
more oil to fuel its unprecedented economic transformation.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil supplier
with the largest known reserves, is seeking to diversify its
economy and ease its dependence on the United States, the
biggest oil consumer.
At the welcoming ceremony, Hu said the fact that King Abdullah
had chosen China as the first destination of his first official
trip outside the Middle East since ascending the throne had been
noted and welcomed in Beijing.
"This will write a new chapter of friendly cooperation between
China and Saudi Arabia in the new century," Hu said, who called
the king "a respected and familiar old friend" of China.
King Abdullah, who is making the first visit by a Saudi leader
to China since the two nations established diplomatic ties 16
years ago, also said he looked forward to stronger bilateral
ties.
"What makes us happy is that since the two countries established
diplomatic relations in 1990 our two countries have had fruitful
cooperation in many fields," he said.
"We hope this cooperation will develop even more in the future."
Analysts said King Abdullah's choice of China as the first
country of his Asian tour, which will also take in India,
Malaysia and Pakistan, was a strategically sound move.
"China has the fastest growing market and Saudi Arabia has the
right product to sell," said a Hong Kong-based oil analyst who
requested anonymity.
Shi Yinhong, an international relations professor at People's
University in Beijing, said China had "a very focused interest
in Saudi Arabia".
"China wants secure sources of oil," Shi said.
China's oil demand has been increasing by about 15 percent
annually. The Asian giant imported a record 130 million tonnes
of crude last year, up 3.3 percent from 2004, after growth of
more than 30 percent a year earlier.
Oil imports from Saudi Arabia have already risen from 8.8
million tonnes in 2001 to about 20 million tonnes last year,
according to previous figures published in China's state media.
Among other energy deals already in place, China's Sinopec is
drilling for gas in the Saudi desert and building a refinery
with Saudi oil firm Saudi Aramco in China's Fujian province.
Aramco is also beginning engineering work with Sinopec on a
second refinery in China's Qingdao city.
Despite the growing bilateral ties, Shi said neither China nor
the Saudis would want to alarm the United States.
"China will be very cautious, it won't buy oilfields in Saudi
Arabia. That would make the US very sensitive," Shi said.
Beijing also hopes Riyadh will be an ally on Middle East issues,
such as Iran's nuclear standoff with the United States,
according to Shi.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Australia &NZ Pty Limited. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
14 [NukeNet] NRC annual conference, Mar. 7-9, Questions for them
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:04:58 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Dear Tom,
Thanks for letting us know. Wish I could be there to "stir the
pot." Please report back to us what you learn. Eeryone who can attend.
can you ask about the over $700 Million they are authorized to spend in
2006 for publicity to attract new workers for NRC?
How about the 3,650 sick workers denied benefits at SRS. How much was
authorized to be spent on them? Funding was sliced drasticlally in the
2005 budget for the University of Ga. Ecological Lab (UGEL) at SRS, and
funding was expected to have been eliminated completely in the 2006
budget. Monitoring for the state of Ga., just across the Savannah River
from SRS, and with populations down river from that operation who are
impacted by the toxic releases into the air and water, has been sliced 95%
according to reliable sources in Atlanta.
How about monitoring arround nuclear plants? How is it that from 2001
-2003 monitoring of goats milk 5 1/2 mills from the Millstone reactor found
the highest levels of SR.90 ever reported, but even the goat's owner was
not allerted on a timely basis.. Check out
http://www.mothballmillbstone/org Isn't
it time to take funding for monitoring of milk, vegetables, etc out of the
NRC and put it in the hands of the Dept. of Agriculture, and thru them to
the county extension agents? County extension agents are part of
universities. They are directly accessable to the public. It would be easy
for samples to be taken to them for analysis. After all, they analyse soil
samples for PH levels. Why not milk for SR. 90 levels? And wells, etc?
Does anyone have access to the Nuclear Account Budget referred to in the
Water and Energy Development appropriations bill to try to piece together
more of what is actually authorized for 2006 for nuclear?
I am aware that not all nuclear subsidies are traceable by just looking at
DOE, NRC, Water & Energy Development budgets. Some is hidden, as the money
in the Dept. of Transportation (DOT) budget for I-3, that will link SRS
with I-40. How convenient for bringing in Spent Fuel Rods for
reprocessing, as well as taking tritium in lithium control replacement rods
from Watts Bar to SRS and the separated tritium from SRS back to Oak
Ridge. What a maze.
Isn't it time to call for a congressional investigations of all the waste,
nuclear and monitary, that is being created by DOE and NRC?
Now, we are involved with subsidizing the nuclear industry internationally
according to the. 2005 DOE Congressional Budget for Nuclear Has
the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory cCommittee (NERAC) ever been
investigated for conflict of interest? In the afementioned document, it
was disclosed that NERAC wrote the roadmap for recovery for the nuclear
industry. Google suppleis the names of the members of NERAC. industry,
university, bureacratic people, many of whom stand to personally or
institutionally benefit from the revival of the industry. Considering the
scandal of lobbyist now in the news, isn't this a bigger scandall?
Lastly, did you all see the response that Bob and Glenn made to my comments
on the Secretary of Energy's disclosure that the waste tanks at SRS need to
be emptied "to increase available tank space." Bob disclosed that
each or the 51 waste tanks is as big or bigger than the Dome of the Ga.
State Capitol, and that vitrification has created a larger volume of waste
than it reduced. Glen allerted us to the fact that unless the rules are
changed, those tanks can not be used to store MOX waste. Thank you all for
being involved with this search for the truth. I appreciate all of your
comments and responses, and hope that you are forwarding all of our
information to a bigger audience. The American people need to know the
facts. I don't believe people don't care, Most of them just don't know.
Sincerely
Jeannine Honicker
From: tomclements329@cs.com
To: srs-action@yahoogroups.com, gfettus@nrdc.gov, kitbob@erols.com,
tcochran@nrdc.org, brice@ieer.org, mboyd@citizen.org, dianed@nirs.org,
kevin@nirs.org, nirsnet@igc.apc.org, TomClements329@cs.com
Subject: [srs] NRC annual conference, Mar. 7-9
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:43:39 EST
For those of you who follow Nuclear Regulatory Commssion issues and who
want to rub your clean elbows with the nuke industry and so-called
"regulators", information for the annual "Regulatory Information
Conference" here in DC is now posted on the NRC web site. Not sure if it's
better to go gather information, observe, stir the pot a bit or avoid the
disgust which may well ensure from attending..... Tom
Nuclear News Flashes, January 19, 2006
--ONLINE REGISTRATION FOR NRC's REGULATORY INFORMATION CONFERENCE is now
available, the agency announced today. The conference will be held March
7-9 in Bethesda, Maryland. Conference information and the electronic
registration form are posted on NRC's Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference-symposia/ric/.
SPONSORED LINKS
Issue
management
Money
issue
Cause
rheumatoid arthritis
Cause
of hair loss
Causes
of joint pain
Cause
of teen depression
----------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group
"srs-action" on the web.
*
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
*
srs-action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
*
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.
----------
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
15 London Times: The nucleus of the case - Comment -
Times Online
January 24, 2006
Nuclear energy is necessary to bridge Britain's energy gap
The Government's review of energy policy has been promised for so
long, and starts life so hedged with companion reviews on
specific aspects such as microgeneration, carbon capture, energy
efficiency and waste management that there is some risk that the
consultation document finally issued yesterday will be met with
yawns.
That risk is compounded by the interlacing of grand strategy with
gesture politics. Given the huge investments that must be made in
coming years, the task of identifying reliable, clean and
cost-effective supplies to bridge Britain's widening energy gap
is of a different order to short-term thoughts about home
heating.
Giving the two objectives equal billing as "key questions" must
reinforce suspicions that the Government is reluctant to state
its energy case clearly. It has allowed three months for this
consultation. Firm conclusions will emerge only if ministers
concentrate relentlessly on the big issues.
The first is security of supply. North Sea production has peaked.
Britain is already a net importer of gas and will become a net
importer of oil within five years. Without accelerated investment
in the UK's remaining reserves, domestic production will, by
2020, cover a mere tenth of consumption. Britain would thus need
to import at least three quarters of the country's primary energy
requirements (90 per cent of its gas) - mainly from the Middle
East, Russia and North Africa, in hot competition with China,
India and other resource-poor emerging economies, at prices that
are likely to reflect the increasing demand.
The second is the quest for energy-saving technologies. In
transport, the Government sensibly recognises, oil will still be
king for some years. Until ways are found to produce hydrogen
without consuming more energy in the process than is released,
the intermediate technology of hybrids holds more promise than
hydrogen cars.
Power generation is another matter. Britain faces a potentially
crippling gap in generating capacity. Nuclear and coalfired
stations which now provide 30 per cent of Britain's electricity
will be closed down within 15 years, and there is no realistic
prospect of renewables filling the gap within that timeframe.
Whatever gains are made in energy efficiency, and no matter how
many people remember to turn off that lightbulb, economic growth
and the changing lifestyles that go with affluence are expected
to raise demand in 2020 by some 15 per cent.
The question is how to meet that demand, without giving up
totally on Britain's possibly unrealistic plans for curbing
greenhouse gas emissions. The Government's targets would, it
admits, require a reduction in the carbon intensity of the
economy by 2050 to 10 per cent of current levels. To get anywhere
near that target, only two technologies fit the bill: nuclear,
and coal gasification with carbon capture. Clean, or nearly
clean, energy from fossil fuels will be viable down the line; but
nuclear power offers the "cleanest" practical option. The
economics of nuclear energy have changed with higher oil prices;
and safety standards robust enough to satisfy the Finns should
reassure people in this country. The Government insists that "it
is not the role of government to decide the fuel mix for
generating electricity", but a review that fails to set the right
regulatory framework for a commercial return to nuclear power
will have failed to confront reality.
Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
16 JS Online: Editorial: A welcome development
From the Journal Sentinel Posted: Jan. 23, 2006
Though it holds the promise of yet another black eye for an
already black-and-blue Wisconsin, the public should welcome a
federal grand jury probe into whether contributions to Gov. Jim
Doyle's campaign prompted the state to give a $750,000 contract
to Adelman Travel.
And the governor should welcome it as well.
That's because this matter - and whether contributions also
played a role in a Public Service Commission ruling on the sale
of the Kewaunee nuclear power plant - desperately needs to move
beyond the yes-you-did, no-I-didn't stage. The public needs
facts, key among them whether any laws were broken.
The public has lately witnessed a parade of state legislative
figures in the courts on corruption charges. Providing no
answers - or only mushy ones - to the crucial question involving
the influence of campaign contributions on the governor further
undermines public confidence in state government and casts a
decided pall on the upcoming gubernatorial contest.
The grand jury review was first reported Saturday by the Capital
Times in Madison. A report by the Journal Sentinel's Patrick
Marley and Stacy Forster on Sunday, citing a source familiar
with the inquiry, said the grand jury was convened about a month
ago.
Under review is whether $10,000 given over 10 months by Craig
Adelman, the travel company's chief executive, won his company a
contract. Omega World Travel initially bested Adelman Travel,
but Department of Administration officials then opened up the
process to a second round of "best and final" offers. Adelman
won that.
The governor has said that his understanding is that the
contract simply went to the lowest bidder and that the decision
was properly made by civil servants.
The federal grand jury reportedly is also looking into whether
$43,650 to Doyle's campaign from employees of the joint owners
of the Kewaunee plant influenced the PSC to approve the sale of
the plant to a third company in March.
U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic cannot issue a felony charge
without a grand jury. But the grand jury has an investigative
function as well - which means that no one should yet read this
as signaling the inevitability of indictments.
We simply read into it a promise that the public may yet get the
answers it needs on whether residents can trust their governor
and their government.
But this controversy and those that preceded it do already
answer one key question. Yes, the state is in dire need of
campaign finance and election reform, with public financing as a
main ingredient. Any possible link between campaign
contributions and policy decisions must be severed.
From the Jan. 24, 2006, editions of the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel
*****************************************************************
17 BBC: Living near a nuclear power station
Last Updated: Monday, 23 January 2006
Dungeness: a unique home wildlife, and two nuclear power
stations.
In pictures
A consultation process into the UK's energy policy is under way,
with an expansion of nuclear energy a possible conclusion. So
what's it like to live next to a nuclear power station?
Within a decade, the UK may be generating only about 80% of the
electricity it needs.
As the government surveys the options to plug the gap, while
maintaining its commitment to curb carbon emissions, it is
coming under pressure to consider what would have been
unpalatable in recent years - a nuclear revival.
Nuclear power stations currently generate 20% of UK electricity
but they are nearly all facing decommission.
Despite industry efforts to reassure the public about nuclear
power, any decision to build new reactors around the UK would
doubtless be highly controversial, particularly among
communities living nearby.
But what's it really like to have a reactor on the doorstep?
Dungeness, in Kent, is a coastal beauty spot, but is also home
to two nuclear power stations: one opened in the mid 60s, the
other in the mid 90s. Together they account for hundreds of
local jobs. Here residents and others involved with the power
station give their views.
[Louisa Whenday]
Louisa Whenday is secretary of the Dungeness Residents
Association.
Most people were not here when the plant was built so most aren't
worried because you wouldn't move here if you were. I find it no
threat at all. The company is very transparent and open. I live
not more than 100 yards from Dungeness B and it doesn't worry me.
I think it's exceptionally well regulated. The greatest fear for
us is terrorism but even that would take something really big,
much bigger than an aeroplane or a bomb. To be honest, everyone
is so used to seeing it, they'd miss it. I think it's really
quite gorgeous, especially at night when it's lit up. It looks
like a ship at sea. It is one of our major employers so the
10-year extension is economically good for the area. It means a
lot of accommodation is required and local shops and services
benefit from it.
[Trevor Bunnie]
Trevor Bunnie, 38, is a lifeguard.
Given the choice, I'd like to see it go but even when these
things are shut there is still a bit of danger. The material
remains active for hundreds of years I think. Once here it is
here to stay. All the time there is a potential threat of an
accident. Although I'd like to see it shut you have got to get
energy from somewhere. It's six of one and half dozen of the
other. Other stations are not good for the environment. If it was
to shut down, a lot of people would lose jobs and it wouldn't
help the local economy. There's no other big employer, people
would have to go elsewhere for jobs.
Owen Leyshon manages a 300-hectare natur reserve bordering the
site.
The power station is not impacting on an vegetation, shingle,
fauna or flora outside the perimeter fence, which has been there
50 years. There's lots of monitoring of radioactivity but I get
no reports to say it's detrimental to the national nature
reserve. But I can produce reports showing how the 600,000
visitors to this area drive their quad bikes or four-wheel drive
cars or fly-tip, which does have an impact. I work closely with
the power station on initiatives to clean rubbish along the beach
in front of it. They've been very receptive to our 'shopping
list'.
[Roger Higman, spokesman on nuclear power for Friends
of the Earth]
Nuclear is a dirty, dangerous industry that can onl be made safe
by putting incredibly difficult measures in place which still
present risks we are better off avoiding. Prolonging the life of
Dungeness B involves the production of more radioactive waste and
the government has no idea what it is going to do with that
waste. It's irresponsible. The English Channel is washing away
the peninsula the power station actually sits on. It was a stupid
site for a power station in the first place. I'm sympathetic with
the residents and recognise it is a major employer and there's
not a lot else around, but there are alternatives. The local wind
farm could provide jobs for example. We recognise jobs have to be
found for people but don't really think people would genuinely
prefer an industry that leaves such a toxic legacy. If the
government deposited waste at Dungeness I am sure the people
would be up in arms.
[William Richardson]
William Richardson, 60, lives less than a mile away from the
site. It's completely changed life, for the better. It' brought
work into the area and the population has trebled. I've heard
people say they get some comfort from all the lights burning at
night. If it wasn't there, it would be black. We've not had any
health scares at all, although I wasn't pleased when they issued
these [iodate] tablets, which are preventative against radiation,
because it makes you think we're in danger but apparently it was
due to a change in health authority rules. I think the power
station has probably saved lives because it's given people on the
sea a landmark. Before they built the power stations, little
yachts were hitting the point which juts out, a couple of miles
out. It's sad that A is closing, but we're hoping they'll talk
about a Dungeness C.
Joe Thomas, 23, is a local fisherman who grew up almost next to
the plant and still lives nearby.
Dungeness B has been there all my life so I don' know what it was
like here before the plant. Given the choice, I'm happy for it to
stay open. It hasn't given us any fret over the years and it
keeps people in work. The most annoying thing about the plant is
that it makes a noise every now and then. It sounds like a kettle
boiling, like a very big kettle going off. In summer that happens
quite regularly. A couple of times a week it will go off
continuously all day. It also goes off if it is hit by lightning
or in a thunderstorm. To be honest, I don't worry about it being
dangerous at all. I was born in Dungeness and brought up with it
so I don't know any different. If it was not here before I might
be a bit annoyed by it.
[Sam Denton]
Sam Denton is assistant director of public health at
Shepway primary care trust
Dungeness B, which is in our boundaries, has give us no cause for
concern. For radiation to be a health threat you're looking at
very large doses. Levels are monitored so closely we'd know if
there was a problem before it reached dangerous levels. We
distributed potassium iodate tablets so people had quicker access
to them. We have an automatic phone system that, in a major
incident, notifies everyone in the area if they need to take
them. Large doses of radiation can result in an accumulation of
radioactive iodine in the thyroid gland which can increase the
risk of thyroid cancer. The tablets help but only need to be
taken in a big incident. Our emergency planning is always
evolving and we have regular exercises, sometimes involving
actors, so we understand how to respond to different situations.
We also work with other emergency services, the police, fire and
ambulance, the county council. [ src=]
I think we should definitely start to use wind power a lot more.
Bob,
If we human beings thought of the long term consequences of our
actions we would be living in a more benign, sustainable way.
There is a saying: 'There's enough on this earth for everyone's
need but not for everyone's greed'. Many organisations and
individuals have been arguing for decades for effective energy
conservation measures, investment in renewables etc. Successive
governments haven't valued and invested in these approaches. Our
greedy, consumer-rights driven society goes unchecked. It is
possible that nuclear now may help a little bit in the very
short term, but will only shore up greater problems for the
future, as well as distract us from genuinely sustainable
solutions. The real costs of units of electricity produced by
nuclear are still unknown, as waste management goes on for many
years after decomissioning. And how is the damage to the
environment calculated, even when it is acknowledged? How can
anyone seriously want a source of energy production where a
disaster, whether accidental or deliberate could bring misery
and damage to people and the environment for many generations.
The real answers to meeting energy needs in a genuinely
sustainable way are unpalatable for many because some reduction
in current living standards would be needed. Many people think
it their right to walk around their centrally heated homes
wearing summer clothes in the middle of winter, or buy as many
electricity guzzling gadgets as they desire and generally live
in a wasteful manner. Individuals and governments must share
responsibliity in this.
Jo Wheatley, Wivenhoe UK
I grew up on the Romney Marsh and have lived in Lydd and
Littlestone. The power station was always nearby, but never
caused any concern. Now, at the age of 25, I feel that to ever
lose it would be a catastrophe for the local economy. I can't
think of any local person ever having an issue with its
existence.
Brett, Kent
I was brought up living very close to two nuclear reactors at
Heysham in Lancashire. The primary school I attended must have
been only 1.5 miles away and everyone was well versed in what to
do in the event of an accident. I'm well aware of the dangers
but cannot see a viable alternative that can produce the amount
of energy required. Another important factor is that the power
stations bring much needed jobs to what are usually remote
areas.
Karen, Hampshire
This is a catch-22 situation. The Greens want us to use more
renewable energy, but people hate windmills. Nuclear doesn't
produce greenhouse emissions, but does produce radioactive
waste. People want power, but they don't like the way that it's
produced. Until nuclear fusion is perfected (non-poluting, no
waste) then there will always be people who will complain.For
the short- to medium-term, nuclear power is the only option.
Stuart, Norwich
I live within a mile or so of the powerplant and I dont have
any problems with it. It provides jobs for a large proportion of
the population of the area. If people dont work for the power
station then they normally work for Eurostar. Quite honestly I'm
more concerned about the pollution and noise to the area from
the proposed expansion of Lydd airport. It will bring nothing
but misery to the residents.
Stuart Elsey, Greatstone, New Romney
I was visiting Dungeness only 2 weeks ago for a day out. I
don't think the 2 power stations are a problem in the slightest,
in fact they add to the area in my opinion. Afterall, where else
in the world would you find a miniature steam-train, 2
light-houses and 2 nuclear power stations within walking
distance of each other?
Stuart Robinson, London, UK
I live three miles from the biggest nuclear power installation
in Europe - Heysham I &II power stations. The only noticeable
result is that employment in this area is a lot better off for
their existance. A huge amount of nonsense is generated about
nuclear waste. For example - "low level" nuclear waste, which
has to be vitrified and stored underground, consists of really
dangerous stuff like polystyrene coffee cups, sandwich wrappers
and newspapers! Anything brought onto the site has to leave as
low-level waste - yet in truth, the safeguards in place in the
stations means that the 'background' radiation levels in there
are actually lower than they are outside, and what has to be
stored as "nuclear waste" is actually safer than similar residue
from, say, a teashop in the (mildly radioactive) granite areas
of Cornwall. In other words, safety in a nuclear installation in
Britain is at an amazingly high level, yet there is still
uninformed scaremongering about nuclear waste. I played golf at
Heysham Golf Club, which is in the shadow of the power stations,
and the biggest irritant came from a local solvent recycling
company, not the nuclear installations at all. And now the cold
war is over, at least we don't have to worry that in a plotting
room somewhere in Russia, there is a map with a huge target on
it, and in the bull's-eye - Heysham!
Hedley Russell, Morecambe England
" It,s all been said, people at Dungeness have been brought up
with it and they haven't had any problems.It's also provided
employment and I can assure everyone that Dungeness was a pretty
bleak place before the power stations arrived I remember when
the power stations were built every large town had it's own gas
works where coal was processed into coke (smokeless) and the by
products petrol ( National Benzole ) and tar (roads). You would
think that with the technology in emission control having
improved over the years that re using coal and the improved
safety standards they apply to nuclear energy would more then
cater for our required energy needs in the future. As one of the
previous writers said he had more problems with the pollution
created by 4 x 4's etc then he ever had with nuclear power
stations."
Pat Borst, Kenmare Irland
Predicted power shortages are a global, not UK issue. There is
international distrust of many Countries' legitimate exploration
of nuclear based power production. Surely there's an argument
for creating a number of internationally managed, policed
&guarded centre of Nuclear Energy production. They would be
sited in disparate, remote parts of the world with facilites for
immediate isolation should a major problem be identifed. These
stations can have the power thus generated sold to any nation at
a cost basis. This would be difficult with regards politics and
security but given the international issue here, it shouldn't be
impossible. I'm sure the biggest stumbling block would be a few
ego's.
andrew bell, liverpool
If every business building in UK cities had five solar panels,
the national grid would not only be generating more than enough
power for the whole of the UK, but the unused power from the
solar panels would actually add to the power that the nuclear
powerstations create. That's green and sustainable.
Anna, Perth, Australia
My dad worked at Dungeness power station and I grew up living
close to it and I think it adds to the Dungeness landscape as
the lighthouses do, making it a unique place. I'd rather nucelar
power stations were built than coal or oil and will be sad when
Dungeness A closes down. I think the area would be suited to
wind power but I would be concerned over the damage the
windmills might do to the local bird reserve.
Chris Bates, Southend-on-Sea
I remember seeing a cartoon recently showing a couple standing
beside their cottage and behind it was a newly built Nuclear
Power station. The woman was saying to her husband " I bet you
are really glad you objected to that wind farm!"
Richard, Dundee
Our 'local' at Hinkley Point cant be to much of a worry - the
residents of the immediate area would rather have this over the
wind farm they are fighting so hard to stop!
paul bailey, willition somerset
*****************************************************************
18 BBC: Call to halt nuclear power plans
Last Updated: Monday, 23 January 2006
[House with solar panels]
The Scottish Greens want solar panels installed in more homes
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 launched an energy review, which will look at
the issue of nuclear provision, on Monday.
The Scottish Executive said no more nuclear plants should be
built north of the border until radioactive waste issues had
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.
As the energy review got under way, Trade Secretary Alan Johnson
said it was time to take a decision on nuclear.
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.
'Tough stance'
"However, that will not happen if Tony Blair pushes the nuclear
power button.
"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."
[Solar panels]
The scheme helps with the cost of installing solar panels
Shiona Baird, the Scottish Green Party's energy spokeswoman, 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.
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.
Maf Smith, Scottish Renewables' chief executive said: "The
renewable energy industry in Scotland is on course to 'pass the
test' set by the Scottish Executive but it can go further and
fill the energy gap created by reducing our reliance on fossil
fuels and the phased decommissioning of nuclear plant.
"But it needs investment now: in grid infrastructure, financial
support for wave and tidal technology and a leaner, fitter
planning process to deliver more and on time."
*****************************************************************
19 Guardian Unlimited: No obstacles to atomic option, says 'nuclear
neutral' energy minister
Terry Macalister and Patrick Wintour
Monday January 23, 2006
The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, believes there are virtually
no practical obstacles to a new generation of nuclear power
stations being built - although he is adamant no decision has yet
been made on whether to give them the go-ahead.
In an interview with the Guardian before today's launch of a
consultation period on the government's energy review, he brushed
aside potential hindrances and emphasised atomic power's role in
tackling greenhouse gas emissions. He said:
· It was "dead wrong" to think that a financial framework could
not be found to encourage private-sector participation,
· A lot of "major companies" were willing to invest in atomic
power,
· Pre-licensing of power station designs could speed up planning
inquiries,
· Ways to dispose of nuclear waste were available, and the
government and private sector could "share" the cost.
The minister insisted he remained "nuclear neutral" and prefaced
many statements with the phrase "if we go down the nuclear
route", but the broad thrust of his comments will greatly
encourage the atomic industry and frustrate critics.
The government deferred a decision in the 2003 energy white
paper about nuclear power but must decide this year whether to
build new reactors to fill a supply gap and cut greenhouse gas
emissions.
Ten atomic stations, supplying about 18% of Britain's
electricity, are due to close by 2020, with the country due to
rely on renewable sources but mainly gas imports unless more
nuclear plants are built.
Meeting the Energy Challenge, a consultation document published
today, sets out five key questions that the energy review he
chairs will consider. One of the top ones is to acknowledge that
the global energy scene is changing dramatically at a time of
declining North Sea oil and gas. Britain needs imports at a time
when China and India are also competing for similar supplies, Mr
Wicks pointed out.
Gazprom of Russia says it wants to provide 20% of Britain's gas
imports by 2015 and Mr Wicks said he was relatively relaxed
about that but not about wider dependence on imports.
"What happened in January - first when Russia threatened to cut
supplies to the Ukraine - has just made me think even more: this
is a very important question for the UK. Do we address this by
saying that so long as we have different sources of supply ...
then we could work our foreign policy around that. Or could you
say would it not be sensible to home-grow more of our own
energy? It's not just a question of keeping the lights on but
national security."
He said there would not be major public spending on a costly
atomic programme. Britain would stick to its liberalised and
privatised market but that should be no block to nuclear power,
he argued. "Some people suggest it's all so complicated
economically; it will cost so much; there are all sorts of
difficulties about waste; that markets will not go anywhere near
this. My judgment is they are dead wrong. A lot of major
companies are very interested in investing in nuclear."
Mr Wicks said a financial framework similar to the carbon
trading scheme could be the way forward. "I don't think it is
intellectually impossible to find mechanisms that incentivise
green clean technology ... It could be a version of the
renewables obligation. Have I got a scheme in my back pocket,
the answer is 'no'".
He said the challenge was so urgent that the planning process
needed to be faster. "I want as many people as possible to
realise it ain't going to be easy to meet our climate change
targets. We need a huge step-change to save the planet, so there
has to be some urgent decisions. I don't think people will be
very tolerant if ... the whole thing gets held up for 20 years
through planning. If we can streamline on this, we should. We
should also look at pre-licensing nuclear reactors."
He cannot understand the idea that investment in nuclear would
negate the commitment to renewables. "The environmental lobby
should at least consider the possibility that the most effective
way for energy supply to help us through climate change is
nuclear, rather than somehow thinking being green is
anti-nuclear."
Mr Wicks is also angry at how UK governments ignored waste. "Our
failure as a society to deal with the legacy of nuclear waste
has been a disgrace, so one of my ambitions is that we clear up
the waste."
He is waiting for the experts to report on waste but he
envisages sharing costs. "When you look at ... how long some of
this stuff is going to be radioactive, you do have to think in
terms of a special relationship between state and market."
The big debate
· Today's consultation document kickstarts a debate on the
future of Britain's power supplies. National security is one key
consideration, the other is how to cut our greenhouse gas
emissions.
· The backdrop is declining North Sea oil and gas reserves, and
a growing reliance on foreign imports from potentially volatile
countries. By 2020 we could be importing 80% of our gas from
places such as Russia.
· Renewable sources such as wind are gradually coming on stream,
but the real debate is around nuclear.
· 10 atomic plants currently supplying 18% of our electricity
are due to close by 2020. Do we build a new generation when
there are still major questions around cost, terrorism and waste
disposal?
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
20 BBC: Nuclear reactors under spotlight
Last Updated: Monday, 23 January 2006
[Dounreay nuclear power station in Scotland]
The government is asking industry and the public for ideas
The safety, cost and suitability of nuclear energy is to be
assessed by the Health and Safety Executive, the BBC has learnt.
Ministers have asked the HSE to look at existing nuclear plants,
it has emerged on the day a public consultation on the energy
issue is being launched.
Environmental campaigners fear the HSE study is a prelude to an
expansion of Britain's nuclear network.
But the government insisted no decision had been taken on
nuclear.
The HSE will also look into the viability of other ways to
generate power; such as wind turbines, gas transport and storage,
and carbon capture and storage.
'Pre-licensing'
The government launched an energy review in November, and the
public consultation period is starting on Monday.
There is concern over the reliability of Britain's energy
sources, especially after recent gas price rises.
It is thought the HSE review - set to take 18 months - has been
requested to save time if the government does give the go-ahead
for new power stations.
It's a process [green group see as paving the way for new power
stations Pallab Ghosh BBC science correspondent
It would enable the nuclear industry to begin work more
quickly.
BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh said the government was
likely to say the review was not the "pre-licensing" of reactors
that the nuclear industry has been pressing for.
He said green groups believed the government had already made its
mind up on the issue and would see this is a "major step" toward
pre-licensing.
"It's a process [green groups] see as paving the way for new
power stations rather than one that makes sensible preparations,"
he explained.
Competitive
Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson is launching the
three-month public consultation on Monday, seeking opinions from
industry, environmentalists and the public.
Business leaders said British firms would be less competitive if
energy became more expensive or unreliable.
But environmental campaigners have said there is no need to build
new nuclear power stations when there are greener alternatives.
Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said
energy policy was "at a crossroads".
"We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by
cutting waste, harnessing the power of renewables and using
fossil fuels more efficiently," he said.
But the Engineering Employers Federation, which represents
thousands of companies, said the government had to quickly decide
on a coherent energy plan and had to consider all options,
including nuclear power.
Director general Martin Temple said: "Energy is now right at the
top of the agenda and there is no time to lose in putting in
place a long-term strategy that will provide a competitive,
reliable and secure supply and generate significant reduction in
emissions."
The Energy Saving Trust said there was a pressing need to solve
"escalating demand for energy" while still keeping the UK's
carbon-emission quotas to Kyoto Protocol targets.
*****************************************************************
21 BBC: 'Decision time' on nuclear power
Last Updated: Monday, 23 January 2006
[Dounreay nuclear power station in Scotland]
The government is asking industry and the public for ideas
It is time to decide to "close... or open the door" to nuclear
power, Trade Secretary Alan Johnson has said.
He said the 2003 Energy White Paper "had rightly" focused on
boosting renewable energy and energy efficiency, but left the
door "ajar" on nuclear.
But, as a public consultation into UK future energy needs begins,
he said it was time to take a decision on nuclear.
Critics say nuclear power is too expensive, is a terror threat
and creates much radioactive waste.
'Crucial' issue
Mr Johnson spoke out as it emerged that ministers had asked the
Health and Safety Executive to look at the safety, cost and
suitability of existing nuclear plants.
Environmental campaigners fear the HSE study is a prelude to an
expansion of Britain's nuclear network.
We can tackle climate chan and meet our energy needs by cutting
waste, harnessing the power of renewables and using fossil fuels
more efficiently Tony Juniper Friends of the Earth Nuclear
reactors in spotlight Energy review at-a-glance
They believe the HSE review, set to take 18 months, has been
requested to save time if the government does give the go-ahead
for new power stations.
Mr Johnson says he still has an open mind, but adds that it is
"crucial" to consider how Britain will meet its energy needs in
the next 50 or 60 years.
He said the HSE would also look into the viability of other ways
of generating power, such as wind turbines, gas transport and
storage and carbon capture and storage.
And as he launched a three-month public consultation on the
issue, he said: "We need to look at the risks to security of
supply, our climate change commitments and, to the long term, to
make sure we take the necessary action. There is not a do-nothing
option."
Energy importer?
Mr Johnson said by 2020 coal and nuclear generating electricity
plants producing 30% of UK electricity will have closed.
"Companies will need to decide how this capacity should be
replaced. These are big investment decisions so the government
needs to provide a clear framework," he said.
While renewable sources of energy would be an element towards
filling that gap, he said the security of oil and gas supplies
from overseas had to be considered, especially in the light of
the recent dispute between Russia and Ukraine.
"If gas, as well as renewables, were to fill the gap, how
comfortable will we be relying on imports for 80% of our
supplies?" he asked.
There is no ti to lose in putting in place a long-term strategy
that will provide a competitive, reliable and secure supply and
generate significant reduction in emissions Martin Temple
Engineering Employers Fed
Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks, who is leading the review, said
people could do more to conserve power, adding that more than
£740m of energy was "squandered" by domestic appliances and
gadgets being left on stand-by rather than switched off.
But Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats' environment spokesman,
said: "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."
Keith Taylor, the Green Party principal speaker, said nuclear
power was "astronomically expensive", was "incredibly dangerous"
and used fossil fuels at every stage in the process apart from
fission itself.
Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, 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 Engineering Employers Federation, which represents thousands
of companies, said the government had to quickly decide on a
coherent energy plan and had to consider all options, including
nuclear power.
The Energy Saving Trust said there was a pressing need to solve
the "escalating demand for energy" while still keeping the UK's
carbon emission quotas to Kyoto Protocol targets.
*****************************************************************
22 BBC: At-a-glance: Energy review
Last Updated: Monday, 23 January 2006
The key questions asked in the energy review public consultation
document, entitled Our Energy Challenge, are:
+ What more could the government do on the demand or supply
side for energy to ensure that the UK's long-term goal of
reducing carbon emissions is met?
+ With the UK becoming a net energy importer and with big
investments to be made over the next 20 years in generating
capacity and networks, what further steps, if any, should the
government take to develop the market framework for delivering
reliable energy supplies? The document also invites reviews on
the implications of increased dependence on gas imports
+ The Energy White Paper left open the option of nuclear new
build. Are there particular considerations that should apply to
nuclear as the government re-examines the issues bearing on new
build, including long-term liabilities and waste management? If
so, what are these, and how should the government address them?
+ Are there particular considerations that should apply to
carbon abatement and other low-carbon technologies?
+ What further steps should be taken towards meeting the
government's goals for ensuring that every home is adequately
and affordably heated?
Comments are also invited on the following issues:
+ The long-term potential of energy efficiency measures in the
transport, residential, business and public sectors, and how
best to achieve that potential
+ Implications in the medium and long term for the
transmission and distribution networks of significant new build
in gas and electricity generation infrastructure
+ Opportunities for more joint working with other countries on
the UK's energy policy goal
+ Potential measures to help bring forward technologies to
replace fossil fuels in transport and heat generation in the
medium and long term
How to respond
The consultation document is available online at
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review (follow the link on the
right-hand side) or, for printed copies, call 0845 015 0010.
The consultation period runs from 23 January to 14 April.
Responses can be submitted in the following ways:
+ By using the response forms on the DTI website
+ By email to energyreviewconsultation@dti.gsi.gov.uk
+ By letter to Energy Review Team, Department of Trade and
Industry, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET
*****************************************************************
23 FT.com: Reactor policy to be made after 3-month public airing
By Christopher Adams and James Blitz
Published: January 23 2006 09:26 | Last updated: January 23 2006
[uk nuclear] Alan Johnson, trade and industry secretary, on
Monday annouced that the government's energy review will take a
serious look at nuclear power but that no decision has been taken
on replacing ageing plants. Employers' groups want a speedy
outcome and incentives to encourage nuclear use.
Ministers will spend just three months canvassing public opinion
before making a decision on whether to build a new generation of
nuclear power stations.
The government is to publish a consultation document to set up
what it says will be a rigorous evaluation of the economic costs
of different energy sources, including fossil fuels as well as
renewable and nuclear power.
Speaking at a launch event for the three-month consultation
attended by representatives from the industry, business and
environment bodies and other stakeholders in central London, Mr
Johnson, said “I want the widest possible engagement in this
vital debate. We need to look at the risks to security of
supply, our climate change commitments and, to the long term, to
make sure we take the necessary action. There is not a do
nothing option.â€
He said: "The review is about looking long term on the basis of
this changing environment of the fact that . . . we are now a
net importer of gas and will soon be a net importer of oil;
where do we stand in the UK, how can we prepare for that and how
can we ensure we've got a sensible energy policy?"
He described himself as neutral on nuclear power, seeing
arguments on both sides, but agreed that the government would
"bite the nuclear bullet" soon, saying: "We are looking to
produce proposals by late summer."
The review, led by Malcolm Wicks, energy minister, is due to
report back to the prime minister in the early summer. A white
paper setting out the government's thinking is expected soon
afterwards. However, legislation is not needed to build nuclear
plants, and it is unclear whether a bill would follow.
Some ministers and officials at Downing Street and the
Department of Trade and Industry believe there is a strong case
for at least some limited construction of nuclear plants. They
want to look at what can be done to relax planning rules and
speed up licensing of new plants. The government is to consider
what incentives could encourage demand for nuclear power.
The EEF manufacturers' group has urged the government to move
quickly, arguing that sharp increases in the price of gas have
accentuated the need for urgency.
In its submission to the review, released today, it suggests
exempting nuclear power from the climate change levy and
replacing the renewables obligation subsidy with one that
applies to all low-carbon forms of energy.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
24 News-Record.com: New nuclear reactor in N.C. considered
Greensboro, North Carolina: News:
January 23, 2006
MORE ONLINE Click here to read Progress Energy's press release
about the announcement. RALEIGH (AP) — Progress Energy Inc. said
Monday it will consider building a new nuclear reactor at its
existing Shearon Harris plant near Raleigh, although a final
decision still could be years away.
Progress Energy, which serves 1.4 million customers in the
Carolinas, is among a handful of utilities considering the
nation's first order for a nuclear power reactor in more than
three decades. Charlotte-based Duke Power is expected to
announce its own plans for a new reactor soon.
There hasn't been an order for a new nuclear power plant since
1973, and 1979's partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island
nuclear plant in Pennsylvania led utilities to cancel plans new
plants, although several dozen already under construction were
completed.
Today, about 20 percent of the U.S. gets its electricity from
nuclear reactors. The growing demand for power in the booming
Southeast has supporters touting the advantages of nuclear
power, among them a lack of emissions that contribute to global
warming.
A final decision on whether Progress will build the reactor is
still several years away and will depend on factors including
public and political support, regulatory approval, and
predictions of energy demand and economic conditions for the
latter part of the decade, the Raleigh-based utility said in a
statement.
The economic picture, chiefly the cost of building a reactor,
gives opponents of the plan some hope that Progress Energy will
ultimately decide against expansion.
"This is an enormously uncertain undertaking if they were to
actually go forward," said Jim Warren, executive director of
N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, a nonprofit based in
Durham that focuses on energy, climate and nuclear safety.
Robert McGehee, Progress Energy's chief executive officer, said
in April that the Shearon Harris site — about 20 miles from
Raleigh — would be the most logical choice for expansion. The
utility chose the site from 13 potential locations in both North
and South Carolina.
The list was narrowed to six by December, when the final
announcement was originally expected. The company said its
choice would be delayed to January as it awaited results of a
technical study of the best reactor designs for each site being
considered.
The Shearon Harris site, which went on line with its one reactor
in 1987, came out on top because its lines can handle additional
loads, and because it's near the Cape Fear River and Harris
Lake, which can supply enough water to cool the reactors, the
company said.
It's also in Progress Energy Carolinas' largest area of customer
concentration.
NC WARN and other anti-nuclear groups have long criticized the
Shearon Harris plant's safety record. Joined by the
Washington-based Union for Concerned Scientists, the group filed
a complaint last month with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
alleging that security guards worked while injured, slept during
their shifts and cheated on licensing tests, and that some
security equipment was broken.
With guaranteed federal loans and insurance protection promised
to the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, Warren said
his group remains concerned that the project will go ahead
despite the capital costs.
"We are certainly taking it very seriously because you can never
count on even top corporate managers making good decisions when
there's a lot of money being offered," he said.
Westinghouse Electric Company will supply the reactors for the
expansion, the utility said Monday.
McGehee said Monday that the utility has added 29,000 customers
over the past year, or more than 550 per week, and must increase
its power-generating ability to meet the needs of another
300,000 new customers it expects to add over the coming 10 years.
"A renewed emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency is an
important factor in planning for the future," McGehee said in
the company statement. "However, even with more conservation and
energy-efficiency programs, energy use will continue to grow as
more people move to this region. To meet that growing demand for
electricity, we'll need to add significant new power generation."
Progress Energy is expected to announce by April a site for a
second nuclear plant in Florida, where the company has an
additional 1.5 million customers.
The company has notified the NRC that it plans to apply for
licenses for the North Carolina and Florida plants, seeking
permission for up to two reactors at each site.
Should Progress Energy want to go ahead with construction plans,
the applications would be filed in late 2007 or early 2008, the
company said Monday. With NRC approval, construction could begin
as early as 2010, and a new plant could be on line about six
years later.
We've had to postpone our plans to allow readers to append
comments to individual articles until we can put additional
safeguards in place, and we apologize for the delay. Until we
are able to present that feature to you, please visit our
existing reader forumsfeature to discuss this or any article.
© 2006 News & Record 200 East Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27401
(336) 373-7000 or (800) 553-6880 ![]()
===============http://tinyurl.com/d2q2x [Global Research]
Depleted Uranium - A Hidden Looming Worldwide Calamity
by Stephen Lendman
January 19, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context==viewArticle&code==LEN20060119&articleId=54
Forget about Avian (bird) flu. The threat of it becoming a pandemic is more
a political scare tactic and potential bonanza for drug company profits and
its major shareholders' net worth (including Gilead Sciences, the developer
of the Tamiflu drug and its former Chairman and major shareholder Donald
Rumsfeld) than a likely public health crisis - unless you live around
infected chickens or take an unproven safe immunization shot. There are
much more other likely killer bacterial and viral threats than Avian that
get little attention. Don't worry about possible or unlikely threats. Worry
about real ones. Bacteria and viruses untreatable by anti-biotics are good
examples. So is global warming and many others. But, there's possibly one
threat that tops all others both in gravity and because it's been
deliberately concealed from the public - never discussed, explained or had
any action taken to remediate it. It's the global threat from the toxic
effects of depleted uranium (DU), and like
global warming, DU has the potential to destroy all planetary life. How
can something so potentially destructive be hidden and ignored and why?
THE ARROGANCE OF DOMINANCE
There's little dispute that the U.S. today is the preeminent world power
and unlike any that ever preceded it. It now admits to being an empire. In
fact, it's the first ever world global empire. To expand its reach and
influence, it now spends nearly as much on its military as all other
nations combined and has built and maintains a military capacity no other
nation dare challenge. It also reserves for itself the sole right to
develop and use the most dangerous and destructive weapons, even those
banned from use by international law or custom. Some of those now in charge
at the highest levels believe they have a divine right to use them, even a
duty. George Bush may be one of them. A self-proclaimed and so-called
born-again Christian, he says he gets his direction from the Almighty.
That's real arrogance, the supreme kind only an unchallengeable power and
its leaders dare arrogate to itself.
Up to now, the U.S. has effectively used its power to dominate other
nations either by persuasion, economic isolation or conquest. We claim to
be a model democracy, but our policies and actions prove otherwise. At home
we're a democracy for the few - the privileged and powerful. It's they who
govern and run our institutions including the most dominant one of all -
the giant transnational corporations whose interests all administrations
serve including waging war for their benefit. Wars are good for business -
as long as they're easily winnable, the public supports them, and they
don't cause undo economic stresses that may disrupt the economy, in which
case they're bad for business.
There's a striking term often used in the plural and in a business context
that's also appropriate more broadly. The term is "externalities." In
business it refers to the unfortunate side effects or consequences of a
company's action that may have a detrimental affect on others. A typical
example is an industrial plant that produces a dangerous substance as an
unsalable byproduct from its production process. To avoid the cost of
disposal, storage or treatment, the plant dumps it into waterways, unused
land areas or through smokestacks. In so doing it harms the environment.
Wars also have "externalities" - with far greater consequences. Overall,
death, disease and destruction are the best examples. But so are the
dangerous residues and their side effects from the use of weapons like
toxic chemicals, biological agents and all types of nuclear munitions.
We're all aware of the danger from the first two categories, although when
used they only affect small areas and are not "weapons of
mass destruction." We've also seen the destructive capability of a
nuclear bomb and have heard of DU. But, the public has little or no
knowledge about the real danger and threat from the use of any nuclear
device or substance. That information has been willfully and deliberately
suppressed because the potential harm is so great and irreversible. Even
when there's clear evidence of widespread problems as there was in the case
of the Agent Orange effects on Vietnam veterans and "Gulf war syndrome" on
the military from that conflict, our government has denied any connection
and stonewalled efforts to help those in need - until they no longer could
hide the truth and had to act.
Depleted uranium (DU) is a "dense metal" that increases its ability as a
weapon to penetrate a target, thus enhancing its destructive capability.
Pentagon propaganda and disinformation falsely describe all DU weapons as
only being coated. In fact, they are solid missiles, bombs, shells and
bullets weighing up to 5,000 pounds in a single "bunker buster" bomb. All
these weapons have solid DU projectiles or warheads in them, and their use
in combat as the U.S. military has done in 4 wars and is now doing every
day in Iraq is the "de facto" use of nuclear bombs. From Nagasaki in 1945
until the 1991 Gulf War, these weapons were effectively banned by common
consent (and common sense) and never used (except for one time in the 1973
Yom Kippur war). No longer.
Above I asked why are these weapons used if they're so deadly and dangerous
well beyond the areas they target? The answer's simple - because they work
so well, and the enemy forces attacked don't have them and can't retaliate
against us with them. The fact that we understand the danger from their use
and the "externalities" left in their wake is someone else's problem to
deal with. Just like a public corporation worries only about meeting Wall
Street estimates of next quarter's earnings, our government and the
military only worry about winning the next battle and next war - too bad if
in the process we irradiate the planet and threaten all future life on it.
That's someone else's problem later on. That's how big business thinks and
also how our political and military leaders do as well.
OUR PRECIOUS PLANET AND HOW BADLY WE TREAT IT
Today we're threatened by many natural and "man-made" disasters we could
act to prevent but don't. To the ones mentioned above add polluted air,
water and soil. Include the unsafe food we eat from the chemical and other
contaminants and unsafe additives in them. Don't ignore ozone layer damage,
deforestation, the destruction of precious natural habits and endangered
species, the reckless ways we develop and use our natural resources
including wasteful overuse of a finite supply of fresh water that could run
out and is irreplaceable. And don't forget wars that get more recklessly
destructive as new technologies and weapons are developed to fight them and
powerful nations having them show no restraint in their use.
In November, 2005 this nation lost a great man unfortunately unknown to
most of the public. His name was Vine Deloria, Jr, a renowned Native
American intellect, historian, author, scholar and activist. With great
eloquence Deloria spoke and wrote about how for all its existence the
planet was well preserved by those who lived on it - until about 200 years
ago when western technological development began and changed everything. It
was then transformed from being pristine to poisoned. He expressed such
great wisdom in his writings and talks, it's worth quoting. Below are some
examples:
"Progress is the absolute destruction of the real world in favor of a
technology that creates a comfortable way of life for a few
fortunatelysituated people. Within our lifetime the differences between the
Indian use of the land and the white use of the land will become crystal
clear. The Indian lived with his land. The white destroyed his land, he
destroyed the planet earth."
Deloria once said that Christian missionaries had "fallen on their knees
and prayed for the Indians" before rising to "fall on the Indians and prey
on their land." He also claimed the destruction wrought by corporate values
and its technology was so damag that a return to Native American tribal
standards and culture could be viewed as salvation.
He viewed a corporate run predatory society, like the U.S., as an "Adolph
Eichmann of the plains", whose soldiers were tools "not defending
civilization; they were crushing another society."
Deloria wrote 20 books, edited others, and published his memoirs and a
two-volume set of U.S. - Native American treaties, all of which are
devastating accounts of U.S. duplicity. Every treaty made was broken or
ignored to this day, and the rights of our Native Indians willfully
violated and trampled over through lies, deception and deceit. Just the
latest example of this is in one of the accusations in the ongoing Jack
Abramoff political and financial corruption scandal now making daily
headlines. Abramoff, his partner, and other well-known Republicans are
accused of bilking Indian casino gambling interests out of an estimated $85
million. Further, in his now disclosed emails, he referred to Native
Americans as "monkeys, troglodites (people with a sub-human like nature),
and idiots."
Deloria also wrote that unlike African Americans, Native Indians did not
want to be equals in U.S. society. They wanted no part of it. Vine Victor
Deloria, Jr., historian, scholar, activist and much more was born March 26,
1933 and died November 13, 2005. He will be missed.
The Industrial Revolution and its single-minded pursuit of profit (what
Veblen called "the maximization of pecuniary interests") was Deloria's
point. It produced along with it a vast array of toxins that have done
untold ecological damage. The alarm was prominently sounded in Rachel
Carson's landmark book "Silent Spring" published in 1962 that forced the
banning of DDT, influenced President Jack Kennedy and led to legislation
affecting our air, water and soil. It also launched an environmental
movement that's grown into many and diverse advocacy groups that lobby and
fight for environmental sanity and justice. Since Carson's time we know
much more about the dangers we face, and we have many more of them. But
despite our knowledge and the influence of many concerned scientists and a
public supporting the need for a healthy environment, our political leaders
from both parties, in service to the dominant corporate interests they
serve, pay little more than lip service to this most
important of issues along with war and peace. Although the Congress
passed more than a dozen major environmental statutes and laws since the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 including the Clean Air and Clean
Water Acts, CERCLA establishing the Superfund to pay for toxic cleanups,
the Endangered Species Act and more, those statutes have since been
weakened or ignored. As a result, conditions today are much worse than 40
years ago and the dangers from them threaten our survival.
In his 2003 published book - "Hegemony or Survival" - Noam Chomsky cited
the reflections of eminent biologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr observed that other
species were better able to survive than humans and that the average life
of a species is about 100,000 years. It's generally believed the human
species has now about reached that limit and may be near becoming extinct.
If so, and in light of our more recent behavior, we may, as Chomsky notes,
turn out to be the only species ever to destroy ourselves and much else
along with us.
THE NUCLEAR AGE CHANGED EVERYTHING
Since the atom was first split in a Berlin laboratory in 1938, the world
has never been the same. The great scientist Albert Einstein's Special
Theory of Relativity was instrumental in the nuclear development that
followed creating the atom bomb. But his greatest influence was the letter
he sent to Franklin Roosevelt in 1939 urging him to build it. Einstein
feared the Nazis might do it first with disastrous consequences. He later
regretted his action and said: "I made one great mistake in my life....when
I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be
made...." He also said "our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by
those possessing the power to make great decisions for good and evil. The
unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of
thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." If he were
alive today, what might Einstein say about the threat from depleted uranium
(DU) which when weaponized is possibly the
ultimate weapon of mass destruction. But even if he said it, would the
public be allowed to hear him? And most important, would his words change
anything?
DEPLETED URANIUM (DU) - WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT'S USED
To use uranium as a fuel for commercial reactors or for nuclear weapons it
must be enriched. The enrichment process is then followed by gaseous
diffusion in two streams - one is enriched and the other depleted. Before a
use was found for it, DU was just stored in vast amounts as a byproduct.
However, when it was discovered that solid "dense metal" DU projectiles in
all forms (missiles, bombs, shells and bullets) greatly increased their
ability to penetrate and destroy a target, the Pentagon had a new
technology it hoped to use in combat and now has for the past 15 years.
The first DU weapon system was developed for the Navy in 1968, and DU
weapons were first given to Israel for use in the 1973 Yom Kippur war under
U.S. supervision. These weapons were later sold to 29 countries but never
used until the 1991 Gulf War when the U.S. broke an international taboo
prohibiting them. Since then the U.S. has fought wars in Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan and again in Iraq. In all these conflicts, thousands of tons of
solid DU weapons have been used causing far more devastation thus far from
its radiation and chemical toxins than from the targets destroyed and those
killed in target areas. Worst of all, the lingering and spreading affects
from DU contamination never end, resulting in all those exposed to it and
their loved ones with whom they have intimate contact and their offspring
the likelihood of having one or more of virtually any illness, disease or
disability imaginable often leading to early death or at the least a
lifetime of pain, suffering and great
expense. In Orwellian language, DU is the (deadly and unwelcome) gift
that keeps on giving - and killing.
USING DU AS A WEAPON IS ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Poison gas in various forms was first used as a weapon in WW I by both
sides. It's effects were deadly causing well over 1million total casualties
and nearly 100,000 deaths. After the war, the revulsion over their use led
to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and other succeeding Geneva Weapons Conventions
that specifically outlawed the use of chemical and biological agents in any
form for any reason in war. The 1925 Geneva Convention Gas Protocol
specifically prohibits the use of poison gas weapons. Although no Geneva
Convention or other treaty bans the use of radioactive uranium weapons,
including DU weapons, these weapons are, in fact, illegal de facto and de
jure when judged by the standard of the Hague Convention of 1907 which
prohibits use of any "poison or poisoned weapons." DU weapons in all their
forms and uses are radioactive and chemically toxic, and thus clearly fit
the definition of poisonous weapons banned under the Hague Convention. The
U.S. is a signatory to the Hague and
Geneva Conventions (which are binding treaties under international law).
In using DU weapons in combat or for any purpose, the U.S. has violated its
sacred treaty obligations and is guilty of a war crime. Further, all DU
weapons also meet the U.S. federal code definition of "weapons of mass
destruction" (WMD) in 2 out of 3 categories:
[The US CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, SECTION 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass
Destruction as follows: "The term 'weapon of mass destruction' means any
weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or
serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the
release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or
their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or
radioactivity." Because the U.S. is a signatory to the Hague and Geneva
Conventions, the U.S. military is violating its own military code. By using
depleted uranium (which is clearly a WMD and thus illegal) in combat in 4
wars, the U.S. is clearly guilty of the very crime we claimed our right to
go to war against Iraq to prevent.
In addition, under various UN Conventions and Covenants that are binding
international law for its signatories, the use of any weapons that cause
harm after the battle including away from the battlefield, harm the
environment, or kill, wound or cause harm inhumanely are illegal and
banned. DU weapons are poisonous under international law and violate all
the above conditions. Even the seminal Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which is legally non-binding to its signatories, implies a moral
duty never to use any weapons as potentially harmful as DU.
KNOWN EFFECTS FROM DU USE THUS FAR - AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING, THE
WORST IS YET TO COME
I'm very indebted to Leuren Moret for the data discussed throughohis
article and below. Leuren is an independent scientist and internationally
recognized expert on radiation, DU and public health. She's done extensive
research on the environmental and public health effects of low level
radiation from atmospheric testing fallout, nuclear power plants and DU
weapons radiation in 42 countries, has written detailed reports and
articles on her important findings, given testimony on the harmful affects
of DU poisoning and is an outspoken critic of DU use. In an article she
authored in July, 2004 she wrote: "The use of depleted uranium weaponry by
the United States, defying all international treaties, will slowly
annihilate all species on earth including the human species, and yet this
country continues to do so with full knowledge of its destructive potential."
Leuren's work has revealed some shocking facts. Since the U.S. military
first used DU weapons in the 1991 Gulf War, it has released the radioactive
atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki nuclear bombs into the global
atmosphere (that's no misprint) causing permanent contamination with a
half-life of 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, that DU radiation is 10 times
the amount released by all atmospheric testing which in total equaled
40,000 Hiroshima bombs (again, no misprint). The 2 atom bombs used against
the Japanese killed a likely 300,000 or more people from the initial blasts
and subsequent radiation and chemical poisoning deaths. To this day, there
are still reported deaths attributed to the bombings. Now imagine the
potential threat to all planetary life from all the DU weapons used since
1991 and their continued use in Iraq and Afghanistan - the equivalent of
400,000 Nagasaki bombings and increasing daily as U.S. forces now are
conducting 4 to 6 daily bombings of target sites
in Iraq alone using DU bombs.
Leuren calls DU "The Trojan Horse of nuclear war - it keeps giving and
keeps killing. There's no way to clean it up, and no way to turn it off
because it continues to decay into other radioactive isotopes..." As it
decays, it continues to release more radiation. DU when used as a weapon in
war, as the U.S. has now done 4 times and continues to do so in Iraq and
Afghanistan and intends to continue using, is Stanley Kubrick's fictional
Doomsday Machine for real (from his 1964 film Dr. Strangelove). DU may be
the ultimate weapon of mass annihilation. Unless there's a mass worldwide
public awakening to this threat to demand an immediate end to its use for
any purpose, we're left with little more than the message from the subtitle
of the Kubrick film - stop worrying and love the bomb--and likely prepare
to die.
The greatest damage from DU comes from the radiation residue after its use.
When a DU weapon strikes a target, it penetrates deeply and aerosolizes
into a fine spray which then contaminates the air and soil around the
target area. The residue is permanent, and its microscopic and
submicroscopic particles remain suspended in air or are swept into the air
from the tainted soil and are carried by winds around the earth as a
radioactive component of atmospheric dust. That dust falls to earth
indiscriminately everywhere causing radiation contamination that affects
every living thing and cannot be remediated. The contamination causes
virtually every known illness and disease from severe headaches, muscle
pain and general fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression,
cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer and brain tumors. It also
causes permanent disability and death. In June, 2003, the World Health
Organization (WHO), without specific reference to DU, announced in a press
release that global cancer rates will increase by 50% by 2020. WHO is
usually conservative in its estimates. Might they believe things are
potentially far worse? And are they closely examining the effects of DU to
those in combat areas where these weapons are and have been used?
Those individuals (military and civilian) at or near target areas are most
immediately affected by DU contamination, especially if they remain there
for an extended time. During the 6 week 1991 Gulf war only 467 U.S.
personnel were wounded and about 150 killed. Out of the 580,000 military
personnel who served in that war, 325,000 were reported to be on permanent
medical disability by the year 2000. It was also reported then the number
was increasing by 43,000 each year. In fact, the annual increases were even
greater, and by 2004 the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA)
reported over 518,000 Gulf-era veterans to be on medical disability. It
also reported over 500,000 veterans were homeless. Studies were also done
on veterans whose wives had normal babies before the war. It reported
two-thirds of post-war births of those studied had severe birth defects,
such as missing brains, eyes, legs and arms and blood diseases.
There are already scattered early reports of DU caused health problems from
the current Iraq conflict (and probably Afghanistan) as well as an above
normal rate of still active duty military and veteran suicide and family
violence. As deployments in the current conflict are much longer than the
short Gulf war and most serving go back for a second or even third tour of
duty, it's easy to imagine a literal holocaust that will eventually
devastate all military and other personnel who have or are now serving or
will serve in Iraq and the region. And it likely will have a similar effect
on the wives and husbands of veterans and their post-service offspring.
Once again it must be emphasized. The U.S. government prior to 1991 had
full knowledge of the devastating effects DU would cause and still used it,
still does and still intends to keep using it. Beyond belief? You bet. If
someone wrote this as a work of fiction or science fiction, no one would
believe it, and probably no one would
publish it.
DU USED AS WEAPONS - A WILLFUL ACT OF GENOCIDE
>From its use already in 4 wars, the use of DU weapons is an act of
insanity as well as possibly the greatest ever crime against humanity (and
all other living species) and a war crime. Those responsible include 3
presidents, scores of high government officials and the Pentagon high
command to include a lot of generals and admirals. These people are
criminals. They're guilty of mass murder without end. They all should be
made to answer for their crimes through indictment and trials both in our
federal courts and at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague
which was established in 2002 to try individuals for war crimes, crimes
against humanity and genocide. These people, or at least most of them, are
guilty of all three crimes and should pay the highest price for them with
no leniency. Their convictions should once and for all serve as a reminder
to all future leaders that this type reckless behavior will never again be
tolerated.
Nobel laureate Harold Pinter, a distinguished author and man of great
honor, passion and eloquence, in his 2005 acceptance speech made these
comments about the current Iraq war. Too ill with cancer, he was unable to
travel to Oslo for the award ceremony and instead read his comments on
videotape. Pinter is a sharp critic of the Iraq war and the U.S. and his
U.K. government's role in it. In his Nobel award address he called the
invasion of Iraq a "bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism,
demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law." He
stressed "the United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict.
It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious......It quite
simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or
critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant."
Pinter is right, and he said much more in his 46 minute acceptance speech.
He also could have added the Bush administration since 9/11/01 has governed
recklessly and arrogantly. With obsessive secrecy and contempt for the
Constitution, the Congress, the courts and the U.S. public, George Bush has
governed by Executive Order or Decree, a tool of tyrants when used to
excess as this president has. He's done it to pursue a policy of permanent
imperial war for U.S. global domination. The tragedy of 9/11 aside, the
Bush administration created a fear-induced sham world terrorist threat to
fight a so-called "global war on terrorism" for decades to come. It also
created a near police state at home with baseless mass roundups, illegal
detentions and deportations as part of a racist war against dark-skinned
immigrants, illegal warrantless domestic spying and systemic use of torture
of those detained and those held in offshore prisons and "renditioned" to
mostly unnamed countries tolerating this
practice. The Bush administration did all this based on a foundation of
willful deception, deceit, and endless web of lies, and an utter contempt
for political, economic and social justice at home and abroad and the rule
of law.
Until recent months, Bush has gotten away with it all. Now with his poll
numbers plummeting, the Iraq war a hopeless quagmire (despite the
disinformation to the contrary), the possibility of further high level
administration officials being indicted beside Lewis Libby along with the
potentially huge political and financial Jack Abramoff corruption scandal,
and the Democrats and some Republicans finally stirring and expressing
their ire, the administration may be nearing its Waterloo. Like many other
regimes in the past guilty of imperial arrogance and overreach (like the
last one that tried - the Nazis - and thought they'd rule for 1000 years
but only lasted 12) this administration and its reckless and heartless
agenda may meet a similar fate.
Great thinkers and perceptive observers have ventured to guess what our
fate may be as a result of our actions. Without predicting it, Noam Chomsky
in a recent talk cited the worst of all possible outcomes - a nuclear
holocaust, environmental destruction or the end of even nominal democracy.
Yale Senior Research Scholar Immanuel Wallerstein in his important 2003
book, The Decline of American Power, believes the U.S. "has been a fading
global power since the 1970s, and the U.S. response to the (9/11) terrorist
attacks has merely accelerated this decline." He goes on to say "the
economic, political and military factors that contributed to U.S. hegemony
are the same factors that will inexorably produce the coming U.S. decline."
He later wrote he can't predict the outcome of "this chaotic crisis of our
capitalist world system", but the U.S. attempt to stop it will fail. At
best, they'll only delay it as they've been trying to do. Wallerstein sees
a future that will go one of two ways (if we survive) - either one based on
progressive values or something that's quite the opposite.
Retired professor Chalmers Johnson, in his important 2004 book, The Sorrows
of Empire, also predicts the dissolution of the U.S. empire if its present
path continues. Unlike imperial Rome that took hundreds of years before it
fell, he sees U.S. sorrows arriving "with the speed of FedEx." He predicts
4 sorrows if the present trend continues that will create an ugly
alternative to our present constitutional form of government: imperial
overreach with a "state of perpetual war" leading to more terrorist
retaliation against us; a loss of democracy and our constitutional rights;
the end of truthfulness "replaced by a system of propaganda,
disinformation, and glorification of war, power, and the military legions";
finally, he sees the nation going bankrupt from its inability to maintain
ever more "grandiose military projects." The U.S. national debt now exceeds
$8.2 trillion. It's growing unsustainably by over $400 billion annually as
is the current account deficit that in 2006 may reach
$1 trillion. Both deficits rely "on the kindness of strangers" (foreign
governments and investors willing to keep buying our treasury securities
and invest in our equity and fixed income markets) to sustain us. They'll
do it only as long as they believe they're making sound investments.
Johnson doesn't believe the present trend is irreversible. There's still
time to change it, but so far he says we're not even trying. He thus
believes the only hope for us and the planet is for the world community of
nations to act together to "checkmate" us. If they don't or won't or can't,
nuclear war may eventually ensue and "civilization will disappear."
To prevent the above scenarios from happening, the world community of
nations must coalesce soon and go for "checkmate." And united they should
demand that this kind of behavior will never again be tolerated by any
nation. They should strengthen the international laws now in place enough
to insure it, require every nation to be a signatory and force all nations
to abide by these binding laws with the severest consequences for those who
don't. But even if all this were to happen, the damage already done is
overwhelming and spreading. It may already be too late. In the U.S. alone,
42 states are now contaminated with DU from its manufacture, testing and
deployment. Also, the manufacture of millions of DU bombs and their
deployment to U.S. military bases around the world continues.
Leuren Moret just learned from a declassified document a Hawaii based
Quaker group obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
that the U.S. military has 2.7 million DU bombs in U.S. still occupied
South Korea (over 50 years after the end of the Korean War). She says it's
little wonder North Korea wants nuclear weapons. She believes these bombs
were moved there in the 1990s from U.S. still occupied (Japanese) Okinawa
(60 years after WW II) because the Japanese (who abhor nuclear weapons)
refused to domicile them any longer. And she speculates further that we
very likely have many millions more DU bombs deployed in other countries
where we have bases. That could include a great many more according to
Chalmers Johnson. In The Sorrows of Empire, Johnson mentioned the existence
of at least 725 known U.S. bases in 153 countries, besides hundreds more in
this country. He also believes we have secret bases so the real total could
be much higher and now likely is with all
the new bases we're building in Iraq, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin
America and plans for Africa. Even without these weapons being used,
imagine the potential danger we're placing the people of these countries in
(and our own citizens as well) just because the weapons are there (and
here). There could be accidents, the military engages in exercises where
they likely test and use these weapons, and, of course, they could be
stolen or even sold by rogue military or other personnel looking for a
quick buck.
Imagine for a moment a reverse scenario. What if the U.K, France, Russia or
China had bases in this country (bad enough) and additionally stored
millions of DU bombs or other nuclear weapons on our soil. Would we
citizens tolerate just the bases, let alone with DU bombs? Unlikely. Also
imagine if the public here knew thousands or millions of these weapons were
being stored on U.S. bases here, near where they lived.
They might also consider the 104 current operating commercial nuclear power
plants in the U.S. They're all dangerous, but especially the aging ones.
Every one is a potential unstable nuclear bomb and possible disaster
waiting to happen, either from an inevitable accident or from sabotage.
Responsible experts believe it's just a matter of time before a major
nuclear disaster occurs somewhere in the world, possibly or even likely a
full nuclear core meltdown - the worst possible kind of nuclear catastrophe
other than a nuclear or thermonuclear explosion or widespread use of DU
weapons.
If a core meltdown happened (or more likely when one happens), a vast area
would be contaminated and made uninhabitable forever. Where I live in
Chicago I'm surrounded by 11 nuclear power plants, many of them aging and
all of them with histories of safety violations caused by aging and shoddy
maintenance. Even without an accident, these facilities (and all others
everywhere) discharge enough radiation daily in their normal operations to
contaminate the food we eat (even organic food), the water we drink and the
air we breathe into our lungs. If one of these plants had a core meltdown
and metropolitan Chicago was downwind from the fallout, the city and
suburbs alone would become uninhabitable forever and would have to be
evacuated quickly with all possessions left behind and lost (including our
homes) except for what we could carry in suitcases or in the trunks of our
cars. Everyone should thus ask the obvious question - is this kind of
insane "nuclear Russian roulette" risk worth
taking? There are much cleaner, safer alternatives available or that can
be developed, if we'd just be willing to invest heavily in alternative
energy sources other than the nuclear option and fossil fuels. There are
also common sense ways to practice conservation, without significantly
impeding our western lifestyle.
Up to now, our leaders have been irresponsible and derelict in their duty
to inform us of the risk and act responsibly to remove it to protect us
from potential harm. They've also shown no restraint in their actions or
respect for the people in countries we seek to dominate. Those countries
are never the developed ones in the Global North with the power to respond.
They're always weak, less developed and overexploited ones, usually with
darker skinned people and a non Judeo-Christian faith. In this country,
especially without a draft and with few good career opportunities for the
poor and underprivileged, military service with the promise of education
and other benefits (that most inductees never get) becomes the temporary
career choice of expedience. The rich and well-off only wage the wars but
don't fight in them. Instead they send the poor to fight and die for them
to make them richer. When our Vietnam era military came home sick and dying
from the toxic effects of Agent Orange
(highly toxic dioxin), Henry Kissinger, a Nobel Peace prize recipient and
accused war criminal, arrogantly insulted them all when he called them
"just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." Used,
abused and discarded like worn out shoes. Kissinger's past has come back to
haunt him. Before travelling abroad now, he must check with the State
Department to be sure there are no warrants out for his arrest.
The world today is closer to the tipping point than ever before. We may, in
fact, have passed it and it's already too late. The price we've paid for
our technological advances has been an equal growth in the threat to our
survival. Up to now we've found no way to end this destructive path. We're
fast running out of time, and unless we do it and soon, we may not get
another chance. The U.S. today is like a giant Gulliver Agonistes and the
rest of the world like the Lilliputians - in Jonathan Swift's classic
satire. Despite the mismatch, the Lilliputans (who stood 6 inches high)
were able to tie down this giant and prevent him from wrecking their homes.
In the end, they got Gulliver to leave and were able to go on with their
lives. The lesson is clear. People everywhere need to understand the great
peril we all face - our survival. Then, like the Lilliputians, we need to
hog-tie this out-of-control predatory Gulliver to save ourselves.
Two final thoughts to consider - the first one from Dr. Helen Caldicott,
president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, an expert on the
medical hazards of nuclear energy, author, activist and Nobel Peace Prize
nominee from her 1978 book Nuclear Madness (updated in 1994): "As a
physician, I contend nuclear technology (military and commercial) threatens
life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue (and they
have and have gotten worse), the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the
water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants
to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has
ever experienced."
The second is from the great British journalist, Robert Fisk from his year
end London Independent column entitled War Without End: "Only justice, not
bombs, can make our dangerous world a safer place."
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net
===========================***NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes.***
===========================
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
43 eattle Post-Intelligencer: No new trial for Hanford downwinder
[seattlepi.com]
Monday, January 23, 2006
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SPOKANE -- A U.S. District Court judge Friday denied a motion
for a new trial for an Idaho woman who claims Cold War emissions
from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation caused her cancer.
A federal jury in November denied claims by Shannon Rhodes of
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, that Hanford releases caused her thyroid
cancer. The verdict followed a mistrial in May, when jurors
deadlocked over whether her health problems were caused by the
releases.
Rhodes' attorneys filed a motion for a new trial last month,
alleging jury misconduct. They argued that during deliberations
last fall, two jurors brought up evidence not introduced during
the trial -- namely, that the trial was Rhodes' second and that
she had lost the first.
U.S. District Judge William Nielsen denied the motion Friday.
References to the first trial, though stricken in part, were
made to the jury during the second trial, and the information
was not an extraneous influence on the jury process, Nielsen
wrote.
Richard Eymann, Rhodes' lawyer, said he was disappointed with
the ruling and would appeal.
Rhodes was one of six so-called "bellwether" plaintiffs, who
were considered representative of thousands of people who
contend their health was damaged by releases from the
south-central Washington Hanford site.
The plaintiffs are known as Hanford "downwinders" because many
lived in areas downwind from radioactive and chemical releases
from the nuclear site. Downwinders didn't learn about the
radiation releases until the government declassified the
information in 1986.
Since 1990, lawsuits have been filed against the private
companies -- General Electric Co., E.I. du Pont de Nemours Co.
and UNC Nuclear Inc. -- that ran Hanford's plutonium factories
during World War II and the early days of the Cold War.
[advertising] In February, two of the bellwether plaintiffs
were awarded a combined total of about $500,000 after the jury
decided their thyroid cancers were "more likely than not" caused
by Hanford radiation.
Jurors rejected the claims of three others with autoimmune
thyroid disease, saying their illnesses likely were not caused
by Hanford's emissions of radioactive iodine-131, a byproduct of
plutonium production.
Those rulings remain under appeal.
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
101 Elliott Ave. W.
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 448-8000
Send comments to
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
44 Pacific Mag: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Scientists Study Thyroid Cancer Risk
Pacific Islands: PINA and Pacific
Monday: January 23, 2006
Two international research scientists have been conducting an
epidemiological study of the thyroid cancer risk factor in
Tahiti that could determine if a high number of such cancer
cases are linked to France's former nuclear tests.
Dr. Florent de Vathaire, director of the cancer epidemiological
unit at Villejuif, France, and his counterpart, Vladimir
Drozdovitch, director of research at the International Cancer
Research Center, are due to come up with their conclusions in
six months.
According to the Tahiti Presse the duo have been in French
Polynesia for several weeks working on a vast study that is
divided up into three parts.
The first part, which began in the 1990’s, involved a
geographical analysis of radioactive fallout from the French
nuclear tests conducted from 1966 to 1996 on two remote Tuamotu
atolls.
The second part of the study looked at leukemia cases and other
blood cancer cases.
The third part, which began in 2002, is studying thyroid cancer
cases, about which little is known when set against the
background of the French nuclear tests.
France conducted 41 atmospheric tests between 1966 and 1974, 140
underground tests between 1975 and 1991 and eight underground
tests that ended in May 1996.
The tests were conducted on the atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa
in the southeastern area of the Tuamotu Archipelago, 1,200 kms
(720 miles) from Papeete.……TAHITIPRESSE/PNS
Contact:
Pacific Magazine: - Sales Manager Florence Betham Tel: (808)
537-9500, Ext. 225 Fax: (808) 538-6041
- Editor Samantha Magick Tel: (61) 2 9571-1595 Cell: (61)
439-485-179
Pacific Magazine is published monthly by PacificBasin
Communications, Inc. Founder: Bruce Jensen. Copyright 2002, 2003
PacificBasin Communications, Inc. Editorial, advertising offices
at 1000 Bishop Street. Suite 405, Honolulu HI 96813. Telephone
(808) 537-9500. Send all address changes to Pacific Magazine,
P.O.Box 913, Honolulu HI 96808 or e-mail
pmaddchange@pacificbasin.net
Pacificmagazine.net Copyright 2002 - 2004 PacificBasin
Communications Inc. For more information contact
info@pacificbasin.net
*****************************************************************
45 Could California's proposed Route 241 be a nuke-waste highway?
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:05:08 -0800
January 22nd, 2006
by Russell "Ace" Hoffman
The real purpose of California's proposed Route 241 is to provide a way to
move nuclear "spent fuel" from San Onofre to Yucca Mountain in Nevada,
without bringing the waste too near Los Angeles. The city's vast
population has undoubtedly been coldly analyzed by government-operated
computer programs, which would indicate a grave danger from transporting
the waste so near such a large number of people.
And Hollywood activists must not be agitated into action -- that is another
reason to keep the waste route away from Los Angeles.
Over 2,000 tons of highly radioactive "spent fuel" sits precariously at San
Onofre. The fuel is so deadly it must be isolated from humanity for
millions of years. If you stand next to it for a fraction of a second it
will kill you, except for the thick steel and concrete around it, which
lowers the dosage levels near the massive containers to the range of a
chest x-ray every so-many minutes -- still a significant dose.
Moving the backlog of radioactive waste is a nightmare requiring hundreds
of individual shipments. Each shipment will need armed guard vehicles
front and back, and enormous special transporters with nearly a hundred
wheels and a dozen axles. There will be significant radiation exposure
risks to the public all along the route even without an accident. And of
course, all this needs to be done without any public announcements as to
when it will happen or what is being transported.
Presumably, if all goes according to plan, most of the extremely deadly
nuclear waste currently stored at San Onofre will be moved during the first
few years after the road is completed. Making Route 241 a "toll road" is
truly audacious, but it might be done just to keep traffic as light as
possible for as long as possible, and to keep housing construction along
the route to a minimum while they transfer the current nuke-waste
inventory, built-up from more than 35 years of storing used reactor cores
on-site near the ocean.
Would they really build an entire highway just to move that waste?
You bet they would -- they are doing it all over the country, not just
here. But the ultimate kick in the pants for Southern California is that
they are building Route 241 through some of our few remaining parks and
farm areas, at private contractor's expense, and then having users of the
road (other than government) pay for it all, at very profitable rates for
everybody involved in the building. Ingenious!
Citizens should know that by supporting Route 241, they are choosing, once
again, to support San Onofre Nuclear WASTE Generating Station. As usual,
support for the old atomic power plant is hidden in some other agenda, but
that's still the real choice that is being made here.
It's long past time to shut San Onofre and get realistic about renewable
energy.
Russell "Ace" Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell "Ace" Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************
IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE
EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line.
*****************************************************************
46 Manchester Evening News: RTS in radioactive store coup
Monday, 23rd January 2006
Sarah Walters
A HI-TECH engineering group has completed a £1.8m contract to
convert a disused nuclear power facility into a storage plant
for radioactive waste.
Irlam-based Robotic Technology Systems finished the project at
the Sellafield site ahead of schedule and more than £200,000
under budget.
The facility will now be used to store "spent" sand, which is
created when liquid waste is expelled from the Sellafield plant.
The waste is filtered through the special sand that absorbs all
the radioactive material and leaves the liquid pure.
Once radioactive, the sand has to be permanently stored in
secure tanks. But Sellafield's owner, British Nuclear, was
facing the possibility of commissioning a new building because
capacity at its existing plant, SIXEP, was close to full.
RTS's 22-strong team saw the potential of a neighbouring
building, MASWEP, and came up with a project to link it to SIXEP
and give British Nuclear seven more years' storage capacity. A
spokesperson for RTS said: "British Nuclear turned to RTS and
they looked for the simplest, cleanest and cheapest solution.
MASWEP had been lying around useless since 1988 and RTS had to
update the pumps, the software and everything.
"Previously, MASWEP was just a cost on a balance sheet that
didn't do anything and now it has a long-term purpose and is a
good, sensible use of a resource."Submit your comments
© Copyright 2006 Manchester Evening News. If you wish to use
*****************************************************************
47 RIA Novosti: Kazakhstan, Japan to develop uranium deposit
23/ 01/ 2006
ASTANA, January 23 (RIA Novosti) - Kazakhstan's state-owned
uranium producer is to form a joint venture with two Japanese
industrial giants to develop a uranium deposit in the south of
the country, the company said Monday.
Under the agreement, Kazatomprom will take a 65% share in the
project and Sumitomo Corp. and Kansai Electric Power Co. will
have a 25% and 10% share respectively. Initial financing will
exceed $100 million, Kazatomprom said.
"The joint venture will be established to develop a new uranium
deposit, and to produce and sell uranium," Kazatomprom said. "It
is part of a strategic partnership program between the three
companies that envisions exports of high-quality Kazakh uranium
to Japan."
According to estimates, the new joint venture will reach its
full production capacity of 1,000 metric tons of uranium a year
by 2010 and produce about 18,000 metric tons overall in 22
years. Sumitomo Corp. will sell the produced uranium primarily
on the Japanese market.
Kazakhstan holds 15% of the world's uranium reserves and has an
expanding mining sector, which aims to hit at an annual
production of 15,000 tons of uranium by 2010.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
48 BBC: BNFL to sell US power plant arm
Last Updated: Monday, 23 January 2006
[Sellafield nuclear power plant in Cumbria]
BNFL manages 11 nuclear power stations in the UK
Bosses at British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) will meet this Thursday to
agree the sale of its US subsidiary Westinghouse, which builds
nuclear power stations.
According to the Financial Times, Japanese conglomerate Toshiba
has won the auction with a $5bn (£2.8bn) offer.
It said Toshiba had beaten bids from US group General Electric
and Japanese rival Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
More countries are looking at nuclear energy as they look to
tackle rising fuel costs and cut carbon emissions.
Overseas contracts
Engineering group Toshiba makes a range of products from hi-tech
memory chips and flat-panel TVs to heavy plant machinery.
It already designs and builds nuclear power stations in Japan,
but a deal for Westinghouse would enhance its chances of winning
contracts overseas.
"Nuclear power generation is said to be vital to support power
demand in such fast-growing countries as India and China," said
Takeo Miyamoto, an analyst at CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets.
"The deal would help heighten Toshiba's chance to win contracts
in those nations."
Toshiba is expected to invite a US partner to take a minority
stake in Westinghouse, possibly engineering group Shaw.
Westinghouse was bought by BNFL for $1.1bn in 1999. It employs
9,000 people and has annual sales of about $1.8bn.
The Westinghouse sale will provide a windfall for the UK
Treasury.
But industry experts have expressed concern that such an asset is
being sold off when the demand for new nuclear power stations is
set to surge.
The UK government has just launched a three-month public
consultation into the UK's future energy needs and has asked the
Health and Safety Executive to examine the safety, cost and
suitability of the country's existing nuclear power stations.
State-owned BNFL operates four active UK power stations and seven
that are being decommissioned.
b
*****************************************************************
49 Las Vegas SUN: Bush eyes Yucca funds
Today: January 23, 2006 at 8:35:14 PST
By Benjamin Grove
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration as early as next month is
expected to renew efforts to give the Energy Department expanded
access to a national fund created to pay for the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository.
If successful, the administration's move could advance planning
for the controversial, proposed nuclear waste dump. Nevada
lawmakers, however, have turned back similar attempts in the
past and hope to do the same again.
Bush and pro-Yucca lawmakers for years have pushed an effort to
take the Yucca fund "off-budget," in effect, wresting annual
budget-setting control for the project from Congress by giving
the department more direct access to the fund.
Nuclear-generated electricity ratepayers since 1982 have paid a
special fee into the fund, which now has roughly $18 billion.
Each year Congress sets an annual budget for the high-level
radioactive waste repository, limiting the amount of money that
the Energy Department can spend from the fund. Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., typically negotiates to slash funding
from what the White House requests, frustrating Yucca advocates.
Nevada lawmakers have long fought efforts to give the
department more access to the Yucca fund, and they are
marshaling to quickly shoot down any new effort. In the past
they have had key allies in Congress unwilling to cede any
budget-setting authority.
Given bureaucratic and legal setbacks and recent scientific
controversy surrounding Yucca, it would be more difficult than
ever to push such a proposal through Congress, said Reid
spokeswoman Tessa Hafen.
"Support for Yucca Mountain is fading," she said.
The legislation reportedly is being prepared by the White
House. Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M.,
plans to introduce it as early as February -- and shepherd it
through the legislative process -- on behalf of the
administration, said his spokeswoman, Marnee Funk.
The bill also could include other nuclear power-related
proposals that Bush might mention in his State of the Union
speech Jan. 31, according to the trade publication Energy
Washington Week. Those proposals could include plans to expand
nuclear power worldwide, including a plan to provide India,
China and other nations with uranium fuel for new nuclear
plants, the publication said.
"As expanding economies continue to grow, the one source of
energy that we can develop rapidly, cheaply and with next-to-no
emissions is nuclear energy," Energy Department spokesman Craig
Stevens said.
Bush -- and his bill -- also may re-assert a commitment to
reprocessing nuclear waste, considered a "complement" to the
White House plan to continue Yucca development.
But Stevens would not confirm what Yucca or nuclear-related
proposals, if any, Bush would outline in his address or include
in any forthcoming legislation.
Stevens would not even confirm that Yucca- or nuclear-related
legislation was even taking shape.
"There's nothing fully cooked yet," he said.
Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or
grove@lasvegassun.com.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
50 Independent: Danger: Nuclear Waste - Deal with disposal first, warn advisers
Britain has 2.3 million cubic metres of nuclear waste stored
around the country - more than enough to fill the Albert Hall
five times. Exposure to even a tiny amount of the most potent
type could kill an adult within two minutes - and it remains
lethal for one million years. It will cost £85 billion to bury
all this radioactive rubbish - but our governments have dodged
the decision of where to put it for 30 years. As Tony Blair takes
the first steps towards building ten new nuclear reactors to plug
the looming energy gap, shouldn't we clear up this mess first?
By Steve Connor and Jonathan Brown
Published: 24 January 2006
A new generation of nuclear power stations must not get the
go-ahead until the Government has resolved what to do with
Britain's growing radioactive waste mountain, its own advisers
have warned.
The UK's civil and military nuclear industries are estimated to
have bequeathed enough radioactive material to fill the Royal
Albert Hall five times over, with a potential disposal cost of
£85bn.
Mounting disquiet within senior scientific circles emerged
yesterday as the Trade and Industry Secretary, Alan Johnson,
launched the much-heralded Energy Review, which is expected to
pave the way for up to 10 new nuclear plants when the current
ones become obsolete.
Environmentalists claim that relaunching Britain's civil nuclear
programme could increase levels of the most radioactive form of
waste fourfold. They accused Mr Johnson of launching a "spin
operation" in favour of nuclear power after he said "doing
nothing was not an option" if Britain was to reduce greenhouse
gases and achieve energy security in the face of dwindling North
Sea oil reserves.
Some members of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM), appointed to oversee the issue, are incensed that Tony
Blair has, in effect, signalled a return to nuclear power before
making a decision on what to with existing waste.
At present, only 8 per cent of the existing 2.3 million cubic
metres of radioactive material has been securely packaged. The
rest is in temporary surface storage facilities at 37 sites. It
is estimated up to 24 of those, many on the coast, could be at
risk from the elements or rising sea levels.
Professor Gordon MacKerron, chairman of CoRWM, said a final
recommendation by his colleagues will not be published until
July and talk of building new nuclear power stations before then
could undermine the process. "People expect the waste issue to
be resolved before any decision is taken on building new
reactors. That was what we had been led to believe was the
Government's position," he said.
"The Government always made a commitment that it will need to
solve the waste problem before a rebuild decision. Given that
the report on rebuild is expected in early summer it puts
pressure on us."
Malcolm Wicks, the Energy minister, who has described the
failure to find a permanent solution to the problem as a
"national disgrace" sidestepped the question of whether a future
waste strategy should actually be in place before a new
generation of atomic power stations was given the go-ahead.
Speaking at the launch of the review, he said he accepted "the
legacy of nuclear waste" was an issue: "The way governments and
parliaments have dodged this over 20 or 30 years is something we
shouldn't be proud of in our democracy in my judgement."
But he said the new Nuclear Decommissioning Agency had "a very
ambitious programme of clearing up the nuclear waste on existing
sites" and added: "With the decommissioning authority, we're
well on the way to producing a strategy the public can have
confidence in."
Nirex, the newly independent company charged with solving
Britain's waste timebomb, is pushing for the construction of a
£7bn geological repository to store all nuclear waste. The
search for a deep repository was, in effect, abandoned in the
1990s amid public and political concern. Any new project would
be constructed 500m underground, and designed to withstand a
million years of geological change.
Jean McSorley, a campaigner at Greenpeace who is involved with
the CoRWM process, said: "There will be a 300 per cent increase
in high-level waste and spent fuel if rebuild goes ahead."
While some low-level waste is relatively easy to handle, the
higher-level wastes can remain dangerously radioactive for many
thousands of years. Much of the waste inventory - some 241,000
cubic metres - is classified as intermediate. It is made up
mainly of bulky items such as contaminated components of nuclear
reactors and the metal casings used to house nuclear fuel rods.
High-level waste, which is so radioactive it generates heat,
comes mainly from the waste products from reprocessing spent
nuclear fuel. It is estimated to total 1,340 cubic metres - just
0.1 per cent of the total waste by volume - yet accounts for 95
per cent of the total radioactivity of the entire waste
inventory.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
51 LA Daily News: Board rightly rejects Boeing's request for looser pollution
standards
Opinions
Article Launched: 01/23/2006 12:00:00 AM
Request denied
In life, if you generally play by the rules, people will cut
you some slack. Take credit, for example: Pay your bills on
time, and banks will lend you money at a low interest rate. Skip
payments and default on your loans, and you'll face usurious
charges.
But somehow this simple rule of life has been lost on the folks
at the Boeing Co.
To extend the metaphor, Boeing has bad credit. Thanks to the
way Rocketdyne operated the Santa Susana Field Laboratory for
decades before Boeing took over, the company has a poor track
record of dealing with contamination caused by nuclear and
rocket fuel research. And even now the firm is still racking up
violations, 50 of them for water-quality problems in the past
year alone.
Boeing hasn't established the kind of relationship with the
community that earns it much slack.
Yet that didn't stop Boeing officials from asking the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to weaken the
pollution limits on storm water flowing off the hilltop lab. To
which the board properly replied: Not a chance.
Breaks come to those who have earned the public's trust.
Sixteen years after the Daily News disclosed there were serious
contamination problems at the field lab ought to be enough time
to win friends and clean up the mess.
Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
52 Creamer Media's Engineering News: Uranium survey planned for Canadian mine
South African Industry
Toronto Stock Exchange-listed Pathfinder Resources and TSX
Ventures board-listed Diamonds North Resources announce that
Pathfinder has entered into a contract with Fugro Airborne
Surveys to conduct a comprehensive airborne geophysical survey
over the Thelon Basin Uranium Project in the Northwest
Territories, Canada.
The survey will consist of a 6 000 line-kilometre, deep
penetrating, electromagnetic (EM) survey, using Fugro's
proprietary MEGATEM II system.
The objective of the survey is to identify conductive graphitic
sediments that are spatially associated with geologic structures
and uranium mineralisation. Fugro's MEGATEM II system is a deep
penetrating, high-resolution electromagnetic and magnetic
geophysical system capable of identifying conductors in basement
rocks that can be overlain by thick sandstone basin infill.
As basement conductors are often related to fault structures,
the survey will focus on areas of the property where major
structures have been recognized by government and Pathfinder
geologists based on a recently released calculated vertical
gradient magnetic map.
The survey is scheduled to start in May 2006 and results should
be available in June or July.
Pathfinder can earn an 80% interest in the uranium rights on
about 1,2-million acres of Diamond North's Thelon exploration
claims and permits. Pathfinder is the operator of the Project.
Copyright © Creamer Media (Pty) Ltd
*****************************************************************
53 ITAR-TASS: Kazakhstan planning to become biggest uranium producer
23.01.2006, 12.55
ASTANA, January 23 (Itar-Tass) -- Kazakhstan is going to become
the world’s biggest uranium producer, Mukhtar Dzhakishev,
President of Kazatomprom (the national nuclear company of
Kazakhstan), said here on Monday.
According to his information, Kazakhstan’s uranium output was
4,300 tons in 2005 – 30 per cent up against the 2004 figure.
Kazatomprom is one of the three biggest uranium-producing
companies. Its management has set itself the task of bringing
annual uranium production to 15,000 tons by 2010. If the plan is
put into effect, Kazakhstan will become the world’s leading
producer of uranium.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
store in any medium (including in any other websites),
distribute, transmit, re-transmit, broadcast, modify or show in
public any part of the ITAR-TASS website without the prior
written permission of ITAR-TASS.
*****************************************************************
54 Portal da Cidadania: Brazil ready to begin enriching uranium
Brazil News
Alana Gandra Reporter Agência Brasil
Rio - Brazil's first uranium enrichment factory is ready to be
inaugurated. It is located in Resende, state of Rio de Janeiro,
where it will be operated by Indústrias Nucleares do Brasil
(INB). When the factory goes into operation, at the end of this
month, Brazil will be the ninth country in the world with the
capacity to enrich uranium on an industrial/commercial scale.
In a first phase, running from now until 2012, the factory will
supply some 60% of the enriched uranium needed by the country's
two nuclear power plants, Angra I e II. Around 2015, the factory
should be supplying 100% of Brazil's enriched uranium. The
uranium enrichment factory was built at a cost of US$172 million.
In the past, Brazil has imported enriched uranium at a cost of
some US$16 million annually. The technology for the INB factory
in Resende was developed by the Brazilian Navy with support from
the National Institute of Nuclear Research (IPEN).
Translation: Allen Bennett
23/01/2006
------
© Agencia Brasil - All material may be reproduced as
*****************************************************************
55 Portal da Cidadania: Greenpeace criticizes uranium enrichment factory
Alan Gandra Reporter Agência Brasil
Rio - Greenpeace, one of the world's best known NGOs, calls
Brazil's new uranium enrichment factory in Resende, Rio de
Janeiro, a step backward. The factory, built at a cost of US$172
million to make Brazil independent of enriched uranium imports
that costs US$16 million annually, will go into operation by the
end of this month.
Guilherme Leonardi, the coordinator for nuclear energy at
Greenpeace, says Brazil is investing in a technology that many
countries are abandoning. Leonardi disagrees with experts who
say that nuclear energy is clean.
"Inevitably nuclear energy produces nuclear waste. And when you
are dealing with nuclear energy there is always a risk of an
accident at various points in the nuclear fuel cycle - in the
processing of nuclear fuel, the generation of energy or in
disposing of the nuclear waste," he says.
Leonardi goes on to say that many countries are rethinking the
nuclear energy alternative. They are deciding against new
nuclear power plants, he explains, which is what Brazil should
do.
Greenpeace says that Brazil spent US$2.58 billion on the
construction of its first nuclear power plant, Angra I. And that
the second power plant, Angra II, cost US$6 billion.
Translation: Allen Bennett
23/01/2006
------
© Agencia Brasil - All material may be reproduced as
*****************************************************************
56 StockInterview.com: Uranium Mining Companies Cheer NRC Legal Decisions on New Mexico Property
Source: StockInterview.com
U.S. Gov't Agency Calls Local Environmental Group's Arguments
Disingenuous
SARASOTA, Fla., Jan. 23, 2006 (PRIMEZONE) -- Mining executives
at uranium companies proposing to develop In Situ Leaching
uranium operations in northwestern New Mexico, near Navajo
Nation territory, upon which uranium mining has been banned,
celebrated a three-judge panel's recent decision over the
contested HRI project by Uranium Resources (OTCBB:URIX). Legal
arguments advanced by the local environmental activists have
been labeled "insubstantial" and "disingenuous" in NRC
conclusions announced recently and over the past year.
Commentaries from both sides appear in a copyrighted series of
articles in StockInterview.com. Other companies, such as
Strathmore Minerals (TSX-V:STM) (Other OTC:STHJF) and Energy
Metals (TSX-V:EMC) stand to benefit from the recent decision,
which may involve uranium assets potentially valued in excess of
$20 billion (gross value with spot uranium at $36/pound).
"It helps that the regulatory community shed light on the
inaccuracies, and on the disingenuous approaches the
anti-nuclear contingent brings to the argument," Juan Velasquez,
Vice President of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs for
Strathmore Minerals told StockInterview.com. Late last year,
Strathmore opened a permitting office in Santa Fe, New Mexico to
move forward a nearby property into ISL operational development.
William Sheriff, Director of Corporate Development for Energy
Metals, which holds nearby uranium properties, told
StockInterview.com, "I think the rulings by the NRC (on HRI's
applications), are very positive. It's just another step toward
production."
Environmentalists challenged the project on the basis of
groundwater contamination, an appeal which a full panel of NRC
commissioners recently refused to hear. Craig Bartels, president
of HRI, clarified the rhetoric in a taped interview with
StockInterview.com, "We hear this all the time: 'The water is
pristine drinking water.' That is not at all correct. The water
is already toxic." Federal and county panels have routinely
dismissed the legal arguments presented by the activists.
The entire three-part series, which appears today, discusses the
legal war between uranium mining companies versus the
environmentalists and the Navajo Nation. The first installment
in this series is posted on the Internet news website,
StockInterview.com: http://www.stockinterview.com.
CONTACT: StockInterview.com
Julie Ickes
(941) 929-1640
editor@stockinterview.com
*****************************************************************
57 AP Wire: Savannah River Site plans to consolidate plutonium
| 01/23/2006 |
Associated Press
AIKEN, S.C. - To improve defenses against terrorism and better
monitor radioactive material, the Energy Department is preparing
to consolidate the plutonium at Savannah River Site in a single
location.
An unspecified amount of plutonium will be moved from a
production site to an old nuclear reactor where there are other
stockpiles of the material, according to agency documents.
"This will be a more secure, hardened facility," said Perry
Holcomb, a member of the SRS Citizens Advisory Board.
Two studies have recommended changes.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board said in 2003 that
current storage at the old nuclear weapons complex lacks proper
fire protection, ventilation and filtration. The report also
cited an inability to remove plutonium from storage containers
to ensure its stability.
A report by the Government Accountability Office last year
reiterated those points.
The proposal would make it possible to open plutonium containers
for testing and provide the ability to monitor them from the
outside.
Officials won't say how much plutonium is stored at SRS, but the
site is to receive at least 34 tons of the material to be
converted into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors.
Another 13 tons of the material to be shipped to SRS that is not
clean enough to be converted to reactor fuel.
The refurbished storage facility will handle both forms of
plutonium, said Tommy Williams, a project manaqger with
Washington Savannah River Co., which operates the site.
More than 220 acres of timber would be cleared around the
reactor to move security fences farther out.
An Energy Department committee is studying the possibility of
consolidating excess plutonium from around the country in one
place. A report is not expected until the end of the year or
early next year, an agency spokesman in Washington said.
SRS can not legally receive more plutonium until it develops a
plan to get rid of material that isn't suitable for fuel
conversion. But some expect SRS to end up with the material.
"I certainly assume that when that project is finished it will
allow the site to store all plutonium for DOE," said Mal
McKibben, the executive director of Citizens for Nuclear
Technology Awareness.
Bill Taylor, a DOE spokesman at SRS, would not discuss the
possibility.
Information from: The Augusta Chronicle,
*****************************************************************
58 Santa Fe New Mexican: Los Alamos director: outstanding year for lab
Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:31 pm
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - A new report card has given Los Alamos
National Laboratory largely outstanding or good ratings on how
well it does its job.
"I have never seen any organization go through what we have and
make such a remarkable recovery while under the public
microscope," Los Alamos Director Robert Kuckuck wrote in a
column in a lab newsletter last week.
He referred to the lab being at least partially shut down for
months last year over the loss of two classified disks, which
were later found never to have existed; budget constraints; and
putting the lab's contract out to bid for the first time in its
60-year-plus history.
Kuckuck said the National Nuclear Security Administration and
the University of California gave the nuclear weapons lab an
overall rating of outstanding on missions such as threat
reduction, weapon certification, science and engineering,
facilities and stockpile stewardship. NNSA rated Los Alamos as
satisfactory and the university rated it as good in
administration and operations.
Los Alamos received six outstanding ratings out of 10 objectives
in 2005, plus three ratings of good and one _ for operations _
of satisfactory. That compares to three ratings of outstanding,
four of good, two of satisfactory and an unsatisfactory rating
for operations in 2004.
The lab rated 2 percent unsatisfactory in 2005 compared to 17
percent in 2004, and 63 percent outstanding in 2005 compared to
26 percent the previous year.
The lab's management contract was put out for bid after a series
of security lapses and allegations of fraud and mismanagement.
Los Alamos National Security, or LANS _ a team headed by Bechtel
Corp. and the lab's former sole manager, the University of
California _ will take over June 1.
Michael Anastasio, who has been director of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, will take over from Kuckuck, who was named
interim director last May. John Mitchell, a 12-year veteran of
Bechtel, will be the lab's deputy director.
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
59 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge
FR Doc E6-721
[Federal Register: January 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 14)]
[Notices] [Page 3507-3508] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23ja06-52]
Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge
Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No.
92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting
be announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Wednesday, February 8, 2006, at 6 p.m.
ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator,
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001,
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865)
576-5333 or e- mail: or check the Web site at .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda: Strategic Planning for East Tennessee
Technology Park Following Cleanup.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board either
[[Page 3508]] before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish
to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should
contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed
above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting
and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation
in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered
to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the
orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public
comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present
their comments.
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information
Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey,
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001,
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.
Issued at Washington, DC on January 17, 2006.
James N. Solit, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-721 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
60 lamonitor.com: Shades of Brockovich glimpsed here in L.A.
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
A row between a national environmental group and the parent
company of an environmental assessment team working at Los
Alamos National Laboratory has cast an unusual sidelight on the
recent discovery of excessive levels of chromium in the deep
aquifer beneath the lab.
For those who follow environmental battles, mention of chromium
pollution raises the specter of Erin Brockovich, the legal
researcher whose crusade against a giant utility company in the
early '90s in California was made into a Hollywood movie in 2000.
"She brought a small town to its feet and a huge company to its
knees," as the tagline for the film starring Julia Roberts put
it.
The role won Roberts an Oscar for best actress. The movie
relates the true story of a heroic single-mom whose discovery of
suspicious medical records led to a $333 million settlement
against the Pacific Gas &Electric Co. (PG) for leaking chromium
into the aquifer under the town of Hinkley over a period of
years.
The subject came up again recently because EP is involved in
another suit over chromium, and the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessments is about to issue a
public health goal for chromium-6, the form of the element
thought to be most harmful to humans.
As the first precedent in the nation for maximum acceptable
standards for chromium-6, the outcome in the two battles raises
the stakes for not only for the environment, but also for
environmentalists and industrial interests and the legal
counsels representing the two sides.
After the Hinkley trial, according to an archive of material dug
up by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and a largely
corroborative story in the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 23, EP
continued efforts to refute the health threats of chromium-6
imputed in the case, hiring a consultant to reexamine some of
the scientific claims that connected the chemical to higher
risks of stomach cancer.
This led, among other avenues, to an aging physician in China,
Dr. Zhang JianDong, who had studied several villages in
Liao-Ning province and concluded in a paper published in 1987
that high rates of cancer mortality could be associated with
chromium-6 releases in the groundwater from a smeltering
operation.
In 1997, another study appeared in the Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine under the name of Dr. Zhang, this
time repudiating the earlier conclusion.
Court documents, obtained under the California's public
information law by the EWG, tell a more complex story.
EWG has urged the journal's editors to review the circumstances
and set the record straight.
The environmental group's interpretation, summed up in the Wall
Street Journal headline, "PollutantTied to Cancer: Then
Consultants Got Hold of It," charges that employees of a San
Francisco-based environmental consulting firm, ChemRisk,
interfered with Dr. Zhang and distorted his conclusion, while
disguising their involvement in his scientific reversal.
EWG spokesman Bill Walker said in a recent interview that it was
very difficult to point to one document that proved the case,
but that the series of documents is evidence of a fraudulent
manipulation of scientific information, paid for by the utility
company.
"In the actual manuscripts, you see that the article was written
by, typed up by, and early versions were sent with a ChemRisk
return address," he said. "But finally, there is no mention that
they had been paid by PG, as if Dr. Zhang actually wrote it."
In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, one of the
ChemRisk researchers, Brent D. Kerger, denied the allegations of
unethical behavior and suggested that the charges had been
drummed up by "plaintiffs' attorneys seeking windfall profits in
upcoming litigation.
A copy of the letter was provided to the Monitor, in which
Kerger wrote that Zhang's earlier conclusions were expressed in
five sentences and that the goal in collaborating with him was
to clarify and expand on his research, "while we only translated
and helped assure completeness and clarity in the 1997 report."
"To the contrary, our goal in collaborating with Dr. Zhang was
to put forward a complete and accurate account of his mortality
findings relevant to the potential cancer hazards of chromium in
drinking water," he wrote, adding that Dr. Zhang's decision not
to cite them as collaborators was his prerogative as lead author.
Walker said the second study enlarged the study area to dilute
the findings.
"They jiggered the data to make it come out with no association
to chromium and then wrote the article," he said.
Kerger claimed authorship of 11 original research papers on
chromium-6 and said that Zhang's mortality study was only a
fraction of more than 100 studies on the chemical that, "USEPA,
World Health Organization and others have concluded provides
insufficient evidence of an ingestion cancer hazard."
Last year, in an unrelated transaction by a large company with
multiple projects, the same ChemRisk consulting firm renewed its
multi-year contract with the Centers for Disease Control to
conduct the Los Alamos Historical Document Retrieval and
Assessment program, a comprehensive review of the laboratory's
60-year record of radiological and hazardous chemical releases
into the environment.
But EWG has seized on the elevated chromium detections in a LANL
test well to demand that CDC yank ChemRisk's contract.
The chromium reported from several tests in Mortandad Canyon has
not so far distinguished that portion which is chromium-6,
although that reading should be forthcoming soon from new tests.
New Mexico and federal drinking standards are based on total
chromium content.
"To put it bluntly," Richard Wiles of EWG wrote to Dr. Julie
Gerberding, CDC Director, on Jan. 9, "as if ChemRisk's unethical
work for chromium polluters wasn't enough reason to disqualify
them from any taxpayer paid contract, now it comes out that at
Los Alamos they have direct responsibility for investigating a
chemical they're known to have been dishonest about."
A call to the CDC contract administrators was returned by a
public affairs spokesperson, but there was no reply to a
returned call on Friday.
ChemRisk's LAHDRA project has won guarded respect from local
environmentalists, who have credited the project for fighting
informational roadblocks at the lab and for at least one
surprising discovery.
In an interim report, the project claimed to have found evidence
in soil measurements of between 10 and 100 times more plutonium
released than in the laboratory's own historical accounts.
Last year, it was reported that laboratory officials objected to
the analysis and called for additional study and that ChemRisk
has agreed to review their interim finding.
Tom Widener, ChemRisk's project director, said the project would
look at the chromium issue very closely, despite the charges.
"If it's an issue of public importance, we'll make a point of
saying as much as we can," he said in a recent telephone
interview.
He said ChemRisk is one of the largest risk assessment concerns
in the country, with thousands of studies.
"We have studied every material out there, some to support
environmental cleanup or to support litigation, but we don't act
differently. We apply good science," he said. "We let the
documents guide us, not the lab or the University of California
or the CDC."
"We're not directly saying ChemRisk is doing anything untoward
in the Los Alamos project," said Walker. "But ChemRisk has a
reputation as a hired gun for polluters."
Widener called the controversy a distraction.
"But if you look at our record, I don't think our integrity has
been questioned," he said. "A lot of people make good money in
class action suits, sometimes they like to discredit the
messenger."
Erin Brockovich-Ellis, as she is now known, has not yet been
positively identified in Los Alamos, even though Julia Roberts
lives part-time in nearby Taos. But there may be reason to
expect the real thing any day now.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************