*****************************************************************
01/29/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.24
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 IRNA: Blair, Bush 'conspired' to go to war regardless of UN 
2 IRNA: Iraqi activist calls for Israel's nuclear disarmament
3 [NYTr] India Changes Tune, Defends Iran
4 [NYTr] The Panic About Iran
5 [NYTr] Iran's Nuke Ambitions Only to Be Expected: ex-Irish PM
6 [progchat_action] U.S. Envoy Pushes India Toward Iran
7 Russia's Plan is a start, but not enough -Iran
8 IRNA: Iran, South Korea keen to expand ties
9 Mos News: US Hurries Russia, China to Make Final Decision on Iran
10 IRNA: Europe asks Iraq to intercede with Iran in nuclear program -
11 IRNA: Italy ready to join European partners in nuclear talks with Ir
12 IRNA: NAM ministers call for resolving Iran's nuclear issue
13 IRNA: IAEA ambiguities on Iran's Lavizan removed - Asefi
14 Deutsche Welle: Clock Ticks in Iran Nuclear Standoff | Europe | 
15 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, Russia to Expand Enrichment Plan
16 Guardian Unlimited: Q: Options for U.S. in Iran Crisis
17 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says Talks, Not Threats, Are Key To
18 Guardian Unlimited: Iran warns of missile strike
19 IRNA: Mottaki: Iran, EU3 launch new round of nuclear talks
20 Philadelphia Inquirer: Editorial | A Nuclear Iran
21 Times of India: Iran may buy nuclear fuel from N Korea
22 IRNA: India may abstain if resolution on Iran N-issue put to a vote 
23 BBC: Straw pursues Iran conciliation
24 IRNA: Mottaki: Tehran, Moscow agree to increase nuclear partners -
25 IRNA: EU, Iran nuclear talks in Brussels 
26 IRNA: France welcomes Russian proposal on Iran's nuclear program 
27 Daily Times: VIEW: Stopping the Iranian bomb 
28 Daily Times: Force against Iran a perilous last resort 
29 AFP: Iran dossier tops talks at World Economic Forum 
30 IRNA: Asefi: Iran never killing time in negotiations 
31 Japan Times: Iran highlights EU failings
32 AFP: Singh says India won't be pressured into voting against Iran at
33 AFP: Iran to hold nuclear talks with Europeans Monday -
34 AFP: Iran wants 'more time' for Russia nuclear talks 
35 AFP: Britain says diplomacy, not force, only way forward on Iran -
36 AFP: Iran wants 'more time' for Russia nuclear talks
37 Scotsman.com News: UK and US divided over Iran - Straw
38 Anatolia.com: The rumor is that Iran will carry out a nuclear experi
39 AFP: OPEC sees no emergency in Iranian nuclear crisis: president
40 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Beware whirlpools of red ink 
41 US: Los Angeles Times: A wrong-way agency - 
42 US: KUTV: Bills Could Limit Access To Government Records
43 The Observer: Sea energy to power Britain
44 London Times: Renewable energy gets second wind on AIM - 
45 Times of India: Nuclear deal within reach, on US terms-
46 PTI: Nuke deal may not be finalised before Bush's India visit 
47 Bellona: Putin: UK spy flap justifies NGO crack-down 
48 Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter: Renewed energy
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
49 US: Nuclear Power Plant Cover-Up
50 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Welch wants Legislature to weigh in on Yan
51 London Times: Toshiba buys British to compete in China - 
52 Gowers' World: UK energy policy is just load of hot air - 
53 Calgary Sun: Klein touts energy hub
54 Rediff: Put more reactors in civilian N-programme - US
55 US: newsobserver.com: Surge in nuclear power likely
56 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: There is no nuclear nirvana 
57 Sunday Herald: Government set to reap profits of worldwide interest 
58 US: post-gazette.com: Another U.S. energy firm seeks new Westinghous
59 US: APP.COM: Reactor shutdown planned | 
60 US: Indian Point plan attacked
61 US: Rutland Herald: Legislators seek to OK Yankee extension
62 Independent: Nuclear decision set for this summer 
63 US: APP.COM: Oyster Creek not worth risk | 
64 US: toledoblade.com: Ex-engineer, consultant face charges in U.S. co
65 TheStar.com: Big power sites are all wrong
66 US: Daytona Beach News-Journal: Nuclear power generating a comeback 
67 Indian Express: 16 N-reactors, how many to declare? 
68 Newsweek: International: Another Nuclear Dawn - 
69 US: Hudson Valley News: Lawmakers urge FEMA to reject recertificatio
70 IRNA: Asefi says overall Russian nuclear proposal useful -
71 US: New York City: Nuclear power plant shutting down to check malfun
72 US: New York City: Nuclear power plant temporarily shuts down to rep
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
73 Japan Times: Cheap ride on U.S. security
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
74 [DU-WATCH] the killing fields: ghosts of the walking dead
75 PI: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Nuclear-Test Workers Demand France Change Its 
76 US: KBCI: Idaho Downwinders Hold Vigil On Statehouse Steps
77 US: reviewjournal.com: Test site provides nuke sensor proving ground
78 US: Times Argus: Yankee plan could violate radiation rule
79 US: BFP: Power increase brings Yankee radiation levels under public 
80 US: LA Daily News: Actor records emotional tales
81 US: DenverPost.com: Drilling pursued at nuke test site
82 US: La Canada Valley Sun: Agreement on JPL Water Treatment Finalized
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
83 US: Cape Cod Online: Watered down 
84 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Final review of dry cask begins
85 US: Las Vegas SUN: AP Exclusive: BLM returned $700,000 in Nevada min
86 London Times: BNG sale is held up by chiefs’ bitter row - 
87 newsobserver.com: Fueling up
88 reviewjournal.com: Cut Miss Nevada a break on Yucca     
89 US: Green Left Weekly: Uranium exports to China too risky
90 WorldNetDaily: To MOX or not to MOX
91 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Ashamed of lawmakers
92 US: Beaumont Enterprise: Patch of land in Winnie awaits cleanup of a
93 Japan Times: U.S. Democrats urge Japan to halt nuclear fuel plan
94 Newsweek: International: The Waste Problem - 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
95 ContraCostaTimes.com: Pension plan angers lab workers
96 Courier News: Fermilab hopes deep down to win project
97 Tri-Valley Herald: Lab tapped employees calls
98 DenverPost.com: CH2M Hill finds opportunity in disasters, war
99 Paducah Sun: Federal Role: Energy agency should help recovery
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 IRNA: Blair, Bush 'conspired' to go to war regardless of UN 

London, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                             

UK Blair-Iraq War 

Prime Minister Tony Blair and the US President George W Bush
decided to go to war against Iraq regardless of whether they
obtained UN backing, according to a new revised book to be
published next week.

 The book, Lawless World by leading human rights lawyer
Professor Philippe Sands, claims that Blair knew that Bush was
only "going through the motions" of offering support for a
second UN resolution in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in
March 2003.

 It also makes serious allegations concerning the conduct of
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, the Head of the Judiciary Lord
Falconer and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith over the
government's legal advice on the war.

 According to The Mail on Sunday, the allegations undermine
claims that the final decision to go to war was not made by
parliament when MPs voted a day before military action was
launched by bolstering claims that the US and UK leaders decided
months before.

 Sands, Professor of Law at London University, claims that Blair
"not only knew it, but went along with it" at a meeting with
Bush on January 31, when the US president only went through the
motions of seeking a second UN resolution to authorize the use
of force.

 The description of the January 31 meeting echoes the recent
memoirs of Britain's former ambassador to Washington, Sir
Christopher Meyer, who accused the UK prime minister of failing
to use his influence to hold Bush back by going down the UN
route.

 The updated version of Lawless World follows recent charges
against two British men under the Official Secrets Act after a
leaked memo of another conversation between Bush and Blair, said
the US President raised the possibility of bombing Al-Jazeera TV.

 The book also alleges that the British government boasted that
disgraced newspaper tycoon Conrad Black was being used by Bush's
allies in America as a channel for pro-war propaganda in the UK
via his Daily Telegraph newspaper, which he previously owned.

*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Iraqi activist calls for Israel's nuclear disarmament

Najaf, Iraq, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                                

Iran-Iraqi Activist-Nuclear 

Political reforms and restoration of peace to the Middle East
region requires Israel's nuclear disarmament, said an Iraqi
political activist Saturday.

 The occupying regime of Qods should be deprived of nuclear arms
if Iran is not allowed to have nuclear energy, the General
Manager of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI) in
Najaf bureau Sadreddin Qapanchi told IRNA.

 He lashed out at the double standard policy of the US and the
West in dealing with the nuclear case of the Islamic Republic of
Iran and the atomic bombs owned by the occupying regime of Qods.

 Leader of Friday prayers of Najaf then referred to the
encounter with the members of the terrorist MKO group saying US
troops failed to expel the members of the group, which has been
 internationally recognized as a terrorist group.

 They are still allowed to stay in Iraq, said Qapanchi.

 The case of MKO is considered as a clear example of the US
double-standard.

 "The big powers speak of the necessity of political reforms in
the region but democracy and political reforms have nothing to
do with double-standard."
 Hamas has won victory in Palestine's parliamentary election but
Israel has set conditions for its cooperation with the party, he
said, pointing out any group who wins the majority is authorized
to form a government.

 Hamas was announced the winner of the Palestine's 132-seat
parliamentary election held in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and
eastern parts of the holy Qods on January 25, 2006. The last
legislative election was held in Palestine's territories in 1996.

*****************************************************************
 3 [NYTr] India Changes Tune, Defends Iran
 
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:57:55 -0600 (CST)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
sent by Ed Pearl - Jan 29, 2006

The Dawn (Pakistan) - Jan 27, 2006
http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/28/top2.htm

India changes tune, defends Iran

By Jawed Naqvi

NEW DELHI, Jan 27: India on Friday distanced itself from US-led calls to
isolate Iran at next week's meeting of the IAEA after controversial remarks
on the issue by Washington's envoy to Delhi enraged the nation as seldom
seen before.

The Indian foreign ministry, facing a barrage of criticism for apparent
obsequiousness towards Washington that ranged from allies in the Left Front
to former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, appeared to have rowed back
from its recent bonhomie with the United States.

"During the past two weeks, India has been undertaking active consultations
with all key members of the IAEA Board of Governors and with Iran, in order
to avoid confrontation and to promote the widest possible consensus on
handling the Iran nuclear issue," a spokesman for the Indian foreign
ministry said.

He explained that in all the consultations, India has urged "that Iran's
right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy for its development
consistent with its international obligations and commitments should be
respected".

The spokesman said: "Iran's willingness to work together with the IAEA to
remove any outstanding issues, about its nuclear programme should be
welcomed." In this regard, the agency should be allowed to proceed according
to its work programme and submit a detailed report, he said.

India, he said, also welcomes all initiatives, "including from Russia, which
could enable a consensus to be reached on this issue and urges further
intensive efforts in that direction".

In the bargain India appealed to "all concerned countries (to) avoid
confrontation and work in the spirit of seeking a mutually acceptable
solution".

The Indian clarification, which came in response to a question, coincided
with comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that India should be
ready to make hard choices ahead.

Earlier this week, US Ambassador David Mulford, in apparent eagerness to
clinch a civil nuclear energy deal with India before President George W.
Bush arrives here on March 1, said the move could die in the US Congress if
India did not vote against Iran at the February 2 IAEA meeting.

The Indian Express, which supports the deal, cautioned: "India and the US
are raucous democracies. Public statements from either side quickly feed
into the domestic politics of the other and complicate the negotiations
between the two governments. India and the US have made much progress in the
last few years because they have learnt one hard lesson from the wasted
decades of the past: avoid hectoring each other in public. Mulford's remarks
are an awful deviation from that sensible rule."

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government is already under considerable
pressure from the Left as well as sections of the Congress to reverse its
IAEA vote, the Express wrote. "By linking the implementation of the nuclear
pact and the Iran vote, Mulford has undercut the prospects of India moving
forward on both."

The Hindu said: "In publicly warning India, on Republic Day eve, to vote
against Iran or else, (Mulford) has outrageously crossed the line of
diplomatic propriety, inviting condemnation from political players ranging
from the Left to Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

"But he has also done India a service by letting the cat out of the bag, if
it was ever fully in. In his interview to the Press Trust of India, he has
spotlighted the pitiful terms of the bargain struck by the Manmohan Singh
government with Washington under the signboard of civilian nuclear
cooperation," The Hindu said.

"Who can, after Mr Mulford's egregious forthcomingness, doubt that the
bargain requires India to behave like a marionette - forced at every turn of
major international events to go against its own national instincts and
interests for fear of offending Washington? Today it is a fatwa on Iran,
tomorrow it will be a diktat on India's plan to separate its civil and
military nuclear facilities, which Mr. Mulford has found to fall short of
'minimum standards'."

The Asian Age, commenting on Mr Mulford's faux pas, observed: "Sometimes
when you say something often enough, you start saying it in your sleep. This
is what appears to have happened to US Ambassador to India David C. Mulford
who stunned his own, and definitely Manmohan Singh's, governments with his
recent interview to a news agency."
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 4 [NYTr] The Panic About Iran
 
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:57:55 -0600 (CST)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
William Pfaff - Jan 28, 2006
http://www.williampfaff.com/

The Panic about Iran

by William Pfaff

Paris, January 24, 2006 -Why is all the pressure being mounted against Iran
when both Washington and Jerusalem unofficially concede that there is
nothing to be done to prevent Iran's government from continuing along its
present course of nuclear development.

The contradictions in western official and unofficial discourse about Iran
and its nuclear ambitions are so blatant that one might suspect
disinformation, but it probably is simply the cacophony of single-minded
bureaucracies working at cross purposes, an effect of the multiple lobbies
involved and of U.S. domestic political exploitation, and the paradox of
American policy itself, whose non-proliferation efforts actually provoke
nuclear proliferation.

The Washington official line seems meant to build pressure for UN Security
Council sanctions on Iran, even while conceding that nothing practical is
expected to result, and that nothing can be done about Iran's resumption of
nuclear processing. Iran at present is doing no more than it has a right to
do in international law.

The cross-fire of public pronouncements draws attention to the inherent
cynicism of the western position. The United States and the other Security
Council members can have nuclear weapons, and Israel, Pakistan and India
(non-Security Council members), can have them too, but you - Iran --can't
proceed with your (currently) non-military program. The United States is
even in discussion with weapons-builder India to supply nuclear materials
(for strictly peaceful purposes, of course).

All of this piles up in righteous Iranian eyes as evidence that Iran needs
to go beyond its present program and actually build nuclear weapons.
National prestige and pride are involved, obviously - and nationalism is
probably the most powerful of all political forces.

Military strategy is also involved. So far as anyone in the non-western
world can see, Iraq's mistake in 2003 was not to have a nuclear bomb or two
in working order. That would have kept the U.S. at bay, just as uncertainty
about North Korea's nuclear arms inhibits U.S. policy in the Far East.

Iran already possesses non-nuclear deterrents to American attack, which
Iraq did not, and they are probably strong enough to keep both the U.S.
and Israel away from Iranian nuclear sites.

Iran can close down a major part of Middle Eastern oil shipments by closing
the Hormuz strait. It has combined Revolutionary Guard and army ground
forces three times the total of the American forces now active in Iraq,
where Teheran also has influence on the Shi'ite clerical leadership, which
holds the key to Iraq's future.

Nuclear weapons proliferation in the non-western world is an old American
preoccupation, but it is directly linked to Third World perceptions of the
threat of American military intervention. The main if not the only advantage
nuclear weapons provide a country such as Iran is deterrence of intervention
by the United States or Israel. The urge to possess these weapons is
directly reciprocal to American non-proliferation pressures, and the threat
of attack.

(The India-Pakistan case is an exception to these generalizations, since
there the perceived threats are strictly bilateral, and the two countries
have simply replicated for themselves, at great cost, the balance of terror
that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union during the
cold war.)

Possession of the bomb would also bring comfort and prestige to Iran in
dealing with its near neighbors, which include nuclear-armed Pakistan and
Russia, as well as Israel.

In theory, a threat of aggressive use of nuclear weapons exists, but in the
Middle East it is accompanied by the certainty of overwhelming Israeli
(or even American) retaliation. Warnings by American politicians that
"rogue states" might attack Israel, the United States, British bases on
Cyprus, or Western Europe, are manipulation or propaganda.
Individual Moslems may welcome martyrdom, but nations, even Moslem
nations, do not.

Israel, with its conventional and mass destruction arms, is amply capable of
assuring its own military deterrence and defense, whatever the ex-mayor of
Teheran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, thinks or says. However it cannot expect
long-term security without diplomatic and political resolution of its
conflict with the Palestinians. As Israeli leaders know, solving that
problem is chiefly up to Israel. Forty years of American involvement have
mainly enabled the Israelis to avoid doing so.

The danger of terrorist-held nuclear weapons exists, if barely. This would
be possible only with a nuclear state's complicity. The political
plausibility of any government giving terrorists control of such weapons is
next to nil, considering the risks involved for the benefactor state. The
technical and logistical complexity of such an operation would also be
great. There are serious problems in international affairs and there are
baroque ones; this one is baroque.

[William Pfaff writes for the International Herald Tribune.]
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 5 [NYTr] Iran's Nuke Ambitions Only to Be Expected: ex-Irish PM
 
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:58:34 -0600 (CST)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
The Irish Times - Jan 28, 2006
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2006/0128/141807801OP28GARRET.html

Iran's nuclear ambition only to be expected

by Garret FitzGerald 

In the post-war period the US and Soviet Union developed a mutual
standoff, known - some thought appropriately - as MAD (Mutual Assured
Destruction).

Horrifying though this concept may appear, it actually worked, saving
the world from destruction, even though at the time of the Cuban crisis
over 40 years ago it did so by a very narrow margin indeed.

In the 1970s, however, Nato's unpreparedness to finance an adequate
conventional defence led it to develop the concept of using tactical
nuclear weapons to halt a possible Soviet conventional attack on western
Europe.

At the time it seemed to me difficult to justify resorting to nuclear
weapons simply because it cost less than raising adequate conventional
forces to resist a Soviet conventional attack. But as domestic public
opinion in Ireland had precluded any Irish contribution whatever to
western conventional defence, we were in no position to make that point.

Ireland has a particular interest in nuclear non-proliferation, because
in 1958 our foreign minister, Frank Aiken, made this issue his own at
the UN - to such effect that within three years a resolution in favour
of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty proposed by him had been adopted
by the General Assembly. And when such a treaty was finally negotiated
in 1968, in recognition of Aiken's efforts he was invited to Moscow to
be the first to sign it.

In the event, this treaty has since been ignored by Israel, India,
Pakistan and, most recently, North Korea, all of which have developed
such weapons.

At various points during the intervening decades several other countries
have been reported to have initiated similar projects, but have
eventually abandoned these schemes under external pressure - which in
the case of Iraq took the extreme form of the bombing of its nuclear
plants by Israel.

The failure of the permanent members of the Security Council to
challenge flagrant Israeli, Pakistani or Indian breaches of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty has clearly weakened these powers' moral
authority to mount a challenge to later breaches, such as those now
apparently threatened by North Korea or Iran.

In the case of North Korea the fact that this "rogue" state appears to
have succeeded in constructing a small number of such weapons secretly
has effectively inhibited action against that state, and the western
powers are currently concentrating their efforts on an attempt to stop
Iran from achieving a similar outcome.

Various arguments have been advanced against this western approach.
Linda Heard argued last Wednesday in Arab News that it is inconsistent
to propose to bring Iran's nuclear policy before the Security Council
when North Korea is being handled with kid gloves, and when no such
action has ever been taken against Israel, India or Pakistan, the latter
of which actually sold nuclear arms technology to other states for hard
cash.

It is not easy to counter this argument, although the fact that the
president of Iran has actually publicly threatened Israel with
destruction has certainly added an important new factor to the Iranian
equation.

It has also been argued that there is no hard proof that Iran is
actually trying to develop nuclear weapons. However, the fact that it
has failed to accept a Russian offer to provide it with enriched uranium
for civil purposes strongly suggests that the Iranians have a weapons
agenda.

When Britain, France and Germany initiated their approach to Iran in
November 2004, this included a proposal that an objective Iranian
guarantee against the development by that country of nuclear weapons
could be matched by "firm commitments" on security issues, viz
guarantees against a US attack on Iran.

However, in The Irish Times of Saturday last Selig Harrison of the
Centre for International Policy suggested that the US has been unwilling
to co-operate with the EU in formulating such guarantees.

There is a theory that in taking up its present negative stance Iran
might be seeking to break such a deadlock, so as to secure the dropping
of the long-established US boycott of Iran and a guarantee that the US
would not use force against that country.

If such is the case, the Iranian president's threat to Israel has
effectively sabotaged any such move. High-wire tactics of this kind can
sometimes prove dangerous to those who adopt them.

However, it can be also argued that this Iranian crisis might never have
arisen if the western powers had not decades ago allowed Israel to
develop nuclear weapons in defiance of the treaty. Why did they fail to
tackle this Israeli move?

Perhaps I can throw a little light on this. Some 16 years ago I was
asked to prepare a study of the Israel-Palestine crisis. Before going to
the region to meet the Israeli government and politicians as well as
Palestinian leaders including Yasser Arafat, I visited Washington,
London, Paris, Rome and Tokyo to get the views of interested
governments. And I also met Nato officials in Brussels.

I asked these latter officials bluntly why their organisation had
remained silent about the Israeli development of nuclear weapons in
defiance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. After some shuffling
of feet, the answer I elicited was a somewhat shamefaced "Well, the
Israelis were kind of allies of ours, you know."

In the published report on my mission I felt it appropriate to refer to
"the existence of an Israeli nuclear capacity", adding that "Israel is
now thought to have well over 100 nuclear weapons". But when I presented
this report at a meeting in Washington in April 1990, an "informed US
source" told the meeting that I had underestimated the Israeli nuclear
capacity, which he suggested was then about 150 nuclear weapons, "and
they are working on a hydrogen bomb".

It is, of course, not surprising that the Israelis should have decided
to attempt to develop a nuclear weapons capacity, given the fact that
they had lost six million of their relations in the Holocaust, and that
they were surrounded by, and had three times in a quarter of a century
been involved in armed conflict with, heavily-armed neighbours.
More-over, some of their neighbours' leaders have made no secret of
their desire to wipe out this tiny state.

It was self-evident that nuclear protection was bound to be an Israeli
aspiration. But, given that it was equally self-evident that such an
Israeli initiative was bound to evoke from one or other of the hostile
states in the region an ambition to match Israel in nuclear terms, the
failure of the western powers to challenge Israel's acquisition of such
a capacity is difficult to defend.

The present dilemma over how to handle Iran's threatening nuclear
ambitions finds its roots in that profound failure of western diplomacy
back in the 1960s and 1970s.

[Garret Fitzgrald is a former Taoseach of Ireland]

) The Irish Times  
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 6 [progchat_action] U.S. Envoy Pushes India Toward Iran
 
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:50:48 -0600 (CST)

India changes tune, defends Iran

By Jawed Naqvi The Dawn (Karachi, Pakistan)

NEW DELHI, Jan 27: India on Friday distanced itself from US-led calls to
isolate Iran at next weeks meeting of the IAEA after controversial remarks
on the issue by Washingtons envoy to Delhi enraged the nation as seldom
seen before.

The Indian foreign ministry, facing a barrage of criticism for apparent
obsequiousness towards Washington that ranged from allies in the Left Front
to former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, appeared to have rowed back
from its recent bonhomie with the United States.

During the past two weeks, India has been undertaking active consultations
with all key members of the IAEA Board of Governors and with Iran, in order
to avoid confrontation and to promote the widest possible consensus on
handling the Iran nuclear issue, a spokesman for the Indian foreign
ministry said.

He explained that in all the consultations, India has urged that Irans
right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy for its development
consistent with its international obligations and commitments should be
respected.

The spokesman said: Irans willingness to work together with the IAEA to
remove any outstanding issues, about its nuclear programme should be
welcomed. In this regard, the agency should be allowed to proceed according
to its work programme and submit a detailed report, he said.

India, he said, also welcomes all initiatives, including from Russia, which
could enable a consensus to be reached on this issue and urges further
intensive efforts in that direction.

In the bargain India appealed to all concerned countries (to) avoid
confrontation and work in the spirit of seeking a mutually acceptable
solution.

The Indian clarification, which came in response to a question, coincided
with comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that India should be
ready to make hard choices ahead.

Earlier this week, US Ambassador David Mulford, in apparent eagerness to
clinch a civil nuclear energy deal with India before President George W.
Bush arrives here on March 1, said the move could die in the US Congress if
India did not vote against Iran at the February 2 IAEA meeting.

The Indian Express, which supports the deal, cautioned: India and the US
are raucous democracies. Public statements from either side quickly feed
into the domestic politics of the other and complicate the negotiations
between the two governments. India and the US have made much progress in the
last few years because they have learnt one hard lesson from the wasted
decades of the past: avoid hectoring each other in public. Mulfords remarks
are an awful deviation from that sensible rule.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs government is already under considerable
pressure from the Left as well as sections of the Congress to reverse its
IAEA vote, the Express wrote. By linking the implementation of the nuclear
pact and the Iran vote, Mulford has undercut the prospects of India moving
forward on both.

The Hindu said: In publicly warning India, on Republic Day eve, to vote
against Iran or else, (Mulford) has outrageously crossed the line of
diplomatic propriety, inviting condemnation from political players ranging
from the Left to Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

But he has also done India a service by letting the cat out of the bag, if
it was ever fully in. In his interview to the Press Trust of India, he has
spotlighted the pitiful terms of the bargain struck by the Manmohan Singh
government with Washington under the signboard of civilian nuclear
cooperation, The Hindu said.

Who can, after Mr Mulfords egregious forthcomingness, doubt that the
bargain requires India to behave like a marionette  forced at every turn of
major international events to go against its own national instincts and
interests for fear of offending Washington? Today it is a fatwa on Iran,
tomorrow it will be a diktat on Indias plan to separate its civil and
military nuclear facilities, which Mr. Mulford has found to fall short of
minimum standards.

The Asian Age, commenting on Mr Mulfords faux pas, observed: Sometimes
when you say something often enough, you start saying it in your sleep. This
is what appears to have happened to US Ambassador to India David C. Mulford
who stunned his own, and definitely Manmohan Singhs, governments with his
recent interview to a news agency.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/28/top2.htm

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

 
*****************************************************************
 7 Russia's Plan is a start, but not enough -Iran
 
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:34:47 -0600 (CST)

    Regarding the Russian proposal, Larijani said its "capacity is not
    sufficient for Iran's nuclear technology. It can be part of a
    package and taken into consideration within it."

Russia plan not enough to meet Iran's energy needs  (Reuters)

    28 January 2006

    TEHERAN -- Iran's chief nuclear negotiator yesterday dampened hopes
    that Teheran was leaning towards a compromise solution put forward
    by Russia over its nuclear dispute with the West.

    Speaking to reporters on his return from a visit to China, Ali
    Larijani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council,
    said the Russian plan to enrich uranium for Iran was not enough on
    its own to meet Teheran's energy needs.

    President George W. Bush on Thursday threw his weight behind the
    Russian proposal. "I think that is a good plan," he told a news
    conference. "The Russians came up with the idea and I support it."

    Asked about Bush's comments, Larijani said: "We should not respond
    to what others say, we should rather discern what is in our
    interest. Whether they say it was positive or negative, it will
    not affect our decision very much."

    Regarding the Russian proposal, Larijani said its "capacity is not
    sufficient for Iran's nuclear technology. It can be part of a
    package and taken into consideration within it."

    Iran has plans to build 20 nuclear power reactors, generating 20
    GW of electricity over two decades.

    "It cannot be said that it is a negative proposal. We, therefore,
    considered it worthy of studying, and worthy of completion,"
    Larijani said. "A round of the talks was carried out, and the next
    round will take place too," he added.
    On China's position about US and European Union efforts to refer
    Iran's case to the UN Security Council, Larijani said: "China's
    stance is that ... any rush and irrational behaviour would lead to
    unfavourable conditions."

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/January/middleeast_January779.xml&section=middleeast&col=

= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)

** ANTI-SPAM NOTE: For EMAIL "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email to
** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes)at economicdemocracy.org instead
*****************************************************************
 8 IRNA: Iran, South Korea keen to expand ties
 
Tehran, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-Korean Envoy-Parliamentary 

Head of Iran-South Korea Parliamentary Friendship Group, Seyed
Hossein Hashemi, in a meeting with South Korean Ambassador to
Tehran Eim Hung-Jee here Sunday expressed his satisfaction with
the growing trend of bilateral relations and hoped for further
strengthening of ties in various fields.

 According to a report released by Majlis Media Department,
Hashemi said that given friendly ties and Iran's transparency on
its peaceful nuclear activities, South Korea's approach towards
the issue in the past meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog Board
of Governors was hardly comprehensible.

 He hoped to witness a more rational and just attitude on behalf
of South Korea in the future.

 Turning to the expected visit of the South Korean Parliamentary
Friendship Group to Tehran, he noted that such exchange of
visits and face to face talks between the officials of the two
countries will have an impact on removal of possible ambiguities
and will facilitate chances of cooperation.

 The MP pointed to the prospect of the country's 20-year
development plan and stressed the assurance of foreign
investment within the framework of such a plan as its key
features and declared Iran's readiness for attraction of foreign
investors, in particular from South Korea.

 For his part, Eim Hung-Jee expressed his satisfaction with the
growing trend of bilateral ties and called for further expansion
of political, economic and parliamentary relations.

 The diplomat lauded the measures taken by Iran's Parliamentary
Friendship Group and Foreign Ministry to reorganize the mutual
economic and trade relations.

 He called for further support of Majlis for bolstering of
Iran-South Korea relations.

*****************************************************************
 9 Mos News: US Hurries Russia, China to Make Final Decision on Iran

MOSNEWS.COM
 
Created: 28.01.2006 12:49 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:49 MSK 	
 	
MosNews
 	 	 	 	 
The United States Senate has called on Russia and China to speed
up their review of a report on Iran’s failure to meet UN
Security Council demands on its nuclear program. 

A resolution on the issue was put forward by a group of 20
senators led by Republican Bill Frist and accepted unanimously
Friday, RIA Novosti reported. 

The United States, with the backing of some other countries, has
long been pushing to refer Iran’s “nuclear file” to the UN
Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions if it
finds Iran to have been in breach of its international
commitments. 

In the resolution, the Senate calls on all UN Security Council
members, in particular Russia and China, to act quickly in
considering reports on the issue, and the heads of the IAEA at
their February 2 meeting to recommend that the nuclear file go
to the Security Council. 

China supports Russian proposal to enrich Iranian uranium on its
territory. 

“This proposal represents a good opportunity to allay tensions
around the Iranian nuclear problem,” a Chinese foreign ministry
spokesman said. 

Kong Quan added that negotiations were the best way to resolve
the problem, which escalated after Tehran announced it was
ending its two-year moratorium on nuclear research on January
10. 

The Chinese spokesman said Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Ali
Larijani had arrived in Beijing on Thursday morning. He is
expected to hold talks with Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing to
discuss the Iranian problem and bilateral relations. 

Russia has consistently defended Iran’s right to develop nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes and is building an $800-million
plant in the country. But the decision to end the moratorium
raised concerns in Moscow and led officials to express their
“disappointment” at the move. 

Some countries, led by the United States, suspect Tehran of
pursuing a secret weapons program and have been pushing the
referral of the Iranian nuclear file to the UN Security Council,
which has the power to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic
if it is found to have been in breach of its international
commitments. Iran has consistently stated that it only wants
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. 

Global attention has now turned to China, which plays a crucial
role in the standoff around the Islamic Republic’s nuclear
programs because it has commercial interests in the country and
as a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council
could block any moves to impose sanctions on the country if the
matter gets that far.

Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: Europe asks Iraq to intercede with Iran in nuclear program -

Baghdad, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                            

Iran-Iraq-Nuclear 

The governments of France, Germany and Britain asked Iraq here
Saturday to intercede with Iran on Tehran's nuclear energy
program.

 Iraqi Prime Minister Ebrahim Jaafari and the ambassadors from
the European trio discussed in press conference a request from
the European countries to act as intermediary with Tehran on its
nuclear issue.

 Baghdad is ready to play a meditating role between Europe and
Iran on Iran's nuclear dossier, Jaafari added.

 "Iraq will do its best to foster regional and world interest,"
he added.

 He further expressed hope that he will be a worthy conveyor of
the message to Iran.

 Jaafari also said that Iraq and Europe have cordial relations.

 Iraq attaches importance to its relations with the whole world
and notably its neighbors."
 The European ambassadors also voiced their governments request
for Tehran to cease all nuclear-related activities.

 They also reiterated their governments approval of the Russian
initiative and expressed hope that the nuclear issue will be
resolved amicably without referral to the UN Security Council.

 Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Saturday
that Tehran and Moscow have reached agreement on certain points
such as increasing the number of partners.

 "Russian proposal is under thorough study and talks on the
issue are underway. Thus far, Tehran and Moscow have reached
agreement on certain points such as increasing the number of
partners," said Mottaki on Saturday.

 Mottaki said certain other points such as site of enrichment
are under discussion.

 As for Iran's possible reaction in case of it being reported to
the UN Security Council, Mottaki said, "If such a thing happens
in the February 2 meeting of the Board of Governors of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the government will
have to suspend all its voluntary measures upon an approval of
the Majlis."

*****************************************************************
 11 IRNA: Italy ready to join European partners in nuclear talks with Iran
      
Tehran, Jan 29, IRNA

Iran-Nuclear-Italy 

Italy is ready to join European partners in nuclear talks with
Iran, said an Iranian parliamentarian after talks with Italian
ambassador to Tehran Roberto Tuscano here on Sunday.

 A member of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy
Commission Mahmoud Mohammadi said the problem with Europeans'
talks with Iran had been their denial of the right of the
signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
including Iran, for peaceful use of nuclear energy.

 Mohammadi said the right for peaceful use of nuclear energy by
signatories to the NPT and members of the International Atomic
Energy Agency has been envisioned by the fourth clause of the
Treaty and the Agency's charter and no country can deny it. On
this basis, the Islamic Republic of Iran will never give up its
legitimate and legal rights, he added.

 The parliamentarian referred to Majlis approvals for peaceful
use of nuclear energy within the framework of the Agency's
safeguards agreement, saying it will not be logical to prevent
the use of related knowledge and technology for country's
progress and development just because of certain countries
fearing Iran's likely diversion from peaceful intentions.

 Iran's cooperation with the Agency means that the country
officially recognizes the right of the organization for
supervision, said Mohammadi, adding that this also means
accepting the right of Iran for peaceful use of nuclear energy.

 Tuscano said diplomatic solutions should be found for Iran's
nuclear problem.

 He said the blockade of Iran's accounts in Italy are not
politically motivated and his government is making efforts to
solve it.

 He described the problem as judicial and in final stages.

*****************************************************************
 12 IRNA: NAM ministers call for resolving Iran's nuclear issue

Johannesburg, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                               

NAM-Iran-Statement 

Foreign Ministers of the NAM Troika have called for settlement
of Iran's nuclear crisis within the framework of decisions of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 In a joint statement issued at the end of the foreign ministers
meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement held in the city of
Hermanus, South Africa, Friday evening, the NAM Troika ministers
remained supportive of the ongoing work by the IAEA in
clarifying issues relating to Iran's nuclear program, which
should be resolved within the framework of the Agency.

 In this regard, they underscored the importance of the ongoing
cooperation between Iran and the Agency to resolve the remaining
issues.

 They urged all parties concerned to exhaust all efforts through
dialogue and negotiations, in their endeavor to resolve these
issues as soon as possible in an amicable manner.

 They welcome Iran's intention to negotiate with the EU3 as well
as the Russian Federation in respect of its proposal and
expressed hope these negotiations would contribute towards
achieving a satisfactory solution, the statement added.

 The NAM foreign ministers also expressed appreciation to their
Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, for keeping them
abreast of the recent developments on the issue, within the
context of the ongoing consultation within the NAM.

 They recalled the visit of the NAM Troika to Teheran on
November 1-12, 2005, and reiterated the principled position of
NAM concerning disarmament, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons
and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

 These include in particular reaffirming the basic and
inalienable right of all States Parties to the NPT to develop
nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, without any
discrimination and in conformity with their safeguards
agreements in connection with the NPT.

*****************************************************************
 13 IRNA: IAEA ambiguities on Iran's Lavizan removed - Asefi
 
Tehran, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-Asefi-Nuclear 

Iran on Sunday said ambiguities of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran's Lavizan (northern Tehran) have 
been removed.

 Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi made the remark in 
his weekly press conference attended by domestic and foreign 
reporters.

 He referred to the nuclear talks held in Iran with Deputy IAEA 
Director General Olli Heinonen and said, "During the talks, 
certain ambiguities were discussed and removed.






                                                                                                                                        Go Top [Go Top]                                                  
*****************************************************************
 14 Deutsche Welle: Clock Ticks in Iran Nuclear Standoff | Europe | 

28.01.2006
 	 	 	
[The West says Iran has broken nuclear non-proliferation
obligations] Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 
The West says Iran has broken nuclear non-proliferation
obligations 

 Unless Iran changes its stance on nuclear enrichment, it has
little chance of avoiding a UN Security Council referral, said
British Foreign Secretary Straw ahead of talks aimed to get Iran
to cooperate.
 
In comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said negotiations with Iran
were extremely tough going, but that diplomacy was the only way
to move ahead in the nuclear stand-off. His statements came
ahead of a meeting of the foreign ministers of the five
permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany (as member of
the so-called EU-3 delegation negotiating with Iran) aimed at
agreeing to a joint policy on how to deal with Tehran's nuclear
ambitions. 
  
Straw said the negotiators would decide at a Monday meeting in
London what kind of resolution to put to the UN watchdog
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which meets Feb. 2 to
discuss Iran's breach of non-proliferation obligations. 

  
[British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw ] Bildunterschrift:
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  British
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw 
"We are trying to persuade Iran to come back into compliance.
There is some intense diplomacy taking place over this weekend,"
Straw told Reuters Television early Saturday. A decision to ask
the IAEA to refer Iran to the Security Council would be made in
light of discussions on Monday, Straw said. 
  
Applying pressure 
  
If it is the consensus of all those present at the Monday
meeting, Straw said "the chances of Iran avoiding a reference
are low." The foreign secretary said he would "much prefer to
resolve the issue within the IAEA," but the IAEA statutes make
clear that when an issue can't be resolved and when a nation is
found non-compliant, the matter has to be directed to the
Security Council. 
  
And Iran is "very clearly" not complying, Straw said, pointing
to Tehran's decision to break IAEA seals and resume sensitive
atomic fuel research earlier this month. 
  
[German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier]
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der
Bildunterschrift:  German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter
Steinmeier 

Upping the pressure on Iran to cooperate, German Foreign
Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who will also participate in
the talks, said all options needed to be kept open, including
levying economic sanctions if Iran refuses to cooperate.
Speaking to the news magazine Spiegel, Steinmeier said it would
not be prudent to exclude economic sanctions. "Iran should not
underestimate to what extent it is dependent on technical and
economic cooperation with the West," he said. 
  
Breaking the deadlock 
  
Britain, France and Germany â€“ the EU-3 â€“ have been involved
in negotiations with Iran for over a year, with little sign of
progress. Offers to Iran of financial and technical know-how in
exchange for stopping sensitive research on the enrichment of
uranium â€“ one of the first steps for developing atomic weapons
â€“ were pushed on and off again by the Islamic Republic, which
claims its nuclear program is strictly civilian in nature. 
  
When Iran broke the UN seals on its nuclear facilities at the
beginning of the month and announced it would proceed with plans
as intended, the EU trio said talks had reached a "dead end."
But since then the three have revised their position and
together with Washington have stressed that diplomacy remains
the best way to resolve the dispute. 
  
[Bushehr nuclear power plant in south Iran. ] Bildunterschrift:
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Bushehr
nuclear power plant in south Iran. 

It is now up to Iran to get the ball rolling again if it wants
to avoid a Security Council referral. "What we have said is that
they have to provide objective guarantees that the nuclear
capability is solely for civil nuclear power purposes," Straw
reiterated in Davos. 
  
"What we want to see is them coming forward and then we can get
to a normalization with plenty of incentives and all the rest,"
the British official said. 
  
Russian proposal 
  
A proposal put forth by Moscow to allow Iran to follow through
with uranium enrichment activity on Russian soil as a means of
quelling the dispute, has generated a good deal of interest. The
Iranians, who wish to continue with the sensitive enrichment but
have been prevented from doing so by international regulations,
could do so across the border, where they would come under
Russian supervision. 
  
Mohammed el Baradei, head of IAEA, referred to the Russian
proposal as an "attractive offer" that warranted consideration.
Jack Straw was cautiously optimistic about Russia's role in the
nuclear dispute. "Russia plays an active role in finding a
solution, which we could possibly support," he said Saturday. US
President George W. Bush has also thrown his weight behind the
Russian compromise offer.  

DW staff (ktz) 

*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, Russia to Expand Enrichment Plan
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday January 28, 2006 10:16 PM

AP Photo VAH101 

By NASSER KARIMI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Tehran and Moscow have agreed to expand the
number of countries participating in the plan to enrich Iranian
uranium in Russia, Iran said Saturday, describing a compromise
that could satisfy U.S. concerns about the nuclear program. 

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. and
British leaders vowed to exhaust all diplomatic options before
turning to sanctions or military action. 

The nuclear standoff and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
recent calls for Israel to be wiped off the map have deepened
Iran's isolation and reawakened hostilities between Iran and the
West. 

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki refused to say which
other countries would be included. However, a top Iranian
nuclear official was just in Beijing to discuss the Russian
plan, which is designed to ensure that Tehran does not attempt
to produce fuel for nuclear weapons. 

``Increasing the number of partners in the plan was agreed,''
Mottaki told a news conference. ``The place or the places ... is
under review while negotiations continue.'' 

Under the plan, Iran would ship its uranium to Russia, where it
would be enriched and then returned to Iran for use in its
nuclear reactor. That would, in theory, satisfy the world that
Iran was using the process only to produce fuel for nuclear
reactors to generate electricity. 

Tehran claims its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, but
the United States and Europe fear the Iranians are using the
program as a cover to make nuclear weapons. Uranium that is
sufficiently enriched can produce materials for bombs. 

The United States is pressing for the International Atomic
Energy Agency to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for
alleged violations of an international nuclear arms control
treaty. The council has the power to impose economic and
political sanctions on Iran. 

The IAEA will consider the issue at a Thursday meeting in
Vienna, Austria. 

After Iran broke IAEA seals on its uranium enrichment facility
at Natanz earlier this month, Britain, France and Germany - who
were negotiating with Iran - said further talks were pointless. 

But Mottaki said discussions with the Europeans were continuing
``and we hope they reach a satisfactory conclusion.'' He added,
``I think there is need for more time to continue the
negotiations - until March.'' 

It was not clear whether he meant to signal that a fresh
official round of talks was planned. 

Germany Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier met briefly
Saturday with IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to discuss the
standoff with Iran. Neither would discuss details of the
one-hour meeting in Vienna. Earlier Saturday, ElBaradei also met
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. 

Iran contends it is within its rights to control the full
nuclear fuel cycle from mining uranium to enriching it for
nuclear power generation. 

British officials said they would meet Monday with the deputy of
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. 

``The problem is one of Iran's own making,'' Straw said at the
World Economic Forum. 

``What we have said is they have to provide objective guarantees
that their nuclear capability is solely for civil nuclear power
purposes. ... What we want to see is them coming forward and
then we can get to a normalization, plenty of incentives and all
the rest.'' 

Straw said he hoped the situation could be resolved through the
IAEA. 

``We have to judge the right course in what is a fast-changing
situation,'' Straw said, noting that Iran could avoid a U.N.
referral if it agreed not to pursue uranium enrichment for a
weapons program. ``We would much prefer to resolve this in the
IAEA. That's what it's there for.'' 

Former President Clinton said all options for Iran must be
considered, including U.N. sanctions. 

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican, said all diplomatic
options would be exhausted and military action was only an
option if there was support from a strong coalition. 

--- 

Associated Press reporter Paisley Dodds contributed to this
report from Davos, Switzerland.	 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 16 Guardian Unlimited: Q: Options for U.S. in Iran Crisis
 
From the Associated Press        


[UP] 

	Sunday January 29, 2006 6:01 PM

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Days ahead of an important vote, U.S.
officials sound less bullish about the prospects for quickly
sending Iran before the U.N. Security Council over the country's
nuclear program. A look at the issue and options for the Bush
administration: 

Q. What does the United States want? 

A: Convinced that Iran is hiding ambitions to build a nuclear
bomb, the United States and its European allies want the
Security Council to take over international oversight of Iran's
case and perhaps impose penalties. The administration wants an
unimpeachable majority of other countries to vote with the U.S.
when the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic
Energy Agency, considers the matter on Thursday. 

Q. Why the Security Council? 

A. It can impose penalties that U.N. member states are supposed
to heed. The administration says that the weight the council
carries may be enough to persuade Iran to back down. 

Q. Are there other diplomatic options? 

A. Yes, but they are dwindling. International negotiations to
persuade Iran to give up disputed portions of its program have
gone nowhere. A separate Russian offer to enrich uranium for
Iran's energy program, preventing Iran from access to the
sensitive technical know-how, may yield results; Iran says the
idea needs work. On Saturday, Iran's foreign minister said his
nation and Russia have agreed to allow more countries to
participate in the plan to provide Iran with enriched uranium. 

Q. What else could the United States do? 

A. The U.S. could try to blow up or sabotage Iran's nuclear
facilities; the administration says such a military operation is
not now on the agenda. At the same time, Bush and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice say the president reserves the right to
use force. A targeted strike could end or set back Iran's
nuclear capabilities; a full-scale invasion similar to the
U.S.-led drive into Iraq is considered far-fetched. Even a
limited strike would be unpopular with some U.S. allies and
could rally Iranians behind their confrontational president,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Israel, which feels threatened by harsh
rhetoric from Ahmadinejad, could one day use military force. 

Q. Is the U.S. involved in talks with Iran? 

A. The U.S. has not been involved in a nearly two-year
bargaining effort led by European countries, but it agreed to
support the talks from the sidelines last spring. The U.S. has
had no diplomatic relations with Iran since the storming of the
U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The U.S. imposed its own
economic penalties after that and has little economic leverage
over Tehran without international support. 

Q. Does the U.S. want international economic penalties against
Iran? 

A. Not immediately, although that is an option for the Security
Council. The U.S. faces opposition from several nations,
including Russia, China and perhaps India, to moves that would
cripple Iran economically or that could disrupt Iran's oil
exports. Russia is a major trading partner of Iran; China is a
large oil consumer and drilling partner; and India also gets
energy from Iran. 

Q. What if the U.S. cannot get the case to the Security Council? 

A. Although there may be some moves to delay a vote at the IAEA
meeting on whether to send Iran's case forward, Undersecretary
of State Nicholas Burns predicted Friday that a vote will take
place. He also repeated U.S. assertions that Washington has the
votes for referral. The U.S. and its European allies, many of
whom are as convinced as Washington that Iran is up to no good,
have not said what they would do if the IAEA votes no. 

Q. Iran says it only wants to develop nuclear energy, not build
bombs. What gives the U.S. the authority to try to intervene? 

A. Legally, the U.S. or any other nation cannot by itself deny
Iran the right to develop nuclear capability for civilian energy
production. Iran signed an international nonproliferation treaty
that lets Tehran pursue nuclear energy as long as it does not
pursue weapons. The U.S. has been the loudest voice claiming
that Iran has flouted its responsibilities under that agreement
and must now be subject to more intense scrutiny at the Security
Council, with all that that implies. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 17 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Says Talks, Not Threats, Are Key To
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday January 29, 2006 7:31 PM

AP Photo VAH102 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran pressed for more negotiations over its
nuclear program Sunday and warned that harsh measures would
spawn harsh reactions as diplomacy intensified days before an
international meeting on whether to refer the issue to the U.N.
Security Council. 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the door
remained open for a compromise. 

``Dialogue is the only solution,'' Asefi said at a press
conference. ``Europeans should not act in haste. They should
note that agreement comes out of talks.'' 

His comments came four days before the 35-nation board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog,
will meet in Vienna, Austria, to debate how to handle Iran's
recent resumption of small-scale uranium enrichment. 

Tehran says its nuclear program is peaceful and only aimed at
generating electricity. 

But the U.S. and its allies believe the Iranians are trying to
develop atomic weapons and have launched a diplomatic drive in
hopes of referring Iran to the Security Council, which could
impose sanctions. China and Russia, which have close commercial
ties with Tehran and wield veto power in the council, remain
unconvinced. 

``Heightening tension will make the atmosphere inside Iran harsh
too. ... If confidence is to be achieved, it will be achieved
only through negotiations,'' Asefi said. ``Referring Iran to
anyplace but the IAEA won't solve any problems.'' 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was joining foreign
ministers from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany Monday
in London to try to break the diplomatic deadlock before the
IAEA meeting. 

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Sunday that diplomats
were trying to ``judge the right course in what is a
fast-changing situation.'' 

``We would much prefer to resolve this in the IAEA,'' he said.
``That's what it's there for.'' 

In Brussels, Belgium, meanwhile, senior officials from Britain,
France and Germany planned talks Monday with Iran's deputy
nuclear negotiator, Javad Vaeidi, at Tehran's request. 

Victor Bulmer-Thomas, director of the Chatham House foreign
affairs think tank, said a likely topic at the meeting in London
was Russia's offer to process uranium on Iran's behalf, a move
that could increase oversight and ease tensions. 

Iran has welcomed the proposal but said it needs more
discussion. 

``We need to continue talks about the Russian plan,'' Asefi
said, adding that Iran and Russia were discussing details of a
joint plan to enrich uranium another plan involving several
countries, which could include China. 

Asefi also said Iran has provided answers to IAEA inspectors
about a previous facility in northern Tehran that has been razed
to the ground and turned into a park. 

He was referring to Lavizan facility, where the U.S. alleged
Iran had conducted high-explosive tests that could have a
bearing on developing nuclear weapons. 

The U.S. State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan's buildings
had been completely dismantled and topsoil had been removed from
the site in attempts to hide nuclear weapons-related
experiments. 

IAEA officials subsequently confirmed the site was razed, but
Iran said work at the site, on the outskirts of Tehran, was part
of construction unrelated to military or nuclear matters. 

Uranium enriched to low level is used as fuel to produce
electricity but further enrichment makes is suitable for use in
nuclear bomb. 

Germany Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier refused to rule
out economic sanctions against Iran but insisted that diplomacy
is the only way to solve the crisis. 

``Iran should not underestimate the extent to which it will
depend on technical and economic cooperation with the Western
countries,'' Steinmeier was quoted as saying in the weekly Der
Spiegel. ``We must try all diplomatic means, but step by step.'' 

During a visit to Jerusalem, German Chancellor Angela Merkel
also said Iran is a threat to democracies across the world,
referring to its nuclear programs and Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's recent calls for Israel to be wiped off the map. 

``We have the common task to make clear to Iran that it has
crossed a red line that we will not accept,'' Merkel said,
adding a broad alliance of countries has to be formed to
``reject what Iran does and says.'' 
		 	 	   

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 18 Guardian Unlimited: Iran warns of missile strike
 
Revolutionary Guard general puts West on notice not to interfere 
as Tehran presses ahead with nuclear power programme          
 		
Jason Burke, chief Europe correspondent
Sunday January 29, 2006
The Observer 		
 		
Senior Iranian officials further raised tensions with the West 
yesterday, implicitly warning that Tehran would use missiles to 
strike Israel or Western forces stationed in the Gulf if 
attacked.

The statements came as world leaders met at the annual World 
Economic Forum in Davos, with the Middle East high on the agenda. 
The hardline Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has pressed 
ahead with a controversial nuclear programme since his election 
last year.

'The world knows Iran has a ballistic missile power with a range
of 2,000km (1,300 miles),' General Yahya Rahim Safavi said on
state-run television. 'We have no intention to invade any
country [but] we will take effective defence measures if
attacked.'

Though world leaders agreed that strong measures were necessary 
to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapon capacity, there was little 
consensus this weekend as to what those measures should be. Jack 
Straw, the Foreign Secretary, yesterday conceded that Britain and 
the US were divided over using military force.

Responding to comments by US politicians stressing the
'leverage' the military option allowed, Straw said such action
was not under discussion. 'I understand that's the American
position. Our position is different ... There isn't a military
option. And no one is talking about it.'

Britain, along with most EU states, has been pursuing a policy
of 'engagement' with the Iranians. Straw was speaking ahead of
talks with Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency.

Tehran's continuing defiance of the international pressure has
led to growing pressure to refer Iran to the UN security
council. Such calls became more urgent after Iran said it was
resuming work at its Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Tehran
has always said the facility is to provide energy but Straw said
there had to be 'objective guarantees' that their nuclear power
programme could not lead to a nuclear weapons capability because
of their 'unquestionable record of deceit in the past'.

Moscow has suggested that uranium for Iranian reactors could be
prepared in Russia, a process that would in theory ensure that
the fuel is not enriched to a level that would permit military
use. Tehran claims its nuclear programme is designed only for
civilian purposes.

Britain is expected to lead calls for UN censure of Iran at an
emergency meeting in Vienna this week. The UK is backed by
France, Germany and the US. Iran has sought to split the
international community, offering economic incentives to India,
China and Russia, all of which have strong commercial links with
the oil-rich state.

For the moment, Iran's most powerful weapon is the Shahab-3
missile, which can strike more than 2,000km from their launch
site, putting Israel and American forces in the Middle East in
easy range. The Revolutionary Guard was equipped with the
missiles in July 2003.

'We are producing these missiles and don't need foreign
technology for that,' Safavi said pointedly in his speech to the
nation. Iran announced last year that it had developed
solid-fuel technology for missiles, a major breakthrough that
increases their accuracy.

Safavi also accused US and British intelligence services of
provoking unrest in south-west Iran and providing bomb materials
to Iranian dissidents. He said the US and Britain were behind
bombings on 21January that killed at least nine people in Ahvaz,
near the southern border with Iraq, where 8,500 British soldiers
are based around Basra.

'Foreign forces based in Iraq, especially southern Iraq, direct
Iranian agents and give them bomb materials,' he said. Iran was
monitoring dissidents and their alleged links with the US and
British forces.

'We are aware of their meetings in Kuwait and Iraq,' he said.
'We warn them [the US and Britain], especially the MI6 and CIA,
that they refrain from interfering in Iran's affairs.'
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 19 IRNA: Mottaki: Iran, EU3 launch new round of nuclear talks

Jan 28, IRNA                                                                                                           

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Saturday that Iran
and the EU3 have launched a new round of talks in the past few
days.

 "While studying the Russian proposal, the Islamic Republic of
Iran has had intensive dialogue with the EU3 states in the past
few days," said Mottaki in an interview with reporters on the
sidelines of a meeting with his Bahraini counterpart Sheikh
Khalid Bin Ahmad Bin Mohammad Al-Khalifa.

 Mottaki said the talks were held in London, Berlin and Paris,
as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency with officials
and ambassadors of Britain, France and Germany.

 To a question about the achievements of the visits of Iran's
Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Secretary Ali Larijani
to Moscow and Beijing, Mottaki said the top Iranian nuclear
negotiator had during the visits held talks with Russian and
Chinese officials on the latest developments in Iran's peaceful
nuclear activities.

 Mottaki said the first round of talks on Russian proposal was
held in Tehran.

 Talks were also held about the Russian proposal during
Larijani's visit to Russian but the issue needs further expert
and careful discussions, he added.

 He noted that the second round of Tehran-Moscow talks are
slated for February 16 and Russian proposal from Iran's point of
view is under serious discussion.

 He said the Russian proposal can set a new strategy for
reaching an understanding.

 He expressed hope that the March meeting of the IAEA Board of
Governors will arrive at good results.

 He said continuation of the intensive dialogue and reaching a
collective decision by March is not a goal which cannot be
achieved.

 Asked on evidences showing likely involvement of British agents
in the terrorist explosions in Ahvaz (Khuzestan province),
Mottaki said Iranian security officials have announced readiness
to put the evidences and information related to the past events
at the disposal of related British officials and this will be
done soon.

 He expressed the hope to attain concrete results in that
connection to prevent the occurrence of such incidents.

 On the measures taken by Foreign Ministry in reaction to two
Norwegian and Danish journals desecrating the sanctities of the
Muslims, Mottaki said that in that respect he had written two
letters to his Norwegian and Danish counterparts, protesting the
sacrilegious acts.

 He said Norwegian Foreign Minister had on Friday apologized for
the incident, hoping that they would no longer witness such an
'ugly and worthless' action by the mercenary media and
individuals to desecrate sanctities of Muslims.

 On his visit to South Africa and participation in the two-day
Non-Aligned Movement troika meeting, Mottaki said the meeting,
held at the foreign ministers' level, aimed to serve as a
preparatory for the NAM summit, due to be held in Cuba.

 He said that in the meeting, the Islamic Republic of Iran had
also expressed its readiness to unveil its transparent stances
on peaceful nuclear activities and the chairman of the meeting
welcomed the idea.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 20 Philadelphia Inquirer: Editorial | A Nuclear Iran

| 01/29/2006 | 

Real danger, few options
 
Iran obviously hungers to build a nuclear weapon. 

A few other things are obvious: 

First, that would be a terrible outcome for world stability.
Second, Iran won't give up easily on its push. 

The situation is frightening. 

But it's not impossible. Iranian leaders have changed course
before when facing a significant threat to the country's economy
or security. 

The list of reasons to hope Iran never gets the bomb is long.
Iran is a major supporter of terrorist groups. Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows every sign of being irrational. He has
ratcheted up vile rhetoric against Israel. An Iranian bomb would
further destabilize the Middle East, possibly triggering a race
by neighbors such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to get bombs of
their own. 

If only the solutions were as clear as the urgency. 

The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, is scheduled to
meet Thursday to discuss Iran's nuclear research and
development. 

The standoff began this month when Iran announced it would
restart its program to enrich uranium, which it had suspended
voluntarily in 2004. Don't believe the Iranian line that this
step is for peaceful purposes. The mullahs want a bomb. 

They want it as a deterrent to potential military action by the
United States, and as a source of power and pride inside their
region. 

The United States accurately calls Iran one of the world's major
sponsors of terror. Iran's behavior is a graver threat than
Iraq's ever was. 

Iranian leaders have for years blocked inspections and ignored
international agreements. They have secretly pursued activities
to move their nation closer to building a bomb. 

This isn't like the intelligence debacle over Iraqi weapons.
Hard evidence exists - including admissions from Iran itself -
to show a Persian march toward nukes. 

Iran's alibi that its nuclear program is only for producing
energy does not withstand scrutiny. If energy were the goal,
Iran would have accepted an offer from Britain, France and
Germany to provide light water reactors. Those produce nuclear
power just fine, but aren't much help in building bombs. The
mullahs also could accept a Russian proposal to enrich uranium
in Russia, to ensure it does not reach weapons grade. 

Finally, how great is Iran's need for nuclear power, really? It
sits on top vast reserves of natural gas. 

Since Iran has rejected the effort by Britain, Germany and
France to negotiate a settlement, a graduated series of
penalties are in order. 

It is time for the IAEA board to refer the case to the United
Nations. 

The Security Council needs to work out measures to be imposed if
Iran does not behave, beginning with giving inspectors full
access to suspected nuclear facilities. 

Those penalties need not begin with stern economic sanctions.
China, which buys Iranian oil, and Russia, which is working in
Iran to build a nuclear power station, would likely veto that
move if proposed too soon. 

The trick will be to build slowly toward full sanctions, with
steps rising from a rebuke to harsher measures. Give the
Iranians ample chance to back down before a showdown over full
sanctions. 

Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution suggests also
giving a list of rewards if Iran cooperates, including the
United States continuing to allow business to be done with Iran
on a limited basis. 

If Iran remains defiant after numerous chances, China and Russia
might be persuaded at least not to veto painful sanctions. 

If these friends of Tehran do use their veto power to avert
tough measures, then the United States, Europe and other nations
might have to move forward without them. 

Military action is an unappetizing, hard-to-accomplish last
resort. But it can't be ruled out now, if for no other reason
than to maintain maximum pressure on Iran. 

A military strike could carry frightening repercussions,
including terrorist attacks on Americans. But even that horrible
scenario could pale against the danger of a radical,
hate-spouting Iran with a nuclear bomb. 

*****************************************************************
 21 Times of India: Iran may buy nuclear fuel from N Korea

Michael Sheridan

[ Monday, January 30, 2006 12:18:39 amTHE SUNDAY TIMES ]

The drab compound that houses the Iranian embassy in Pyongyang
is the focus of intense scrutiny by diplomats and intelligence
services who believe that North Korea is negotiating to sell the
Iranians plutonium from its newly enlarged stockpile - a sale
that would hand Tehran a rapid route to the atomic bomb. 

It would confound the international campaign to curb Iran's
nuclear ambitions by restricting its ability to make bombs
through the alternative method of enriching uranium. 

The risk is viewed with such gravity in Washington that the
United States has launched a concerted diplomatic and covert
effort to prevent it, according to diplomats based in Pyongyang
and Beijing. 

The belief that Iran and North Korea are talking about plutonium
stems from a recently reported offer of oil and gas from Tehran
in exchange for nuclear technology. 


 The discovery by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
in 2004 that North Korea had sold an estimated 1.7 tonnes of 
uranium to Libya established a precedent for the sale and showed 
how hard it is to stop, diplomats say.

The Americans were aghast to learn last year that while engaging 
in disarmament talks, North Korea had made enough plutonium to 
amass a stockpile of about 43 kg, perhaps as much as 53kg.

For the first time since the nuclear crisis began in 1994 it has 
sufficient fissile material to sell some to its ally while 
retaining enough for its own purposes.

Plutonium is the element used to fuel the bomb that destroyed 
Nagasaki in 1945. Between 7kg and 9kg are needed for a weapon. 
According to Siegfried Hecker, the eminent American nuclear 
scientist, officials in North Korea intend to restart a reactor 
that will produce 60kg a year.

  
Copyright Â© 2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 22 IRNA: India may abstain if resolution on Iran N-issue put to a vote -
                              
New Delhi, Jan 28, IRNA                                                                                                                  

India-Iran-IAEA meeting 

US ambassador David C Mulford's open "intimidation" of India, as
Left parties described it, at a meeting on Friday has made it
extremely difficult for the Manmohan Singh government to vote in
support of a resolution sponsored by the United States and the
EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) referring Iran to the UN
Security Council at the February 2 meeting of the IAEA Board of
Governors in Vienna.

 If a resolution is brought to vote, the government will now
have to seriously explore the option of abstention if it wants
to retain credibility at home.

 Hectic diplomacy is afoot with the Prime Minister's Office and
the US embassy here working hard to mould Indian public opinion
in favor of a supportive vote on the EU-3 resolution through
select meetings.

 Ambassador Mulford, on the night of the controversial
interview, met select opinion makers to explain the US position
on the civilian nuclear agreement with India and, of course, on
the Iran nuclear issue which has been linked by the Bush
administration, the US Congress, as well as key advisers on
strategic and foreign policy issues to the Indian government, a
leading English daily, Asian Age, reported here today.

 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview with
Reuters, has not made matters any easier for the government by
maintaining that "India has to make some difficult choices." She
did not refer directly to Iran but made it apparent that the
nuclear agreement between the US and India could not work in
isolation. She said it presented "a difficult set of issues."
"But it's very important to understand that in order to satisfy
the American Congress and our laws and the concerns of the
(44-nation) Nuclear Suppliers Group that there will have to be
some steps taken to make sure that the proliferation risks are
not enhanced by this deal," Secretary of State Rice further said.

 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself is reported to be worried
about the obstacles that have suddenly appeared in his path and
is now personally monitoring both fronts, that is, Iran and the
nuclear deal with the US.

 Despite claims from the government that it is being consulted
by Iran, sources said that this was not so, with the Iranian
government preferring to conduct direct consultations with
Russia and China.

 In fact, there has been little high-level contact between the
two governments in recent weeks, particularly after India
decided to vote for the EU-3 resolution at the last IAEA meeting
in September in what Iranians have been privately describing as
a "breach of trust." The role of the Left parties and "how far
will they go" is a question being posed by European and US
diplomats these days to all people they meet.

 The Left parties, at a meeting on Friday, decided to write to
the Prime Minister asking him to clarify the stand that India
would take at the IAEA meeting in February.

 Senior leaders, including Prakash Karat and A B Bardhan, were
unanimous that India should not support any resolution referring
Iran to the UN Security Council.

 "Strong resentment" against Mulford's "arrogant effort to
influence India's stand on the Iran issue" was also expressed at
the meeting.

 The government was also asked to make public the proposals
handed over to the US about the separation of civilian and
military nuclear facilities.

 It was made clear by Prakash Karat that a vote against Iran by
New Delhi would lead to domestic turmoil with the Left parties,
to begin with, following a clearcut policy of non-cooperation
with the Manmohan Singh government within parliament.

 Sources said that while this would not immediately bring down
the government, it would lead to instability, particularly now
that the Congress Party is losing support amongst its other
allies as well.

 The Left leaders are categorical that a vote against Iran will
not be "tolerated" and, as Karat said recently, it would lead to
direct "confrontation" with the UPA-led government.

 Meanwhile, negotiations between Iran, Russia and China have
gathered momentum. China has come out in support of the Russian
proposal to enrich Iranian uranium on its soil with its foreign
office spokesperson Hong Quan being quoted in media reports from
Beijing as saying "We oppose impulsive using of sanctions or
threats of sanctions to solve problems."
 Dr Rice, however, said that Iran was just using stalling
tactics by discussing the proposal with Russia.

 "They are trying to throw up chaff," she said, in order to
ensure that the issue was not referred to the Security Council.
But in her opinion, "the time (for referral) has come."
		 				 		 			
*****************************************************************
 23 BBC: Straw pursues Iran conciliation
 
Updated: Saturday, 28 January 2006, 16:44 GMT [ src=]
 		   			 				 					Straw pursues Iran conciliation 				 			 		 
[Foreign Secretary Jack Straw]

Straw interview                                         

The UK foreign secretary has said that talks aimed at resolving a 
dispute over Iran's nuclear programme must allow Iran to maintain 
its national dignity. 

"We must have a bargain which enables both sides to come out of
it with their head held high," Jack Straw said. 

He was speaking in a seminar at the World Economic Forum in
Davos, after talks with IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei. 

The US, UK, Germany and France want Iran to be referred to the
UN Security Council for censure over its programme. 

Iran Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said such a move would
put an end to Iran's "voluntary" co-operation with the IAEA. 

Mr Mottaki told a news conference Tehran wanted more countries
to be involved in a Russian plan for Iran's nuclear enrichment
to be performed in Russia. 

No countries have been mentioned, but the comment comes after Mr
Mottaki's visit to China - another veto-wielding power at the
UN. 

If Iran can draw China into the Russian process of negotiating
or resume talks with Europe, then it will give Tehran more time,
reports the BBC's Frances Harrison from the Iranian capital. 

Threat of force 

Western countries have been alarmed by Iran's decision to resume
nuclear production, fearing that it is aimed at developing
nuclear weapons. 

The BBC's Jonathan Charles, who is attending the forum in Davos,
Switzerland, says their desire for immediate action is not
shared by Mr ElBaradei. 

We have to keep the military option as the last option but not 
take it off the table, otherwise I am not sure how we have any 
significant leverage            [ src=] US Senator John McCain          

Iran insists the programme is solely aimed at meeting its energy
needs. 

Washington, Israel and many European powers distrust Iran,
partly because it had kept its nuclear enrichment research
secret for 18 years before it was revealed in 2002. 

Mr Straw has repeatedly said that the crisis must be resolved
through diplomatic not military means. 

"It's hard going. It is hard to think of another government
which is harder to negotiate with," Mr Straw said in Davos, but
"it is the only way through". 

However, Republican US Senator John McCain, also attending the
World Economic Forum, said that the threat of military action
should be retained as a last resort. 

"We have to keep the military option as the last option but not
take it off the table," Mr McCain said. "Otherwise I am not sure
how we have any significant leverage." 		 	 		 	 	 

*****************************************************************
 24 IRNA: Mottaki: Tehran, Moscow agree to increase nuclear partners -

Tehran, Jan 28, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-Nuclear-Mottaki 

Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Saturday
that Tehran and Moscow have reached agreement on certain points
such as increasing the number of partners.

 "Russian proposal is under thorough study and talks on the
issue are underway. Thus far, Tehran and Moscow have reached
agreement on certain points such as increasing the number of
partners," said Mottaki in an interview with reporters after a
meeting with his Bahraini counterpart Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmad
Bin Mohammad al-Khalifa on Saturday.

 Mottaki said certain other points such as site of enrichment
are under discussion.

 As for Iran's possible reaction in case of it being reported to
the UN Security Council, Mottaki said, "If such a thing happens
in the February 2 meeting of the Board of Governors of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the government will
have to suspend all its voluntary measures upon an approval of
the Majlis."


*****************************************************************
 25 IRNA: EU, Iran nuclear talks in Brussels 

Brussels, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                           

EU-IRAN 

Iranian and European negotiators are to meet in Brussels Monday
to continue discussions on Iran's nuclear programme, EU and
Iranian sources confirmed to IRNA in Brussels.

 The sources did not give details but said director general
level officials from France, Germany and the UK as well as a
representative of EU High Representative Javier Solana will
participate in the talks.

 The venue of the meeting has not been declared yet.

 An IRNA dispatch from Tehran said Deputy Head of Iran's Supreme
National Security Council (SNSC) Javad Vaeedi is to head the
Iranian negotiating team while the European negotiating team
would be headed by a representative from France.

 The EU-Iran talks coincide with the meeting of EU foreign
Ministers in Brussels on Monday. Iran is on the agenda of the
meeting.

 The ministers are expected to issue a statement underlining
that the 25-member European bloc believes Iran's nuclear issue
can be resolved by talks.

 "We are committed to seeking diplomatic solution and still
believe that it can be resolved by negotiations, but clearly
that would require a cooperative and transparent approach from
the part of the Iranian government which is what we are still
looking for," EU sources told reporters in Brussels.

 Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Belarus are among the
issues that the EU Council of foreign ministers will discuss in
its regular monthly meeting on Monday.

 It will be the first EU foreign ministers meeting under the
Austrian EU Presidency. Austria took over the six-month rotating
EU Presidency from the UK on January 1.


*****************************************************************
 26 IRNA: France welcomes Russian proposal on Iran's nuclear program 

Baghdad, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                            

France-Iran-Nuclear 

French Ambassador to Baghdad Bernard Bajolet here Saturday said
in case Iran accepts the recent Russian proposal on nuclear
energy, France will welcome it.

 Bajolet made the remark in a joint press conference after a
meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari along with
the German and British ambassadors to Baghdad.

 Al-Jaafari said on the table at the meeting was a request on
Iraq's mediation in the case of Iran's nuclear activities.

 He said the request was accepted.

 The French ambassador said the three European states are
hopeful that Iran's nuclear case would be settled through
negotiations and would not be sent to the UN Security Council.

 The European countries approve of the efforts made by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as before and continue
to work on the basis of the agency's reports, he added.

 The diplomat made the remark while the IAEA chief Mohamed
ElBaradei has repeatedly stressed he had found no evidence
proving Iran's access to nuclear weapons.

 The press conference turned into a venue for raising the
controversial and dual approach of Europe in dealing with the
nuclear programs of Iran and Israel.

 The French ambassador was faced with repeated questions of the
participating reporters why the nuclear weapons of the Zionist
regime are not dealt with.

 When he expressed Europe's concern over resumption of Iran's
nuclear research activities, he was asked questions why Europe
and the West do not feel such a concern about Israel's nuclear
weapons.

 Bajolet refused to give an explicit reply but said based on the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), they are against further
development of nuclear weapons.

 He did not mention that the NPT applies to atomic weapons and
not peaceful nuclear energy.

 Bajolet also declined to answer another question on whether
Europe intends to adopt a measure on nuclear disarmament of
Israel.

*****************************************************************
 27 Daily Times: VIEW: Stopping the Iranian bomb 

| Monday, January 30, 2006           

—Gary Samore 

Tehran calculates that the tight international oil market will
protect it from serious economic sanctions, which could send oil
prices through the roof. To buttress its position, Iran has
cultivated better ties with Russia and China, who oppose Western
efforts to refer Iran to the UN. According to many Iranian
experts, the hardliners around President Ahmadinejad may even
welcome a measure of international confrontation over the
nuclear issue

In early January, Iran crossed the enrichment “redline”. This
opened the way for Iran to acquire technology to make fissile
material for nuclear weapons. In the face of the Iranian
challenge to the non-proliferation regime, the international
community’s options are limited. But however difficult,
diplomacy may still persuade Tehran to step back — at least
buying time before Iran reaches the point of no return. 

There is reason for pessimism. Iran seems to have taken
well-calculated steps to acquire a nuclear weapons option. In
early January it removed International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) seals from equipment and material at the Natanz
enrichment facility and two related sites. In response, the
foreign ministers of the EU-3 (the United Kingdom, France, and
Germany) declared that negotiations with Iran to resolve the
nuclear issue had reached a “dead end” and called for referral
to the UN Security Council. 

The collapse of Europe’s diplomatic initiative reflects Tehran’s
calculation that the balance of power has shifted in its
direction. In October 2003, following the invasion of Iraq
Tehran felt vulnerable to American pressure and reached an
agreement with the EU-3 to suspend its enrichment-related
activities to avoid referral to the UN Security Council. But
after two years of fruitless discussion during which Iran
rejected many European inducements to give up on the uranium
enrichment effort, it has toughened its position with the June
2005 election of President Ahmadinejad and removal from office
of “pragmatic conservatives”, who may have been more willing to
seek a compromise and avoid a confrontation. 

Now, with the Americans tied down fighting the insurgency in
Iraq and with the prospect of a friendly Shia-dominated
government emerging in Baghdad, Tehran calculates it has a
window of opportunity to advance its nuclear programme while
Washington is distracted. Once Iran has crossed this
technological threshold, mastering the basic technology of
centrifuge enrichment, stopping or significantly retarding the
programme through diplomatic or even military means will become
more difficult. 

In addition, Tehran calculates that the tight international oil
market will protect it from serious economic sanctions, which
could send oil prices through the roof. To buttress its
position, Iran has cultivated better ties with Russia and China,
who have taken the lead in opposing Western efforts to refer
Iran to the UN. 

According to many Iranian experts, the hardliners around
President Ahmadinejad may even welcome a measure of
international confrontation over the nuclear issue, which they
can manipulate to rally nationalist support for the government
and re-orient Iran away from the West towards Russia and China. 

What can be done? First and foremost, Iran must be made to feel
that its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability runs
significant risks against a strong international coalition of
the great powers. The key to building such a coalition is Russia
and China. Fortunately, both Moscow and Beijing oppose Iranian
acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability, which would damage
their own national interests, by introducing a new source of
instability into a region of economic and geostrategic
importance. Moreover, both are annoyed at Tehran for ignoring
their private warnings and precipitating an international
confrontation by crossing the enrichment redline. Neither Russia
nor China accepts Iran’s claims that its nuclear programme is
“purely” peaceful. 

A week after Iran began removing seals from Natanz,
representatives of Russia and China, along with the EU-3 and the
US, met in London and agreed to call on Iran to restore the
suspension and to schedule an emergency meeting of the IAEA
Board of Governors in early February to consider referral to the
UN Security Council if Iran does not comply. 

Sensing the danger, Iran rushed to express new interest in a
Russian proposal to build a jointly owned Iranian-Russian
enrichment plant in Russia for producing nuclear power fuel,
thus replacing the need for Iran to build its own enrichment
facility. The two sides agreed to meet in mid-February to
discuss the proposal, and Moscow now argues that an IAEA
decision on referral should be deferred to the regular IAEA
Board meeting in early March, to give Moscow more time to
persuade Tehran to restore the suspension and avoid
confrontation. 

If it becomes clear that Tehran is merely playing for time,
Moscow will find it increasingly difficult to resist the logic
of referral, in order to reinforce IAEA resolutions that Russia
has itself supported. Faced with a choice between his G-8
partners, who urge referral, and Iran, which refuses to restore
the suspension, President Putin is likely to conclude that
Russia’s ultimate interest lies with the G-8, especially since
Moscow itself prefers preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapons capability. Once Russia decides to support or abstain on
a resolution of referral, China is likely to follow suit to
avoid diplomatic isolation. 

Inevitably, if Iran escalates and rejects the Security Council’s
demands, the UN will need to consider targeted sanctions, such
as imposing travel bans and freezing assets of Iranian officials
and businessmen associated with the nuclear programme. By
themselves, such limited sanctions cannot compel Iran to restore
the suspension if Tehran is determined to move ahead, but Iran
is remarkably sensitive to avoiding the symbolism of
international isolation. 

To be effective, a strategy of gradually increasing pressure by
the Security Council must be linked with an offer to resume
multilateral negotiations with Iran, on the condition that Iran
restores the suspension of enrichment-related activities and
provides greater transparency and cooperation with the IAEA. 

Officials in the Bush Administration have advanced three
objections to participating in bilateral or multilateral nuclear
negotiations with Iran: First, they argue, engagement with Iran
would help legitimise the Iranian regime and undercut US efforts
to encourage democratic reforms. Second, they say, if the US
spends some of its inducements to seal a nuclear deal, it would
weaken American leverage on other issues of concern, such as
Iran’s support for terrorist groups and opposition to the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Finally, they argue that Iran
is not serious about reaching a nuclear deal that would
sacrifice its aspirations to acquire a nuclear weapons option
and would likely cheat on any agreement. 

While these objections have merit, they do not overrule the
advantages of US participation in a multilateral negotiation. To
avoid the mistake that allows North Korea to keep on producing
plutonium while talks continue, any US willingness to
participate in multilateral nuclear negotiations with Iran must
be conditioned on Iran agreeing to restore the suspension of its
enrichment-related activities. 

For many Iranian officials, an American offer to participate in
international negotiations would be unwelcome because Iran has
used the absence of the US as an excuse for abandoning the EU-3
talks. Rather than rejecting the proposal outright, Iran might
counter-propose a different international configuration to
include countries more sympathetic to Tehran’s position. Even if
new multilateral talks can be arranged, an easy solution should
not be expected, because Tehran clearly prefers to retain its
indigenous enrichment programme. 

Only if Tehran calculates that the risks of pursuing a nuclear
weapons option outweigh the benefits, will the Iranians
negotiate seriously to see what they can get in return for
giving up or deferring their fuel cycle programme. In the
meantime, the main objective is to buy time by restoring the
suspension as a condition for seeking a negotiated solution. 

Dr Gary Samore is vice president for Global Security and
Sustainability with the MacArthur Foundation. He was a
non-proliferation specialist with the State Department and the
White House under the Reagan, the first Bush and Clinton
administrations. This article appeared in YaleGlobal Online
(www.yaleglobal.yale.edu), a publication of the Yale Center for
the Study of Globalization, and is reprinted by permission.

Copyright (c) 2003 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization 

Home | Editorial           
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
      and hosted by WorldCALL Internet
*****************************************************************
 28 Daily Times: Force against Iran a perilous last resort 

 Monday, January 30, 2006           

DAVOS: The United States should reserve the option of bombing
Iran’s nuclear programme into oblivion, but it would be a
massive military venture that would invite heavy retribution
from Tehran.

That seemed to be the prevailing view from four days of debate
at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Iran
was absent from the line-up of leaders and ministers but figured
high on the agenda. Its nuclear programme, which Tehran says is
for generating electricity but the US sees as a front for
building an atomic bomb, ranked with the shock outcome of the
Palestinian election as the main topic of international concern.

“We have to keep the military option as the last option but not
take it off the table,” said US Senator John McCain, a leading
Republican presidential contender for the 2008 election. Other
leaders attending the forum, including British Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw, stressed the need for caution and diplomacy.

Kenneth Pollack, an expert on Iran at the Brookings Institution,
a US think-tank, said the military option was “sub-optimal”, but
not impossible. Although Israel has reserved the option of
military force, Pollack said the US would be the only country
with the air power to carry out the “hundreds of sorties a day”
required, possibly for weeks, to knock out Iran’s air defences
and destroy anywhere between several dozen and several hundred
facilities linked to its nuclear programme.

“It would mean going to war with Iran and I think it’s fair to
figure that the Iranians would not sit by idly,” he said. “We’ve
had some Iranian leaders say very explicitly that they would
strike back...at a time and place of their own choosing, and
that time and place would likely be soonish in Iraq and
Afghanistan. If you think it’s bad now (in Iraq), imagine 6,000
Iranian Revolutionary Guards and intelligence agents joining in
the insurgency.”

Missile defence: Military experts say Iran’s Shahab-3 missiles
have a range of 2,000 km, meaning Israel, US bases in Iraq and
foreign troops in Iraq lie within striking distance. Even if
successful, US “preventive strikes” might set back Iran’s
nuclear programme only by two to four years, Pollack said, given
the know-how it had already acquired.

A panel on Iran at the Davos forum identified three other
options: diplomacy, Iraq-style “regime change”, and doing
nothing and hoping for the best. Straw dismissed the latter as
irresponsible and stressed the diplomatic option, “to secure a
bargain which would not involve humiliation of either side”.

US Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said it was
possible to imagine the US choosing force, but only at the head
of a broad international coalition and after diplomacy was
exhausted.

“There...would have to be a large consensus, I think, before any
military action would be forthcoming, said Chambliss, a member
of the Senate intelligence and armed services committees.

“We’re not at the point today that I could feel the least bit
comfortable thinking that America would be willing to do that
without a large coalition of partners, hopefully inside the Arab
world as well as outside.” The debate took place against a
background of pressure from the US and the European Union to
refer Iran to the UN Security Council.

The Council could ultimately impose sanctions, but only if
Russia and China – both with significant economic ties to Tehran
and both wary of US motives – refrain from exercising their
vetoes.

“Whether we want in fact to impose sanctions on Iran or not, if
they think the world community is willing to do it, it would
have a huge impact” on Tehran’s willingness to compromise,
former US President Bill Clinton said. “But as long as they
think that countries that want their oil would not vote for
that...then they have more room to be belligerent.” reuters 

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 29 AFP: Iran dossier tops talks at World Economic Forum 

 Sat Jan 28, 6:13 AM ET 		 	 

DAVOS, Switzerland (AFP) - The Iran" /> Irannuclear dossier has
topped early talks on the penultimate day of the World Economic
Forum" /> World Economic Forumin Davos, with British Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw adding his voice to a renewed Western
diplomatic tack. 


Related information on Bill Clinton">Bill Clinton had come to 
tell the annual gathering of business and political leaders. 

Straw struck a conciliatory tone over Iran's nuclear programme,
stressing that talks had to produce a bargain that allowed
Tehran to maintain its national dignity. 

Straw said the West, which fears Tehran could be trying to
develop nuclear arms, wanted diplomacy "to secure a bargain
(that) does not involve humiliation of either side" and allowed
Iran to "preserve a sense of national dignity". 

"We have to have a bargain which enables both sides to come out
of it with their head held high and not low," he said Saturday. 

"It's hard going. It's hard to think of another government which
is harder to negotiate with," he added, but "it's the only way
through." 

His comments came two days after US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricetold the Forum via
videolink that it was time for the UN Security Council to take
up the issue, while adding: "We believe that that is only the
start of a new phase of diplomacy." 

The United States and European Union" /> European Unionwant the
Iran dossier referred to the council via its nuclear watchdog
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency(IAEA), which is due to meet on February 2 to
discuss the matter. 

In Davos, Straw said Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali
Larijani would also meet Monday with British and other officials
to discuss the issue. 

A crisis surged after Iran broke seals at nuclear facilities
earlier this month in order to resume sensitive research on
enriching uranium, which can provide the fuel for power stations
but also, in highly enriched form, for weapons. 

The EU trio of Britain, France and Germany said then that talks
with Tehran had reached a "dead end", but they and Washington
have since insisted that diplomacy remained the best way to
resolve differences over Iran's programme, which Tehran says is
for strictly peaceful civilian nuclear power. 

At another Davos seminar, meanwhile, health and pharmaceutical
leaders discussed the bird flu virus, which has killed at least
83 people since late 2003 and is spreading around the world. 

David Nabarro, the UN's senior coordinator for avian and human
influenza, told the audience: "it is only as governments have
started to do simulations that countries are realising they are
nowhere near prepared for the kind of damage this does." 

In September, leaders started to realise that bird flu posed a
major threat, he said, before adding that most people still do
not grasp the extent of the potential damage to their health,
business, and society in general. 

Anthony Fauci of the US National Institute of Health noted that
viruses change constantly and said: "It would be unconscionable
if the world did not prepare" for worst case scenarios. 

Although it could possibly be as bad as the 1918 flu pandemic
that killed 50 million people, Fauci noted that bird flu could
also turn out to be a more mild strain. 

Later Saturday, Clinton is to address the forum, which ends on
Sunday. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 30 IRNA: Asefi: Iran never killing time in negotiations 

Tehran, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-Nuclear-Asefi 

Iran will never kill time in the process of talks, said Foreign
Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi here on Sunday.

 "Iran is determined to remove ambiguities, continue talks and
win its rights," said Asefi in his weekly press conference.

 Asefi said return of Europeans to the negotiation table is a
sign of Iran's right stances.

 "Iran has in talks over the past two years proved its goodwill
but Europeans failed to be logical enough; and now we are
witnessing their declaration of interest in continuing talks,"
said Asefi.

 Asked about the reason(s) Iran was absent from the Davos
meeting in Switzerland, Asefi said the priorities of Tehran's
foreign and economic policies were different with that of the
session; therefore it did not take part in it.

 "Wherever there are discussions on Iran, it is not needed to be
present there, rather stances can be announced through these
press conferences," said Asefi.

 On a question about the London meeting on reconstruction of
Afghanistan, Asefi said Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki will
represent Iran at the meeting and conduct negotiations with
certain other countries.

 Commenting on German proposal on economic sanctions against
Iran, he said that economic sanctions will put Europe under
pressure before they can force Iran.

 Calling the emergency meeting of the International Atomic
Energy Agency's (IAEA) Board of Governors on February 2 as
'politically motivated and not technical', Asefi said, "The IAEA
Director General has himself said he cannot present a complete
report to the meeting." The Islamic Republic of Iran uses its
utmost capacity in that concern and talks with different
countries and one should wait and see what would be the result,
added Assefi.

 Asked about recent terrorist bombing in Iran's southwestern
city of Ahvaz (Khuzestan province), Asefi said security forces
have announced they have evidence at hand which points to a
special country.

 "The evidence will be known in the coming days; we will not
allow any country to launch sabotage operations in Iran," he
added.

 He said Tehran is both patient and prudent in that concern.

 Asked whether he meant Britain, Asefi said since the question
referred to no name he did not present any name.

 To a question about the possibility of China's contribution to
Russian project, Asefi said the project is still limited to
Russia and Iran and Russians have in their talks with Iran's top
nuclear negotiator said two formulas can be defined: one for
Iran and Russia and the other for contribution of other
countries.

 Also asked whether the reason for a halt in export of gas to
Turkey was political or technical, Asefi said, "As Iranian
officials have announced, the barriers are technical and
whenever the obstacles are removed gas exports will begin to
rise."
 About recent events in Palestine and victory of Hamas in the
elections, Asefi said, "Palestine is in a sensitive juncture and
we think recent elections showed Palestinian people have chosen
the path of resistance and Intifada."
 Referring to the phone conversation of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad with the head of Hamas political office Khalid
Mashal on Saturday, Asefi said Palestinians should be watchful
because some people want to play down the victory of Hamas.

 Assassination of Hamas leaders and the Palestinian people by
the Zionist regime bore fruits because the regime thought it can
check Intifada by martyring one of them but the result was
something else and not in favor of the Zionist regime, he added.

 Also referring to recent statements by the EU Foreign Policy
Chief Javier Solana that public votes are not enough for
legitimacy, Asefi said, "These are the new things that we hear
from Europeans and I think (the definition of) democracy should
be defined and drafted once again."
 He said that the consequences of Hamas victory are more
important than the victory itself.

 Asked to comment on the consecutive visits of Arab heads of
state to Iran, Asefi said expansion of cooperation with the
regional, neighboring and Muslim states is given priority by the
government and the visits are based on this very reason.

 Asefi stressed that stronger ties with neighboring states will
help security and peace in the region.

 Calling the outcome of Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's
visit to South Africa as 'important', Asefi said that based on
the talks held with the Non-Aligned Movement troika, the
statement of the meeting stresses the right of all the member
countries, including Iran, to attain peaceful nuclear technology.

 On the US President George W. Bush's claim to offer all-out
assistance to anti-Iran groups, Asefi said, "If that's correct,
I think Bush had made a big mistake."
 If Bush reviews his words once again, he will get to know that
his words are in total contradiction with all international
principles, he added.

 If Bush has made such a claim, he has hence stirred chaos in
the international relations, said Asefi.

 Pointing to Iranian people's all-out support for the Islamic
Republic of Iran's system, Asefi said, the US will fail again as
it did 27 years ago.

 On certain European media's desecration of Muslims' sanctities,
Asefi said, "We hope Europeans will get to know their grave
blunder and extend apology for it."
 Europeans will suffer more from such moves because hatred of
millions of Muslims in Europe will later on create problems for
them, making them feel sorry for their action in course of time,
he concluded.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 31 Japan Times: Iran highlights EU failings

  Monday, January 30, 2006   

 By DAVID HOWELL

 LONDON -- The battle for Europe's soul continues. Austria now
holds the presidency of the European Union until July, and the
Austrians see themselves very much as being at the heart of an
integrated European state.

 The Austrian leaders have therefore been calling for renewed
attempts to create a European constitution, following the
collapse of earlier proposals for more EU involvement in tax and
social affairs in each member state, a much stronger European
foreign and security policy, and a bigger presence for the EU,
as a single bloc or entity, on the world stage.

 Those who are skeptical about this "integrationist" agenda --
and they are probably the majority in Europe as a whole -- argue
that this is just the wrong approach and that Europe should be
adopting different priorities.

 First, they point to the awkward fact that the EU is lagging
badly in economic terms. Despite grandiose plans for "overtaking
America in 10 years," it is stagnating. A recent report from
former Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho to the EU Commission
stresses that top European companies are turning away from the
EU and directing their new investment into Asia. His report sees
a real decline in the comfortable European lifestyle as the
whole Continent remains locked in over-regulation and protection.

 With research spending and innovation falling well below the
levels in either Asia or America, Aho urges Europe to act
"before it is too late."

 Second, the skeptics question whether a single European state
can ever stride across the world stage in the way that some
enthusiasts keep hoping. Not only is the basic unity of outlook
among the EU's 25 current members lacking. But the whole EU
approach is just too regional and inward looking, when the big
problems of the world are global.

 For example, in handling the mounting difficulties with Iran it
has become clear that the EU attempt at solving the situation
through diplomacy is heading nowhere at all. The original idea
was that the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany
would somehow do a deal with the fiery Iranians and persuade
them to halt their civil nuclear program.

 But, of course, there will be no progress on Iran unless all
the key players are fully involved, including Russia, China,
India and Japan. The idea that the EU could somehow take the
lead in dealing with the Iranians was an inflated conceit that
was bound to end in failure. And the American alternative --
which is to mutter about the use of force -- is equally hollow
and counter-productive. The U.N. avenue is also blocked since
key members like China and Russia are not convinced that
sanctions will do any good.

 The problem is one of global dimensions, and it is the big
Asian powers who need to lead in tackling it. Individual
European nations, like Britain, should have been active from the
start in links with Delhi, Beijing, Tokyo and Moscow to deal
with the Iranian threat. But the way was barred by the
collective EU "initiative," which has achieved nothing except to
increase anti-Western feeling in Iran and probably drive the
country into the arms of China.

 The realization that not only economic power but also global
political power are shifting eastward and must be at least
shared, if not handed over, to the new Asia, has just not sunk
in to parochial European minds -- or at any rate those of its
current statesmen.

 Nor has EU "foreign policy" had much more success in other
fields. Endless quarrels with the United States, on matters
ranging from farm export subsidies, aircraft subsidies and
development aid, to energy and climate issues, to Iraq and
Middle East policy, have led to the worst trans-Atlantic
relations in a generation. The Atlantic has grown much wider.

 All this calls for a fundamental reassessment of Europe's
status and prospects. The Austrian pressure for staying on the
old, discredited track of more political integration is pointing
a false way. The people of Europe long for a more flexible,
diverse Europe, further enlarged to gently embrace Bulgaria,
Romania, Croatia, Turkey and other newcomers, and concentrating
on competition, enterprise and innovation -- not attempted
adventures by a would-be EU superstate on the world stage.

 In Washington, where for many years EU integration was
encouraged as "a good thing," it is just now dawning that a
unified European bloc in today's conditions adds nothing to
world stability and, worse, intensifies anti-Americanism.
Strengthening bilateral relations with individual European
states that are basically friendly to the U.S., although not
necessarily obedient lapdogs, offers a far more promising way of
building a global network that can truly work for peace and
stability.

 The more this perception spreads to other modern centers of
opinion and power, such as Tokyo or Delhi, the quicker the EU
will be able to recover its dynamism and focus on its true
priorities.

 Europe has much to offer the 21st century world and its
challenges, but not in the form of an overly centralized,
homogenized bloc -- a lesson the Austrians have evidently yet to
learn.

 David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former
chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a
member of the House of Lords. 

The Japan Times: Jan. 30, 2006
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 32 AFP: Singh says India won't be pressured into voting against Iran at IAEA - 

 Sun Jan 29, 6:58 AM ET 		 	 

NEW DELHI (AFP) - India will not be pressured into voting
against Iran" /> Iranover its suspect nuclear programme at this
week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh said. 

 "We will do what is right for the country. India's national
interest is the prime concern whether it is domestic or foreign
policy," Singh told reporters in New Delhi, the Press Trust of
India (PTI) news agency reported. 

"We will not come under pressure. We will do the right thing for
the country. Our prime concern is to protect and safeguard
India's enlightened national interest," the premier said on
Sunday. 

US ambassador David Mulford warned last week that a historic
deal to provide India with American nuclear technology might
fall through unless it votes against Iran at the February 2-3
meeting of the IAEA. 

Many western countries, led by the United States, want to refer
Iran to the UN Security Council amid concerns over its nuclear
program. These were heightened earlier this month when Tehran
announced it was suspending a voluntary moratorium and resuming
sensitive nuclear research work. 

Western countries suspect Iran wants to build nuclear weapons
under the guise of a civilian nuclear power program, a charge
Tehran denies. 

Mulford said a prospective deal for the United States to
transfer civilian nuclear technology to India would "die" in the
US Congress if India voted against a resolution on Iran. 

If India decides not to back the resolution, "the effect on
members of the US Congress with regard to (India-US) civil
nuclear initiative will be devastating," Mulford told PTI in an
interview. 

India's communists, who lend crucial outside support to Singh's
minority government, have asked the government to abstain from
the vote if the IAEA meeting does not reach a consensus. 

Senior communist leaders had also urged the government to seek
Mulford's recall. But Singh made it clear he would not follow
this course of action. 

"To err is human," the United News of India news agency quoted
him as saying in reference to Mulford. 

During the IAEA meeting in Vienna in September, India voted with
the United States, Britain, France and Germany to chide Iran for
its nuclear programmes. 

Last week the Indian foreign ministry said it supports a Russian
proposal which provides for Tehran to enrich uranium into fuel
outside Iran as a way of keeping it from acquiring bomb-making
technology. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 33 AFP: Iran to hold nuclear talks with Europeans Monday -

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has confirmed it is sending a senior
delegation to Brussels Monday for talks with Britain, France and
Germany on its disputed nuclear programme.

Official media said the Iranian team would be headed by senior
nuclear negotiator Javad Vaidi, but gave no details on the
agenda for the discussions, which will come just days before an
emergency meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog.

"The doors for negotiation are open and we can still find a
formula to reach a conclusion," ADVERTISEMENT
<img
src="http://eur.a1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/a/eu/any/toolbarlrec300x
250xpropuk.gif" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"> [
src=] foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

The so-called EU-3 is pushing members of the International
Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the UN Security Council
amid fears the country is using a nuclear energy drive as a
cover for weapons development.

The IAEA is set to meet on February 2, although Asefi dismissed
the meeting as "politicised" and argued that "dealing with
Iran's case outside the IAEA will not solve anything".

Monday's talks in Brussels will also coincide with a meeting on
Afghanistan in London between the United States, Britain, China,
Russia and France -- the five permanent members of the Security
Council -- plus Germany that is also to discuss Iran.

The Western powers are trying to convince Russia and China, who
have important economic ties with Iran, to adopt a tougher
approach.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Saturday that
diplomacy was still possible even as other Western leaders made
clear that bringing Iran before the UN Security Council for
possible sanctions was still very much on the cards.

But Straw also spoke of a "fast-changing situation", and said
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani would hold talks
Monday with British officials. However it was unclear where the
venue for that meeting would be and there was no confirmation
from Tehran.

On Saturday Iran urged Western powers not to immediately refer
the matter to the Security Council, arguing talks with Russia on
a potential compromise needed "more time".

Moscow's idea to enrich uranium outside Iran is seen as a
possible solution to the standoff and has received cautious and
conditional support from the United States and European Union.

Russia's proposal is that the sensitive nuclear fuel work --
which could potentially be diverted to produce nuclear weapons
-- is conducted outside the Islamic republic as a way of
preventing Iran from acquiring bomb-making technology but also
guaranteeing its access to nuclear energy.

"The Russian proposal is a good package," Asefi said.

Iran argues its nuclear programme is for strictly peaceful
purposes, and says it is cooperating with a now three-year-old
IAEA investigation.

"We are ready to solve any ambiguities within the framework of
the IAEA," Asefi said, adding that the IAEA's deputy director
for safeguards, Ollie Heinonen, had in recent days made a "fully
satisfactory" visit to the Islamic republic.

"During Mr. Heinonen's visit to Tehran, he had some questions
concerning ambiguities and we answered them," the spokesman
added. 
                                
    Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 34 AFP: Iran wants 'more time' for Russia nuclear talks 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran urged Western powers not to immediately
refer a dispute over its nuclear program to the UN Security
Council, arguing talks with Russia on a potential compromise
needed "more time."

In a separate warning, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards
said Saturday that the Islamic republic was ready to use its
ballistic missiles if attacked.

Moscow's idea to enrich uranium outside Iran is seen as a way
out of a growing crisis over Iran's nuclear drive and has
received cautious ADVERTISEMENT
<img
src="http://eur.a1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/a/eu/any/toolbarlrec300x
250xpropuk.gif" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"> [
src=] and conditional support from the United States and
European Union.

"This proposal is under review," Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters.

"On some factors like increasing the number of partners, we have
reached an agreement. Regarding the place or places, we are
still studying it," he asserted, adding a second round of talks
would be held in Moscow on February 16.

"We are seriously studying it. This proposal should be
comprehensive, so it becomes a solution for the nuclear case. We
need more time: we should continue the intensive talks until the
IAEA meeting in March."

 Russia's idea is that the sensitive nuclear fuel work -- which
could potentially be diverted to produce nuclear weapons -- is
conducted outside the Islamic republic as a way of preventing
Iran for acquiring bomb-making technology but also guaranteeing
its access to nuclear energy.

But the EU and US still want to see Iran referred to the UN
Security Council when the International Atomic Energy Agency's
35-nation board of governors holds an emergency meeting in
Vienna on February 2.

They also want Iran to return to a full suspension of other fuel
cycle work -- namely enrichment research which Iran restarted on
January 10 and uranium conversion which was restarted last
August.

Russia has huge economic interest in Iran's nuclear program and
is reluctant to call in the Security Council next week,
preferring for the Council to be merely "informed" of
developments.

But Mottaki said the meeting "should pass" without any move
against Iran "in order to reach a comprehensive understanding
for the March meeting."

He also warned that "referring or informing the case to the UN
Security Council carries the same meaning for us."

"Regarding the possible informing of the UN Security Council as
a result of the February 2nd meeting of the IAEA, the Iranian
government would be obliged to stop voluntary measures," he
warned.

This warning has already been spelled out as comprising of a
resumption of industrial-scale enrichment and a halt in the
application of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's additional
protocol giving the IAEA more powers of inspection.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards chief General Yahya Rahim Safavi
also issued a reminder of his ballistic missile capability --
just in case a military option was put on the table in Israel or
the West.

"Iran has a ballistic missile capability of 2,000 kilometres
(1,280 miles). We do not intend to attack any country, but if we
are attacked we have the capability to give an effective
response. Our policy is defensive," told state television.

The United States cautioned Friday that is was not 100 percent
supportive of Russia's proposed compromise.

"The United States has said that we find the Russian proposal to
be interesting and it might be a good way to proceed with
negotiations. We've never said that we accept every detail in
that proposal," said Nicholas Burns, the assistant secretary of
state for political affairs.

Washington, he said, does "not believe that Iran should have the
ability to exercise any process along the nuclear fuel cycle
inside Iran itself."

But Britain struck a conciliatory tone ahead of the crunch IAEA
meeting, saying diplomacy was the only way to solve the dispute
and military action was not on the cards.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Iranian negotiators appeared
willing to resume talks with Western powers, and urged that any
eventual deal must allow Tehran to "preserve a sense of national
dignity."

"We have to have a bargain which enables both sides to come out
of it with their head held high and not low," he said in a
debate at Davos, where he also spoke of a "fast-changing
situation." 

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 35 AFP: Britain says diplomacy, not force, only way forward on Iran -

 Sat Jan 28, 8:40 AM ET 		 	 

DAVOS, Switzerland (AFP) - Britain has struck a conciliatory
tone ahead of crunch talks next weeks on Iran" /> 's nuclear
programme, saying diplomacy was the only way to solve the
dispute and military action was not on the cards. 

 Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Iranian negotiators appeared
willing to resume talks with Western powers, and urged that any
eventual deal must allow Tehran to "preserve a sense of national
dignity." 

His remarks at the World Economic Forum" /> in Davos,
Switzerland, seemed to signal a softening by the European Union"
/> and United States, which have called for the nuclear dossier
to be referred to the UN Security Council. 

Straw said Saturday that a meeting Monday in London of foreign
ministers of the five permanent Security Council members and
Germany would agree what resolution to put to an emergency
session of the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency" />
(IAEA) three days later. 

"We have to have a bargain which enables both sides to come out
of it with their head held high and not low," he said in a
debate at Davos where he spoke of a "fast-changing situation." 

"It's hard going. It's hard to think of another government which
is harder to negotiate with," he added, but "it's the only way
through." 

Straw said that senior officials from the EU troika of Britain,
France and Germany would also Monday meet Iranian negotiators in
Brussels. 

"They are willing to talk," the minister told BBC radio from
Davos. "That reflects movement. The question is in what
circumstances are they talking? 

"What I hope is that the Iranians do understand that there is
concern, not just among the old enemies of the US or the old
Europeans but across the world about Iran's nuclear intentions." 

The latest crisis over Iran's ambitions arose earlier this month
after it broke seals at nuclear facilities in order to resume
sensitive fuel cycle work on uranium enrichment. 

Enriched uranium can provide the fuel for civilian power
stations but also, in highly enriched form, for weapons. 

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for entirely civilian
power, but the EU troika and the United States believe it could
be a cover for developing an atomic weapons capability. 

Straw said Iran had not yet restarted enrichment work, but
insisted there was a mounting consensus, including from China
and Russia which traditionally have been reluctant to take
action, that Tehran should provide guarantees on the nature of
its programme. 

The EU troika said after Tehran broke the seals that talks had
hit a "dead end," but they and Washington have since stressed
that there remains time for diplomacy. 

"I would prefer the matter not to go to the Security Council,"
Straw said, but warned that if Iran did not change tack, "the
chances of them avoiding a referral ... are low." 

However the West's options did not include military action, he
said in his BBC interview. "There certainly is not one on the
table, let's be clear about that. And no-one is talking about
it. 

"I have never had a discussion with any senior American from the
very top downwards, except to say the military option is not on
the table." 

US President George W. Bush" /> had Friday repeated his refusal
to rule out a military option, although he said it was a last
resort. 

Bush also said UN sanctions were "certainly a real possibility"
if Iran did not provide sufficient security guarantees. 

Straw also took pains to underline that Iran had been badly
treated by the international community in the past, notably
support for the previous regime under the Shah and backing for
Iraq" /> in a bloody war against its neighbour. 

It was that lingering sense of "humiliation" that partly
explained Iran's position, he added. 

"The more I know about Iran, the more I understand about the
extent of this humiliation and the fact that Iran, historically
and today, feels friendless," Straw said. 	 		 			
 							 				 					 					 					 					 					 					 					 					
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 36 AFP: Iran wants 'more time' for Russia nuclear talks

 Sat Jan 28, 4:02 PM ET                          

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> urged Western powers not to immediately
refer a dispute over its nuclear program to the UN Security
Council, arguing talks with Russia on a potential compromise
needed "more time." 

 In a separate warning, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards
said Saturday that the Islamic republic was ready to use its
ballistic missiles if attacked. 

Moscow's idea to enrich uranium outside Iran is seen as a way
out of a growing crisis over Iran's nuclear drive and has
received cautious and conditional support from the United States
and European Union" /> . 

"This proposal is under review," Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters. 

"On some factors like increasing the number of partners, we have
reached an agreement. Regarding the place or places, we are
still studying it," he asserted, adding a second round of talks
would be held in Moscow on February 16. 

"We are seriously studying it. This proposal should be
comprehensive, so it becomes a solution for the nuclear case. We
need more time: we should continue the intensive talks until the
IAEA meeting in March." 

Russia's idea is that the sensitive nuclear fuel work -- which
could potentially be diverted to produce nuclear weapons -- is
conducted outside the Islamic republic as a way of preventing
Iran for acquiring bomb-making technology but also guaranteeing
its access to nuclear energy. 

But the EU and US still want to see Iran referred to the UN
Security Council when the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
's 35-nation board of governors holds an emergency meeting in
Vienna on February 2. 

They also want Iran to return to a full suspension of other fuel
cycle work -- namely enrichment research which Iran restarted on
January 10 and uranium conversion which was restarted last
August. 

Russia has huge economic interest in Iran's nuclear program and
is reluctant to call in the Security Council next week,
preferring for the Council to be merely "informed" of
developments. 

But Mottaki said the meeting "should pass" without any move
against Iran "in order to reach a comprehensive understanding
for the March meeting." 

He also warned that "referring or informing the case to the UN
Security Council carries the same meaning for us." 

"Regarding the possible informing of the UN Security Council as
a result of the February 2nd meeting of the IAEA, the Iranian
government would be obliged to stop voluntary measures," he
warned. 

This warning has already been spelled out as comprising of a
resumption of industrial-scale enrichment and a halt in the
application of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's additional
protocol giving the IAEA more powers of inspection. 

Iranian Revolutionary Guards chief General Yahya Rahim Safavi
also issued a reminder of his ballistic missile capability --
just in case a military option was put on the table in Israel"
/> or the West. 

"Iran has a ballistic missile capability of 2,000 kilometres
(1,280 miles). We do not intend to attack any country, but if we
are attacked we have the capability to give an effective
response. Our policy is defensive," told state television. 

The United States cautioned Friday that is was not 100 percent
supportive of Russia's proposed compromise. 

"The United States has said that we find the Russian proposal to
be interesting and it might be a good way to proceed with
negotiations. We've never said that we accept every detail in
that proposal," said Nicholas Burns, the assistant secretary of
state for political affairs. 

Washington, he said, does "not believe that Iran should have the
ability to exercise any process along the nuclear fuel cycle
inside Iran itself." 

But Britain struck a conciliatory tone ahead of the crunch IAEA
meeting, saying diplomacy was the only way to solve the dispute
and military action was not on the cards. 

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Iranian negotiators appeared
willing to resume talks with Western powers, and urged that any
eventual deal must allow Tehran to "preserve a sense of national
dignity." 

"We have to have a bargain which enables both sides to come out
of it with their head held high and not low," he said in a
debate at Davos, where he also spoke of a "fast-changing
situation." 	 		 			
													 			 			 				
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 37 Scotsman.com News: UK and US divided over Iran - Straw
 
>Sat 28 Jan 2006    
 

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has conceded that Britain and the
US were divided over the use of military action to deal with the
Iran nuclear crisis. 

Influential US senator John McCain on Friday night said it was
important to retain the "leverage" of the military option. 


But Mr Straw said Britain did not share the US position. And he
insisted the option of military force was not on the table. 

Responding to senator McCain's comments, Mr Straw said: "I
understand that's the American position. Our position is
different and I have repeated it often enough." 

Speaking from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr
Straw was adamant the US was not considering using force. 

"There isn't a military option," he said. 

"There certainly isn't one on the table, let's be clear about
that. And no-one is talking about it. I have never had a
discussion with any senior American, from the very top
downwards, except to say the military option is not on the
table." 

Mr Straw told the BBC: "I understand the anxieties about that.
Of course they are going to be there because of Iraq. But
genuinely it is not on the table." 

Mr Straw was speaking ahead of talks with the head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed El-Baradei. 

There is growing pressure to refer Iran to the UN security
council after it announced it was resuming work at its Natanz
uranium enrichment facility. Tehran has always said the facility
is to provide energy. But there are international fears it is
trying to develop a nuclear weapons capability. 

Â© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 38 Anatolia.com: The rumor is that Iran will carry out a nuclear experiment in March... 

  Monday, January 30, 2006         

Published: 1/29/2006 

Teheran is getting ready to counter a “preemptive strike” by USA
and Israel. The Air Force Command of the Revolutionary Guard has
ordered its Shahap-3 Missile Units to keep their mobile missile
ramps in motion in preparation for such an attack. Responding to
this order, in darkness of the night the primary missile ramps
have been moved to Kirmanshah and Hamedan, and the reserve ramps
to Isfahan and Fars regions. 

The above actions are the basis for the efforts of the USA to
attract Russia and China, as well as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and
Egypt to its side, and for commenting that a military
intervention is always on the table. These actions are also the
basis for Israel’s overt preparation for a possible offensive
action and for making authoritative announcements that it “will
not permit Iran” to proceed with its nuclear plans. Suddenly,
all these activities have created a renewed global atmosphere of
war. They are spreading anxiety and paranoia. 

Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. It has
never accepted any international agreement on nuclear weapons,
and has never allowed inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Yet, it is aggressively beating the war drums as if Iran is the
country involved in nuclear development in the area. What kind
of innocence is this? 

Attacks to selected centers in Iran are foreseen to take place
sometime in March-June. 

Even the Pope called upon Russia and China, requesting that they
reconsider the subject of Iran. Iran can do what the Arab
countries cannot: withdrawing its funds deposited at Western
banks and moving them to Asian banks. 

Somehow, big steps are seemingly being taken toward a war.
According to them, just two months remain. Within the next two
months, confusing allegations will resonate as to how much of a
threat Iran has become. 

So, why was the month of March chosen? What is behind the
prediction that Iran will carry out a nuclear experiment in
March? In other words, why are the USA and Israel drawing global
attention to the month of March? Why are Turkey, Egypt and Saudi
Arabia being pushed into a race of weapons build-up by bringing
up the possibility that they may also acquire nuclear weapons? 

Because, there is another event expected to occur in March,
which could have an impact on the economy of the USA equivalent
to a nuclear attack: in March, Teheran will implement its 2004
decision that it will start using the Euro instead of the Dollar
in its petroleum trade, establishing a petroleum market, and
breaking the “petrodollar” monopoly. Iran will open its
petroleum market in March. Euro will replace Dollar in the
petroleum trade. This will constitute a major attack on a vital
component of the American Empire. Once the decision is
implemented, a real debate will start on this doomsday scenario
for the American economy. 

Thereafter, the monopoly of USA/United Kingdom in international
petroleum trade will collapse. The petroleum markets in New York
and London will receive a heavy blow. The International
Petroleum Market in London and the New York Mercantile Exchange
controlled by the Americans are in a state of panic. 

The Iranian position is being supported by the Chinese. The
Japanese are also inclined to switch to Euro; this way, they
could lower their Dollar reserves. 

What are the implications of the widespread switch to the Euro,
and the preference of Russia, European Union, Japan and some of
the Arab countries to use the Euro in petroleum trade? What
would happen if Russia that has major trade relations with
Europe, China and Japan were to start using the Euro in the
energy market? What would happen if the petroleum-producing Arab
countries would also see the Euro as the alternative to
compensate for the loss of Dollar’s value? Indeed, loss of
Dollar’s value will force many countries to prefer the Euro. 

This scenario will progressively lead to a profitable business. 

If these issues were to lead to an escape from the Dollar, and
dramatically reduce the flow of money to the USA, what will be
the shape of the American economy? 

There lies the wisdom of the month of March. This danger hides
behind the hullabaloo that Iran will conduct a nuclear
experiment in March. An Iranian petroleum market that is indexed
on the Euro is more dangerous for the USA than any nuclear
weapon. 

The USA, which is working on controlling global petroleum
markets under the label of “fighting terrorism” is actually
fighting an economic war. However, as it becomes more and more
aggressive, it is sinking deeper and deeper...

Information distributed by electronic mail by a reliable source
in Turkey. Verbatim translation from Turkish into English
language.
         
Privacy Policy © 1997-2005  Anatolia.com Inc.       
*****************************************************************
 39 AFP: OPEC sees no emergency in Iranian nuclear crisis: president

  Saturday January 28, 08:50 PM 

VIENNA (AFP) - OPEC sees no need to adopt emergency measures for
oil production due to the crisis between Iran and the Western
powers over Tehran's nuclear program, the oil cartel's
president, Edmund Daukoru of Nigeria, said in Vienna. "OPEC is
not part of the misunderstanding between Iran and the Western
democracies," said Daukoru, who is Nigeria's oil minister. "I
don't want to treat the Iran case as some kind of emergency that
would call for an emergency response," he told reporters, adding
that it was "an evolving situation" which the cartel would
monitor. Daukoru was in the Austrian capital ahead of a meeting
on Tuesday of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
A key issue in the talks between the 11 nations of the cartel
will be Iran's call to cut production, currently fixed at 28
million barrels per day (bpd). Most of the cartel members and
its president are opposed to that idea with oil prices over 67
dollars per barrel, not far off the historic record of 70.85
dollars per barrel reached in New York last August. "Those
arguing for a cut will have to defend their case and we will
listen to each of them and reach a compromise," Daukoru said.
Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, has warned of
higher oil prices and threatened to suspend exports if the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), also meeting at its
Vienna base on Thursday, refers the Islamic republic to the UN
Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear
ambitions. But Tehran appears to be fairly isolated within OPEC,
as more than half of its members including Nigeria, Saudi
Arabia, Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq and Venezuela, want to maintain
the status quo on production. "When we get to the point where
Iran has to shut production, if they do, then we take it from
there. We don't want to speculate," Daukoru said. Acting OPEC
secretary general Mohammed Barkindo said Friday at the World
Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that OPEC, which supplies
more than a third of the world's oil, would pump more oil if
Iran cuts its output. Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said
earlier this week that the world's top oil exporter saw no
reason to change current output levels. Naimi also said global
oil prices have been rising because of political developments
and lack of adequate refining capacity. "What is driving it are
events like Nigeria and the tension between Iran and the
industrialized countries with respect to developing nuclear
energy. "If we are able to eliminate all factors that cause
volatility, then crude prices will be in the range of 40 to 60
dollars per barrel." Besides Iran, oil markets are also jittery
about the situation in Nigeria. The global No.6 oil producer is
facing growing instability in the Niger Delta where a series of
attacks on foreign oil companies has crimped production.
Nigerian militants have kidnapped four western oil workers and
on Friday said they had pulled out of talks for the hostages'
release. Still, Daukoru said Saturday that "by a week's time we
should expect some development and I hope it is positive." The
Nigerian oil chief added that once the hostages are freed,
Africa's biggest oil producer will be able to restore at least
120,000 barrels per day. 

Copyright © 2006 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 40 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Beware whirlpools of red ink 

Today: January 29, 2006 at 8:18:49 PST 

Rich get richer while Congress talks of cutting programs for
poor and middle-class


 After comparing the rate of federal spending with the loss of
revenue caused by President Bush's tax cuts, the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office came out with a bleak report last
week. It shows the federal deficit for the current fiscal year
will be about $360 billion by Sept. 30.

 And Treasury Secretary John Snow has warned that the federal
government will reach its debt limit of $8.2 trillion by
mid-February, according to The Washington Post.

 What this means is that Congress will certainly renew a drive
begun last year to enact spending cuts on social programs. Only
this time cuts will likely be more severe than last year, when
$50 billion worth of cuts were proposed in health care, student
loans and other programs depended upon by millions of Americans.

 The budget office report said solvency could be achieved by
2012, but only if Bush's tax cuts are not renewed. If the
president's politically motivated relief for wealthy Americans
is made permanent, the country's safety nets for poor, elderly
and disabled people will be further weakened, and middle-class
Americans will see their services reduced as well. We will also
see Democrats and Republicans bogging down Congress with bitter,
protracted budget battles.

 For our current generation, and the generations coming up,
Bush's tax cuts should be shown the door.

         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 41 Los Angeles Times: A wrong-way agency - 
                   
[The Los Angeles Times - latimes.com]     Editorials HOME |

January 28, 2006       

latimes.com : Opinion : Editorials

EDITORIALS: THE SATURDAY PAGE THE EPA FOLLIES 
A wrong-way agency

FOR TOO LONG, THE EPA HAS BEEN AWOL. Once a proud protector
of public well-being, the Environmental Protection Agency has
become an agency that too often ignores science and must be
dragged into taking even the smallest steps. Even worse, it
prevents other public agencies from moving forward with plans to
protect the environment. 

The EPA was criticized last week by the Government
Accountability Office for its weak efforts to keep lead out of
drinking water. Its own inspector general reported last year
that the agency ignored scientific evidence in its poorly
planned effort to come up with soft limits on mercury pollution.
Its requirements for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in
Nevada were thrown out of court in 2004 because they fell far
short of those called for by the National Academy of Sciences.

Now the EPA would like to weaken rules on toxic reporting, and
it is ignoring a key recommendation of its own Scientific
Advisory Committee  a first, according to many veterans  to
propose keeping annual levels of particulates at their current
levels. The microscopic particles are a stubborn pollutant in
Southern California's air and can cause heart disease, asthma
and poor lung development in children.

 Perhaps most frustrating to the rest of the world  and many
U.S. states  the EPA wants nothing to do with regulating
greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Twelve
states, including California, sued to force the EPA into doing
its rightful job, but the courts ruled against them; the EPA
claims it lacks the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

 Last month, the top U.S. negotiator walked out of the
international talks in Montreal on cutting greenhouse gases. It
was left to representatives of individual states to show the
world that this country does care about global warming  even if
its leaders don't.

 California, whose anti-smog laws predate the federal
government's, is the only state with the power to regulate air
pollution. It has adopted regulations that would reduce tailpipe
emissions of greenhouse gases by 30%. Last month, seven other
states signed on, saying they wanted to follow California's
standards rather than the EPA's non-standards. In addition,
seven Eastern states joined together last month to agree on
regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

 But the states would need the EPA's permission to go forward,
and the federal agency is giving off negative vibes. 

The EPA reportedly has said that reducing tailpipe emissions
would require better fuel economy, and only the federal
government is authorized to set fuel economy standards. And it
also said that better fuel economy would in turn mean smaller,
lighter, "less safe" cars. 

The EPA is not only ruling out the idea that there might be ways
to reduce tailpipe emissions but also clearly hasn't been
reading some of the road-safety studies on SUVs.

 The agency cannot have it both ways. It says that it doesn't
have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases but that it does
have the authority to stop states from doing so.

 If the EPA thinks limits on the emissions that cause global
warming are unworkable, it's entitled to its view. (It would be
honest, at least, though also wrongheaded.) But it shouldn't
prevent those who think such limits can be effective from trying
innovative ways to protect our environment. 


Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of


*****************************************************************
 42 KUTV: Bills Could Limit Access To Government Records

Jan 28, 2006 12:02 pm US/Mountain 

SALT LAKE CITY Steve Erickson is a private citizen who has spent
more than a decade working as a public watchdog. 

Erickson runs the Citizen's Education Project, which studies and
monitors the state, local and federal governments, trying to
make sure the best interests of Utah residents are being
protected. To do that, he frequently makes use of the state's
Government Records Access and Management Act _ or GRAMA _ to
mine public documents for information. 

Three times in the last two years, Erickson has made significant
finds that triggered a flurry of news stories: 

_ Utah was part of the so-called MATRIX program, a multistate
effort to combine commercially available databases on citizens
to fight crime and terrorism. Then-Gov. Mike Leavitt, a
Republican, signed up the state for the program after the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks without consulting other state officials. 

_ A lack of oversight by state officials on programs for
chemical and biological testing, and the subsequent
environmental impact of those tests at the military's Dugway
Proving Ground, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. 

_ The failure of the state's radiation control division to
conduct due diligence about the exact contents of a shipment of
Japanese uranium-bearing rock bound for a disposal at a mill in
southern Utah. 

Without the access given to citizens under GRAMA, ``in all three
instances none of that information would have come out,''
Erickson said. 

Now as state lawmakers consider more than a half a dozen bills
that would change GRAMA, Erickson fears the public's access to
government information could be limited. 

``In general, these bills are going to restrict citizens' access
to information from their government, and that's not a healthy
trend,'' he said. 

The proposed legislation comes after a yearlong task force that
studied GRAMA, which has been in place for nearly 14 years and
altered in bits and pieces about 70 times. 

Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, co-chaired the task force with
Sen. David Thomas, R-South Weber. Both say it was time for a
comprehensive review of the law, in part because technology
advancements have changed public record-keeping and
communication, and because identity theft has raised new
concerns about privacy. 

They say they were guided in the study by GRAMA's two stated
rights: that of the public to have access to what government is
doing and the right to personal privacy. 

``Everything we looked at in the task force was balancing those
two rights against each other,'' Aagard said. ``I think what we
did was really good for the citizens. Is the language exactly
right? Maybe not, but our intent and what we were trying to
accomplish is right on.'' 

The language Aagard refers to appears in three pieces of
legislation that were endorsed by task force. All three are
moving through the Legislature, although all have been amended
either in committee or floor debates. 

One would keep e-mail exchanges between government officials and
their constituents private _ unless one of the parties stated
otherwise_ and protects from public scrutiny the flow of
information between legislators and staff during the development
of a bill. A second bill gives governments the right to refuse a
records request if the information sought has already been
published in another form. 

A third bill changes the appeals process for a denied record,
pushing all appeals to the State Records Committee before the
district courts, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. 

Another handful of bills, most of which also came from task
force discussions, address privacy for those appointed as
judges, limit access to information about state employees and
make changes to open meetings laws, including requiring taped
records of all closed meetings. 

Jeff Hunt, an attorney who represents a coalition of Utah
newspapers and television stations, says the open meetings bills
are the ``sunshine'' part of the GRAMA discussion, but he has
concerns about how other proposals might close off government. 

``The public relies upon the media to use open records laws,''
said Hunt, who has been negotiating for amendments to the bills.
``I think you have to ask what the problem is.'' 

``The system is not broken,'' Erickson said, although he and
Hunt both conceded that technology has complicated some
information issues. ``Clearly there need to be some guidelines,
but I don't think the approach these bills are taking is going
to solve them.'' 

Erickson fears that protecting e-mail will sanction the use of
the delete button _ which the MATRIX investigation showed was
common practice for Leavitt _ and erase any public record trail. 

``If that's going to be permitted throughout the system, we've
got ourselves a huge problem trying to track information on what
our government officials are doing,'' he said. 

Thomas and Aagard seem fairly certain in their beliefs that the
privacy of citizens should be protected. In a survey of 10,000
of his constituents, Thomas said he found 67 percent of
respondents said they preferred the government err on the side
of privacy. 

Aagard believes any slip in the protection of privacy puts
democracy in jeopardy. He said much of his interest in GRAMA was
driven by letters of concern from constituents. 

``I'm not going to be a (representative) forever and when I
leave here, I want to be able to write my rep and know my name
isn't going to be in the paper,'' he said. ``To me that
communication with the public, that's sacred.'' 

He said he doesn't understand why the media would want to access
to constituent communications. 

``It's like they don't see the right of privacy or the right to
petition the government,'' he said. 
(© 2006 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material

*****************************************************************
 43 The Observer: Sea energy to power Britain
 
Waves and tides could generate 20 per cent of electricity and 
replace nuclear fuel, report says
 		
Juliette Jowit, environment editor
Sunday January 29, 2006
The Observer 		
 		
Surrounded by some of the world's roughest seas, Britain could 
generate a fifth of its electricity by harnessing the power of 
tides and waves.

The potential of marine energy is revealed in a report by the 
government's energy advisers. Wave and tidal power could replace 
the electricity that is currently produced by UK nuclear power 
stations, they state, and could prevent the need for Britain to 
rely on increased Russian gas imports.

Harnessing the sea, particularly around Cornwall and the north of 
Scotland, with machines that capture the movement of tides and 
waves, has long been a dream of scientists. In recent years the 
quest for clean, renewable power to replace polluting fossil 
fuels has taken on a new urgency as the world battles to reduce 
carbon emissions from coal, oil and gas which are the biggest 
cause of climate change.

Until now, marine power generators have been limited to a couple 
of small prototypes, considered too futuristic to take seriously 
as the answer to the planet's energy problems. The study by the 
Carbon Trust, which advises the government on clean energy, 
challenges that. It predicts tidal and wave power generators 
could be supplying a significant amount of power to the 
electricity grid by the end of this decade.

Its report follows a £3m, 18-month research project into how 
marine energy generators could work, part of £50m of support 
programmes promised by government. The report, which is being 
studied by ministers, says that the opportunities for machines 
which use the power of waves to produce electricity are 
'considerable'. Based on the number of sites with reliable tides 
and waves and close enough to connect to the mainland, such 
equipment could be supplying a fifth of the country's current 
electricity needs over following decades.

Given Britain's long coastline, close to the strong currents of 
the Atlantic, marine power would also help to solve another of 
the government's key priorities - reducing reliance on imported 
energy sources, said John Callaghan, one of the trust's programme 
engineers.

'The UK leads the world in marine renewables technology,' he 
said. 'Given our superb natural resources and long-standing 
experience in off-shore oil and gas, ship-building and power 
generation, the UK is in a prime position to accelerate 
commercial progress in the marine energy sector.'

The report was welcomed by environmentalists: 'Solutions to 
climate change and the threat and expense of nuclear power exist; 
we just need the political will to implement them,' said a 
spokesman for Greenpeace.

However the Carbon Trust also highlights problems. The new 
technology will need investment by the government and private 
companies and there is no reliable forecast for when it will be 
available on the large scale, said Callaghan. There are concerns 
that power generators at sea would be expensive to connect to the 
electricity grid, could not always provide power when it was 
needed, and may pose problems for sea life.

Dr Jon Gibbins of Imperial College, London, questioned how much 
marine power could meet Britain's aim of tackling climate change 
because that would require global agreement to reduce carbon. 
Many countries did not have suitable sites and could not afford 
the new technology, he said. 'That doesn't mean we can't try it 
[marine power] and won't do it,' he added. 'But if you want to 
rely on marine technologies to displace fossil fuel use you're 
being very optimistic.'

The World Wildlife Fund said it was against tidal barrages (which 
are not covered by the trust's report) that create huge physical 
barriers to marine life in sensitive estuaries, but it supported 
the harnessing of tidal and wave power as long as sites were 
chosen carefully.

Callaghan said the trust had identified 'tens, possibly hundreds' 
of suitable sites for wave power, principally off south-west 
England and north-west Scotland, and a dozen sites for tidal 
power turbines, half of them in the Pentland Firth between the 
Scottish mainland and the Orkneys.
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 44 London Times: Renewable energy gets second wind on AIM - 

Sunday Times -


January 29, 2006

Renewable energy gets second wind on AIM
Wind, wave and other technologies are capitalising on fears over 
gas and oil supplies, writes Angus McCrone
AT first sight, a fuel-cell membrane that makes it easier for 
television addicts to watch their favourite programmes on a 
mobile phone has little in common with a 17-tonne metal buoy 
floating in the sea close to Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

In fact the two are the little and large of the British stock 
market's burgeoning alternative-energy sector. This now has 
almost 20 companies with a combined market value that broke 
through œ1 billion at the end of last year and soared to œ1.3 
billion after last week's launch of the government's energy 
review.

Renewable power is an industry that fires the imagination, with 
its innovative wind, wave, solar, bio-fuel and fuel cell 
technologies. However, it also poses more valuation problems for 
British investors than anything since the rise of the dotcom and 
biotechnology stocks in the late 1990s.

Take that buoy in Hawaii. This is the first part of a pioneering 
wave-energy power station, ordered by the US Navy from Ocean 
Power Technologies, a œ40m company quoted on London's Alternative 
Investment Market (AIM), and it should start producing 
electricity within weeks.

George Taylor, chief executive of Ocean Power Technologies, said: 
"We think wave energy will end up being the most economic of the 
renewable power technologies. Energy in the waves is concentrated 
and very predictable, power stations are invisible from the 
shore, and fish treat them as artificial reefs."

The methanol fuel-cell membrane for mobile phones is due to be 
launched in 2007 by Poly Fuel, another Californian firm that is 
quoted on AIM. The product sounds like a dream come true for 
Britain's teenagers, but not quite so fantastic for their 
bill-paying parents.

Jim Balcom, chief executive of Poly Fuel, said: "The first TV 
phones are already being used in Japan and Korea, but consumers 
are complaining of low battery run times. With our technology, 
you should be able to watch TV on your phone indefinitely, as 
long as you carry a spare fuel cartridge."

Investors cannot value Ocean Power Technologies and Poly Fuel on 
conventional yardsticks such as yield or price-earnings ratio - 
neither is yet profitable, and their most recent annual revenues 
were $5m and less than $1m, respectively.

Renewable-energy firms would be exposed to a sharp fall in world 
oil and gas prices, making many wind, solar, wave and bio-fuel 
projects suddenly look less viable - or competition from a large 
number of new nuclear power stations. Even those inside the 
industry concede that investors will have to keep their seat 
belts fastened.

Philipp Lukas, director of TMO Biotec, a bio-ethanol firm that 
may float on the stock market one day, said: "There are going to 
be a lot of disappointments in this sector, and a rocky road to 
success for others."

Renewable energy has had sharp ups and downs even over its short 
history. One of the leading British-based funds, Merrill Lynch 
New Energy Technology, saw its share price fall 90% from November 
2000 to the beginning of 2003, since when it has rebounded 270%.

Robin Batchelor, fund manager of the Merrill Lynch trust, said: 
"We launched our fund in 2000. There was some exuberance then, at 
the end of the tech boom, but now people are realising that a lot 
of those companies are still around, and have improved."

Individual stocks have displayed hair-raising volatility at 
times. The shares of Biofuels Corporation have raced up from 68p 
to 311p, back to 80p and up to 140p, in just 18 months.

Fans of renewable energy argue that the fundamentals have 
improved - concern about global warming is mounting and the 
European carbon- dioxide emission-trading scheme has given 
utilities financial incentives to generate power by renewable 
means.

Julian Tolley, analyst at Dawnay Day, said: "With giants such as 
BP, Shell and Exxon moving into wind, hydrogen and methanol, many 
of the small companies are likely to be gobbled up. Some others 
will be successes in their own right."

Investors have a complex task - to try to spot which renewable 
energies will be successful alternatives to oil, gas, coal and 
nuclear, and then to work out whether the profits will mostly go 
to equipment suppliers or to the companies that use that hardware 
to generate electricity.

General Electric, one of the largest turbine suppliers, said that 
the total installed capacity in wind energy worldwide is

48GW (gigawatts), and cites forecasts from analysts that this 
will grow to 117GW by 2009. Its biggest sale on this side of the 
Atlantic has been seven giant turbines at Arklow, off the east 
coast of Ireland.

Robert Gleitz, head of GE Energy's wind operations, said: "In the 
past year, wind-turbine demand has been growing fast and furious 
on a global basis. Customers are requesting turbines for American 
wind developments - to generate not 10 or 20, but hundreds of 
megawatts."

Batchelor said that wind power in appropriate locations was 
already competitive with fossil fuels, and he had invested 8% of 
his fund in Clipper Windpower, an American turbine maker quoted 
on AIM.

Clipper, headed by James Dehlsen, founder of a wind business in 
the 1980s later bought by Enron and then GE, expects to deliver 
155 of its wind turbines in 2006, worth an estimated $400m 
(œ225m), according to analysts.

However, margins in wind-turbine manufacturing can be tight. 
Losses are common. Vestas of Denmark, the world market leader, 
lost ?105m (œ72m) on sales of ?1.4m in the first half of 2005.

Utilities such as Scottish Power and Iberdrola of Spain run wind 
farms, and there are two specialist AIM-quoted operators, 
Renewable Energy Generation and Renewable Energy Holdings.

The latter, based in the Isle of Man and with the promisingly 
named Mike Proffitt as chief executive, made a loss of œ1.4m in 
the year to June, but recently bulked up by buying 41.7MW of 
wind-power assets in Germany for œ33m.

Raymond Greaves, analyst at broker Collins Stewart, said: "If 
wind-farm operators select their sites well, they could make an 
internal rate of return of 15% or more thanks to local subsidies 
and carbon-certificate trading.

"The snag could be competition - too many people chasing each 
project, driving down returns."

Solar has also attracted heavyweight interest. BP, which plans to 
invest $1.8 billion in renewable energy over the next three 
years, is already the world's third-biggest producer of 
photovoltaic cells. These go into tiles for roofs, or for road 
signs, and convert the sun's rays to electricity.

The only specialist stock in the London market is Solar 
Integrated Technologies, a Delaware firm quoted on AIM. Its 
photovoltaic roofing systems brought it revenue of $14m in the 
six months to June 30. It has orders worth $100m, including a 
project to equip school roofs in San Diego.

The renewable sector on AIM sports a striking number of American 
companies led by American entrepreneurs. Charlie Thomas, manager 
of the Jupiter Ecology Fund unit trust, said: "There is much more 
investor interest in the European market, and in the UK, than 
there is on the other side of the Atlantic. That is great news 
for London."

How the cost of generating power compares

THIS YEAR the UK will have a total electricity-generation 
capacity of 75GW (gigawatts), with 35% coming from coal-fired 
stations, 38% from gas turbines, 22% from nuclear and only about 
3% from renewables, including hydroelectric. The selling price of 
that power will be nearly œ20 billion.

The government wants renewables to be responsible for 10% of UK 
generation by 2010, and double that by 2020, so there is a large 
potential market for suppliers of alternative energy.

How renewable technologies such as wind, wave and solar compare 
on cost with fossil-fuel generation is the subject of much 
debate.

A report by the Royal Academy of Engineering in March 2004 
estimated that gas-fired generation cost 2.3p per kilowatt-hour, 
the same as nuclear and well below the 3.7p for onshore wind 
farms and 5.5p for offshore wind.

The independent Carbon Trust said that in 2003, gas-powered 
generation cost 2p per kilowatt-hour, compared with 3p for 
onshore wind, 5p for offshore wind, 7p for the embryonic wave and 
tidal technologies, and 24p for solar generation.

However, it is difficult to cover all the variables - for 
instance, wind-powered generation is intermittent, because the 
wind does not blow all the time, so back-up generation is 
required. On the other hand, the market price of gas has risen 
sharply since 2003-4 (from $3 a unit to $8.70, via a peak of 
$15), and a generator who wants to burn more gas may be forced to 
purchase extra carbon-emission certificates.

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 45 Times of India: Nuclear deal within reach, on US terms-

  Nuclear deal within reach, on US terms

Chidanand Rajghatta
[ Sunday, January 29, 2006 

WASHINGTON: Diplomacy, the American humourist Will Rogers said
famously, is the art of saying "nice doggie!" till you can find
a rock. In a reversal of the quip, Washington has now spent the
better part of two days saying "nice doggie" to India after
casting the stone first. 

As if to prove that all is hunky-dory between the two sides on
the nuclear front, Nicholas Burns, Washington's chief
interlocutor on the subject, turned up at the Indian Republic
Day reception hosted by Ambassador Ronen Sen on Friday.
Palliatives cascades 

from the silver tongue of Washington's most highly rated career
diplomat, who, as he reminded people, served as a US spokesman
for a decade. 

Among Burns' bromides aimed at papering over the cracks
following US ambassador David Mulford, "vote with us on the Iran
issue or else..." remarks: 

The United States considers India a great country and great
countries make their own decisions based on their interests 

We respect India, we respect its sovereignty, we respect its
right to make its own decision We know that India, like all
countries, makes decisions based on its own... national
interests. And we expect nothing less on this issue of Iran 

The bottomline: Sorry about the Mulford's missspoken words, but
we still expect you to vote with us on Iran - in your own
interest. 

Having gently laid down the line though, Burns indicated earlier
that the nuclear deal was still within reach - before president
Bush's visit to India early March. 

 "Our hope has been that we'll be able to conclude the agreement, 
which would include a plan by the Indian government to separate 
its civil and military nuclear facilities... as soon as 
possible...And that that might happen before the President's 
visit," Burns said

And if it does not happen? "If we cannot, I assume then we'll 
keep on working, as diplomats do, to resolve the problem."

Burns insisted the two sides had made a lot of progress over the 
last six months and he was "not discouraged" by his talks in 
Delhi last week. "One assumes that things like this that are, 
frankly, so esoteric and complex, take time and we are committed 
to conclude this deal with India."

Burns chief aide in resolving these esoteric issues is the 
Indian-American strategic expert Ashley Tellis, who too came up 
for air to attend the Republic Day festivity. "We are working 
very hard to get this done," ss all Tellis would say before 
hustling Burns away sans lunch. 

 Indian officials involved in the negotiations are also confident 
and one of them said on background that if nothing else, he 
expected the some legislation to be introduced in the Congress 
before Bush leaves for India.

The flap over the Iran vote aside, Burns was candid about the 
technical wrinkles, without going into details.

"Oftentimes in negotiations when you get to the end, some of the 
most difficult issues arise," he said, suggesting that the issue 
which and how many nuclear facilities India was willing to put 
under international safeguards constituted the "barriers to an

agreement." But importantly, he said he didn't believe the issues 
are "insuperable."

So while officialdom on both sides remains sanguine that the deal 
will happen sooner than later, those outside the loop remain 
squeamish about Uncle Sam's pressure tactics, including the 
latest turn of the screw asking India not to exploit energy 
opportunities in Syria in partnership with China.

For them, it's the other diplomatic adage when it comes to 
falling in line with Uncle Sam: An appeaser is one who feeds the 
crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last.



Copyright Â© 2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 46 PTI: Nuke deal may not be finalised before Bush's India visit 

Sridhar Krishnaswami 

Washington, Jan 28 (PTI) Indicating that the Indo-US nuclear
deal may not be finalised by the time President George W Bush
visits India in March, Washington has said there are a "few
issues" that remain "barriers".
 
"I think we've made some progress. I think we need to see
further progress. There are a few issues. And I shouldn't go
into them because they should remain confidential, but remain
barriers to an agreement. I don't believe they're insuperable,"
US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns
told reporters here yesterday.
 
"...My assessment, and I'm the one negotiating this for six
months, is that we're very close to an agreement. Oftentimes in
negotiations when you get to the end, some of the most difficult
issues arise," he said when asked about the deal reached between
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Bush on July 18 last year.
 
Asked if the agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation would be
ready by the time Bush visited India, Burns said "it is very
hard to say." "Our hope has been that we'll be able to conclude
a bilateral agreement on civil nuclear cooperation...That would
happen as soon as possible. And that might happen before the
President's visit. That remains our plan and I have been in
touch with the Indian government this week," he said.
 
Referring to the controversy over the comments of US Ambassador
David Mulford, Burns said the envoy's remarks were "blown out of
proportion." PTI 


  © Copyright PTI 2003-2004
 Developed by 
Best viewed in 800 x 600   

      


*****************************************************************
 47 Bellona: Putin: UK spy flap justifies NGO crack-down 

Russian president levies spy charges at NGO funding 

President Vladimir Putin accused foreign intelligence operatives
on Wednesday of using non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to
interfere in Russia's internal affairs, saying that accusations
that four British diplomats were spies justified new government
curbs on the organisations, news agencies reported. 

  Putin: “Now much is apparent as to why Russia passed a law
regimenting the activities of NGOs.   

  AFP   

Charles Digges, 2006-01-26 11:18

He did not say if he would expel the diplomats, but noted: "If
we send them away, more will come. Maybe clever ones will come.
And we will have to struggle to find them. Let's think about
that." 

Putin has previously criticised foreign support for groups in
Russia, but on Wednesday he linked the groups to intelligence
agencies more explicitly than before. 

His remarks intensified a furor that erupted after the
disclosure of what officials said was a British espionage
operation that used a device concealed in a fake rock to
exchange information with a Russian agent. Many Russian news
organisations have speculated the fake rock was actually a model
taken from a KGB museum. 

Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) footage first aired on
the state controlled Rossiya channel Sunday supposedly shows one
of the accused British diplomats, Marc Doe, and the other
diplomats, downloading information onto hand-held computers from
transmitters hidden in fake rocks in Moscow.

  An FSB photograph purportedly of Marc Doe.   
  fsb.ru   

"We see that there are attempts to work with non-governmental
organisations with the help of special services and that there
is financing of non-governmental organisations through the
channels of foreign secret services," Putin said in televised
remarks from St. Petersburg, where he was meeting with leaders
of other former Soviet republics. 

He was referring to the controversial NGO law—which was
protested vociferously by many Western countries and NGOs—which
he signed earlier this month, and cited the UK spy dust-up as
all the more reason for the law to exist.

  NGO bill becomes a law   
  
  Russian president Vladimir Putin approved quietly the
controversial NGO bill on January 10th. The bill was published
in the official Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta on January
17th, thus becoming a law.
   
"This law is designed to block foreign governments from
interfering in the internal politics of the Russian Federation
and create favourable, transparent conditions for financing NGO
operations," Putin said at a news conference in St. Petersburg. 

Putin said it was "regrettable" that foreign intelligence
agencies were financing Russian NGOs. 

"I think that nobody has the right, in the given situation, to
claim that money has no smell," he added. 

Britain’s Doe oversees British grants to private organisations,
including some prominent groups that promote democracy and human
rights. 

The NGOs Russia has linked to the affair—without specifying
illegalities—include the Moscow Helsinki Group and the Centre
for Democracy and Human Rights. The scandal could worsen
relations with Britain and other countries as Russia presses its
assault on European and American financial support of groups
that criticise the Kremlin. 

NGOs speak out 
NGOs have denounced the FSB spy allegations that aired on
Rossiya television as an attempt to discredit them. They have
stressed that they won grants from the Global Opportunities Fund
and not from Doe personally or British intelligence. 

Ulrich Fischer, the president of the International Helsinki
Federation for Human Rights called the accusations against its
Moscow branch and other groups slanderous and "part of an
official Russian policy to silence criticism and strengthen ever
further a centralised state power." 

The Bellona foundation, which has two offices in Russia, also
spoke out against the ever-growing Kremlin juggernaut against.
Russia programme director Nils Bøhmer said “we are very
concerned about the developments in Russia.” 

“It is essential to have independent NGOs to develop democracy,”
said Bøhmer. “Putin’s statements yesterday, and the new NGO law
show that in the future, it will be difficult to operate as an
independent NGO in Russia.” 

Bellona’s Alexander Nikitin, who heads Bellona’s St. Petersburg
office agreed. 

“We also consider that special services should not be trying to
influence the work of NGOs,” said Nikitin, who spent five years
fending off charges of espionage for contributions he made to a
Bellona report on the Russian Northern Fleet. He was entirely
exonerated in 2000. During his trial he became head of Bellona’s
St. Petersburg operations. 

“We have not had any brushes with the special services, but it
is well known that there are constant attempts by the FSB to
influence non-governmental organizations in Russia.” 

Doe’s alleged role 
The FSB says Doe authorised grants to 12 Russian
non-governmental organisations, including the Moscow Helsinki
Group and the New Eurasia Foundation. 

While Russian intelligence officials acknowledged there was no
direct connection between those grants and the espionage that
has been alleged, the distinction has largely evaporated in the
fury of Russian reaction to the spy scandal. The British Foreign
Office has rejected any allegation of improper conduct with
Russian NGOs. 

Duma’s non binding resolution against ’spies’ financing NGOs 
Parliament's lower house adopted a non-binding resolution in a
vote of 401-6 Wednesday denouncing support for private groups by
foreign spies. "Such actions undermine trust in non-commercial
non-governmental organisations," the Duma press service said in
a statement posted on its web site. 

"The deputies believe such actions undermine confidence in NGOs
as a widely recognised important institution of civil society,"
it read. 

This month. Putin signed into law new controls over private
groups, requiring them to reregister and prohibiting foreign
financing of activities deemed political. Foreign leaders and
Russian representatives of the groups called the curbs a bid to
stifle political discourse. 

The whereabouts of the diplomats 
Diplomats caught spying red-handed are usually expelled
immediately, Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Moscow office of the
Washington-based Centre for Defence Information, told The Moscow
Times 

"The Russian government probably figures they will leave the
country themselves, because it would be very uncomfortable for
them to continue working here if they stayed," Safranchuk said. 

"If Russia expelled them, they would likely have one of their
diplomats expelled in return. Besides, Russia might already have
information that the embassy workers had already left" he said. 

Safranchuk speculated earlier this week that the FSB might have
planned the leak to Rossiya as a way to defend the NGO
legislation and might have been planned it as early as November,
when the Duma first started considering the bill. 

European Response 
In Strasbourg, France, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe on Wednesday declared that Russia's NGO law did not
meet European norms for NGOs, Interfax reported. 

Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the Russian delegation to the
continent's main human rights body, said he was disturbed by the
declaration, which he said "discredits the assembly." 

Meanwhile, another Russian-British dispute emerged this week
when St. Petersburg prosecutors announced that they were
reopening an investigation into the business activities of the
St. Petersburg office of the British Council, the British
Embassy's cultural department that offers fee-based
English-language lessons. 

An investigation into whether the council had carried out
illegal business activities was closed in July due to lack of
evidence, but prosecutors recently decided to reopen it, a
prosecutor's office spokesman told Interfax on Tuesday. 

A British Embassy spokesman said Wednesday that Britain
considered the investigation unwarranted. 

"We find the continued actions against the British Council hard
to understand," he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
"The British Council has made every effort to meet the excessive
demands of the Russian authorities." 

He said the Foreign Ministry had informed British officials in
Moscow of the investigation and that it was unclear which laws
the council was accused of violating.   

  Publisher: , President: 
Information: , Technical contact: 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 48 Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter: Renewed energy
 
  Monroe Elementary School fourth-grader Justin Meinnert turns a
hand wheel as fast as he can Friday at the Point Beach Energy
Center, which will reopen to the public next month. The wheel
Meinnert is turning is connected to a small generator that runs
a TV broadcasting a live video feed of him. Sue Pischke/HTR   
  
  If you go
 
What: Point Beach Energy Center

Location: 10 miles north of Two Rivers off State Highway 42 at
6400 Nuclear Road

Hours: 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday . The
grand reopening celebration will be held from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.
on Sunday, Feb. 12.
Info: 800-880-8463
Cost: Free
Online: www.nmcco.com  

  Reopening celebration will include 'Weird Science' presentation
 
"Weird Science" is the featured presentation for the grand
reopening celebration of the Point Beach Energy Center on
Sunday, Feb. 12.

According to Lauretta Krcma-Olson, Weird Science is a fast-paced
series of short, easy and sometimes "weird" demonstrations and
ideas on chemical and physical phenomena presented by Lee Marek.

These are designed to stimulate student interest in science.
Humor, videos, audios and audience participation are an integral
part of the program, which entertains while it educates, she
said.

Marek, from the University of Illinois, has appeared on the
David Letterman show 24 times in the last 13 years, most
recently on Nov. 14.

In addition, representatives of the Chemistry and Physics
departments of St. Norbert's College will present science
experiments. Members of the Point Beach security force will
discuss some of the enhancements made to plant security.

Family Sunday hours are 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Programs will be at:
11:30 a.m., 1:15 p.m. and 3 p.m. To best accommodate visitors
and assure adequate seating, free tickets will be given to
guests upon arrival for admission to the show. There is no
admission charge and refreshments will be served.   

  Monroe Elementary School fourth-grader Devon Seiler watches
model nuclear reactor rods rise out of the model fuel assembly
as he and his classmates explore the Point Beach Energy Center
on Friday. Sue Pischke/HTR   
    
  Monroe Elementary School fourth-graders Christopher Wittmus,
left, and Jacob Whitney research Andre Ampere, the French
physicist who discovered the magnetic field, as they explore the
Point Beach Energy Center on Friday. Ampere's name was applied
to a unit of measurement for electric current — the ampere, or
amp. Sue Pischke/HTR   
  
TWO RIVERS — For the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, the Point
Beach Energy Center is opening to the general public with no
advance reservations required. 

The center, located on the lakeshore 10 miles north of Two
Rivers, offers hands-on exploration of various forms of energy,
including a walk-in model of the nuclear containment building
found at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, fossil fuels and
renewable energy sources. 

"Immediately after the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, the
already robust security at every U.S. nuclear power plant was
placed on its highest level of alert. Access was initially
restricted to everyone but employees," said Lauretta
Krcma-Olson, Energy Center supervisor. 

When the Department of Homeland Security announced the threat of
terror had decreased, the Energy Center reopened to school
groups in the spring of 2002, but required them to make
reservations. 

Monroe Elementary School fourth-grade teacher Lora Lutz had been
bringing her class to the Energy Center for nearly 10 years in
connection with their science unit on magnetism and electricity.
She recalls security checking the school bus during her 2002
visit, and submitted personal information for background checks,
she said while on a class trip at the center on Friday. 

According to Krcma-Olson, the energy center was unable to open
to walk-in visitors until security measures were enhanced – as
occurred at all U.S. nuclear plants since September 2001. 

"The upgrades made to Point Beach security have made it possible
for visitors to come onsite without advance reservations," she
said. 

Lutz is anxious to bring her children, Stephanie and Brennan, to
the energy center. They are in third and fourth grades at
Franklin Elementary School, and have not had the opportunity to
experience the center. 

Monroe fourth grader Erik Newberg considers himself more of a
spelling whiz than a scientist, but he was "interested" and
"amazed" at the energy center during his class field trip
Friday. 

"I'll try to bring my family. They would love it," he said. 

The Point Beach Energy Center opened in May 1969, almost a year
before the plant began operating. When new training and
administration buildings were added in the late 1990s, a new
energy center was constructed, opening in December 1999,
according to Krcma-Olson. 

It is 13,000 square feet, and includes an auditorium, meeting
rooms and a 3,000-square-foot display space. The staff added
video and computer programs, and kept the displays unchanged in
preparation for the reopening. 

"It is beneficial for people to understand the operation of the
plant and the need for various types of generating plants,
including nuclear…," Krcma-Olson said. "Our Energy Center does
an excellent job of presenting this information in a way that is
informative, interactive and fun." 

The annual attendance for the Energy Center prior to Sept. 11,
2001 was about 27,000. About one third of the visitors were
students on field trips. More than 750,000 people have visited
since the first center opened. 

All nuclear plants have adopted the Department of Homeland
Security threat levels of red, orange, yellow and green, and
they continue to use those guidelines. Therefore, if the threat
level would rise to orange or red, the Energy Center would be
closed to the public and groups. Additional information is
available online at www.dhs.gov. 

Tara Meissner: 920-686-2137 or tmeissner@htrnews.com
  
*****************************************************************
 49 Nuclear Power Plant Cover-Up
 
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:00:28 -0600 (CST)

Go to Original

FirstEnergy Admits to Nuclear Power Plant Cover-Up
    By Michael Erman
    Reuters

    Monday 23 January 2006

    New York - FirstEnergy Corp. Friday admitted that some of its
employees made false statements to US regulators about safety violations
at one of its nuclear plants and said it had reached a deal with the US
Department of Justice to avoid indictment of the utility.

    The company's nuclear operating unit, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Co. (FENOC), agreed to pay a $28 million penalty to the Justice
Department and cooperate with criminal and administrative investigations
and proceedings. The penalty is the largest ever imposed for nuclear
safety violations in the United States, according to the Justice
Department.

    If the company held to its side of the deal, the DOJ would refrain
from initiating criminal prosecution or indicting the company for its
conduct related to the problems at its Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio.

    Davis-Besse, which can produce electricity for about 900,000 homes,
was forced to close in early 2002 when it was discovered that leaking
boric acid had chewed a pineapple-sized hole in the reactor vessel's
carbon steel lid, a serious safety violation.

    Two former plant employees and a contractor who worked on the plant
were indicted in Ohio Thursday over the alleged cover-up.

    The indictment alleges that David Geisen, Andrew Siemaszko, and
Rodney Cook worked to conceal the condition of Davis-Besse's reactor
vessel head and lied about the extent of inspections done at the plant.

    Geisen and Siemaszko could face up to 25 years in prison if convicted
on all counts. Cook could face up to 20 years in prison.

    FENOC said it entered into the deferred prosecution agreement with
the Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources
Division of the US Department of Justice, as well as the US Attorney's
office for the Northern District of Ohio.

    In the agreement, FirstEnergy acknowledged that FENOC employees had
submitted false statements to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
letters arguing that Davis-Besse could continue to operate safely and in
compliance with NRC regulations.

    It also accepted responsibility for the violation of law.

    "FENOC substituted its judgment for what was necessary from a safety
point of view for that of the NRC," David Uhlmann, chief of the
Environmental Crimes Section. "There's no place for that kind of brazen
arrogance."

    Uhlmann said he does not expect further charges related to the
violations at Davis-Besse at this time, but wouldn't rule them out.

    The plant went back into operation in March 2004 after FirstEnergy
replaced the reactor lid, made numerous staff changes at Davis-Besse and
revamped plant safety programs.

    FirstEnergy said the $28 million penalty would reduce its
fourth-quarter earnings by about 9 cents per share.

    The agreement runs through the end of 2006. FENOC said it intends to
remain in compliance with the deal.

    In September FENOC agreed to pay a $5.45 million fine proposed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the corrosion problem.

    FirstEnergy shares fell 59 cents, or 1.2 percent, to $50.92 in late
trading on the New York Stock Exchange Friday.
*****************************************************************
 50 Brattleboro Reformer: Welch wants Legislature to weigh in on Yankee relicensing

Brattleboro, VT 				 		 	 			
 			 								 					
Article Published: Saturday, January 28, 2006 -
 		   	 	
By KRISTI CECCAROSSI Reformer Staff

BRATTLEBORO -- A state senator once accused of playing favorites
with Vermont Yankee, is now getting tough on a plan to extend
the nuclear power plant's life another 20 years. 

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Welch, D-Windsor, has told
plant owners that he wants the Legislature to have a stake in
their re-licensing bid.

 Welch is also calling for an independent assessment of the
plant's safety and reliability, and of its health and economic
impact to the state.

 He issued those comments Friday in a letter to Entergy Nuclear,
plant owners; that same day, Entergy formally submitted its
federal application for license renewal.

 Welch's response was good news to local nuclear watchdog
groups, who had been critical of his role creating a bill last
year to support of dry cask storage at Vermont Yankee. Many
local activists, and Democrats, chided Welch for back-room
negotiations with Entergy. 

In an effort to smooth relations in Windham County, Welch had a
private meeting in Brattleboro earlier this month with nuclear
groups. Welch is running for the U.S. House seat held by Rep.
Bernard Sanders who is making a bid for the U.S. Senate.

 Ed Anthes, of the grassroots group Nuclear Free Vermont, was at
the meeting with Welch. He said nuclear groups specifically
asked the senator to address the licensing issue in the
Legislature. "I'm pleased with the leadership Peter Welch is
showing," Anthes said Friday. "Legislators need to show they're
working in the interest of all Vermonters." Nuclear watchdog
groups maintain that a 20-year license renewal at Vermont
Yankee, a 33-year-old reactor in Vernon, would be unsafe --
particularly in light of plans to boost power output by 20
percent soon. The plant is one of the oldest in operation in the
country.

 Legislative approval is not required for Vermont Yankee's
license renewal, although it is required from the state's Public
Service Board, a quasi-judicial board that weighs utility
issues. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must issue the
final OK for a license extension. So there could be some legal
questions raised if legislators try to participate in the
process.

 That is to say, the NRC ruling on the license would trump
whatever the Legislature has to say about it. Lawmakers are
anticipating problems; senators, including Windham County Sens.
Jeanette White (D) and Rod Gander (D), are working on a bill now
that would legally enable the Legislature to study the impacts
of re-licensing.

 "We're trying to get as much leverage as we can," said Sen.
Anne Cummings, D-Washington. Attempts to reach Welch for comment
Friday were unsuccessful.

 Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, said the law is apt to side with federal preemption
on license issues.

 On Friday, officials at Vermont Yankee seemed cool to the idea
of legislative review of their license.

 "We welcome an open discussion on Vermont's long-term energy
needs," said Robert Williams, spokesman for the plant. 

But Williams clarified that Entergy will only seek approval from
the Public Service Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

 In his letter to Vermont Yankee site Vice President Jay Thayer,
Welch wrote: "... we must perform a series of independent
studies that examine all of the health, safety, economic and
environmental consequences of having a re-licensing proposal. 

"... these should include assessments of: the economic impact of
the power plant, including an analysis of indirect costs such as
the effects on property values, health care costs, and the
environment; the health effects on local and downwind residents
due to radiation emitted from the reactor; and the
structural/physical condition of the 40-year-old plant, its
reliability and safety." 

Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., 
*****************************************************************
 51 London Times: Toshiba buys British to compete in China - 

Sunday Times 

1-29-2006


The purchase of Westinghouse will improve the Japanese firm's 
nuclear prowess, writes Dominic O'Connell

EARLY last Saturday a group of government officials and merchant 
bankers waited nervously at the City office of NM Rothschild for 
the arrival of three envelopes.

They contained final bids for Westinghouse, an American 
nuclear-engineering company owned by the British government. The 
sale had attracted little public attention - it had been 
overshadowed by the controversial float of Qinetiq, the defence 
agency - but it was about to bring a thumping windfall for the 
British taxpayer.

Fierce competition between the final three bidders had pushed the 
price close to $5 billion (œ2.8 billion), twice the original 
estimate and the biggest single receipt from a government asset 
sale since the auction of 3G mobile-phone licences in 2000.

The winner turned out to be the dark horse in the competition, 
Toshiba, which, advised by KPMG, beat fellow Japanese group 
Mitsubishi and the American industrial and financial giant GE. 
Better known in Britain for its consumer electronics, Toshiba has 
a tradition in nuclear engineering but was regarded as an 
also-ran behind GE and Mitsubishi.

However, Westinghouse was a must-win deal for the Japanese 
company. Speaking exclusively to The Sunday Times, Masao Niwano, 
chief executive of Toshiba's infrastructure systems group, said: 
"We needed to assure the future of our nuclear business, and that 
is what we have done. The price was a lot more than we first 
expected but Westinghouse is a key asset."

Japan has a well-developed nuclear industry but there is little 
opportunity for new construction. "There will not be any 
replacement required for 15 years," said Niwano.

Nuclear power has been out of favour internationally for more 
than a decade, after the accidents at the Chernobyl and Three 
Mile Island plants, and uncertainty over the final cost of 
dealing with radioactive waste. But growing concerns about 
climate change and fears of being held to ransom by foreign 
energy suppliers have brought it back to the top of the political 
agenda.

The big prize for nuclear companies is China, where the 
government wants many new reactors. Westinghouse is considered a 
strong contender. The jewel in its crown is the AP1000, a 
pressurised-water reactor approved for service by American safety 
regulators. China is thought to favour a pressurised-water 
design, and France's Framatome is the only nuclear group apart 
from Westinghouse to offer one.

To date Toshiba's plants have been of a different type, known as 
boiling-water reactors. "It (the AP1000) is a very good design, 
and we think we will be able to provide Westinghouse with the 
resources to develop it further," said Niwano.

It was the prospect of big business in China that hastened the 
British decision to sell. The Chinese will require power-plant 
builders to sign indemnities that could lead to "virtually 
limitless" liabilities in the case of future accidents, according 
to a senior source at the Department of Trade and Industry. "The 
government could not sign up to that kind of arrangement. It 
would be irresponsible."

Nuclear-industry sources suggested the Japanese government would, 
in contrast, support Toshiba. One soruce said: "I think this fits 
well with the overall Japanese industrial plan to move into 
higher value-added industry. China, India and other Asian 
countries can compete well on things like electronics, but it's 
difficult to catch up in a field like nuclear engineering."

Westinghouse came onto the government's books in 1998 when it was 
bought by BNFL, the state-owned nuclear agency, from the American 
conglomerate CBS. The deal was worth $1.2 billion, with BNFL 
assuming Westinghouse's hefty debts.

BNFL is now being broken up after a rethink of the government's 
nuclear strategy. The responsibility for managing Britain's 
nuclear-waste legacy has been passed to a new agency, the Nuclear 
Decommissioning Authority, and BNFL's remaining businesses, 
British Nuclear Group and Nexia, are also expected to be sold.

Last week the British government opened the door to the 
construction of new nuclear-power plants in Britain. It said in a 
consultation on energy policy that nuclear should be considered 
as part of a range of measures to ensure diversity of supply. 
President George Bush may hint at a return to nuclear power in 
America in his State of the Union address this week. 

Times and The Sunday Times. 

Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 52 Gowers' World: UK energy policy is just load of hot air - 

Sunday Times - 

January 29, 2006

SIR DIGBY JONES is normally a cheery fellow, not given to 
intemperate outbursts. But if you want to see the CBI chief 
reduced to a rare, righteous froth, all you have to do is mention 
Britain's energy market.

Better still, remind him that this winter wholesale gas prices 
have soared and it is touch and go whether industry will find 
itself facing power cuts in the event of a prolonged cold snap.

"People are saying that our only hope that the lights will stay 
on this winter or next is that the prayer mat will work," said 
the director-general of the employers' organisation. "I can't 
help thinking that `fingers crossed' is not the ideal policy."

Jones's anger reflects rising heat among his members about the 
state of energy supplies. Big industrial power users are warning 
that high prices and the prospect of power cuts are harming 
competitiveness. Some have told the government they have plans 
ready to switch production to continental plants if the switch is 
thrown.

And this in a nation that is still a big - if declining - 
producer of oil and gas, where only a couple of years ago it was 
fashionable to worry about low power prices and excess supply, 
not the reverse. It still comes as a shock to our self- image as 
a former petro-power to learn we have been a net importer of gas 
for a couple of years, and are on the verge of going the same way 
in oil.

But these tremors are only a foretaste of the problems Britain 
will face in securing sustainable energy supplies in the next two 
decades. So, as the government finally shows signs of waking up 
to the long-term challenge with the consultation exercise 
launched by industry secretary Alan Johnson last week, it is time 
for some home truths.

Home truth one: existing official policy on energy is a shambles, 
with a raft of misguided and unrealistic government interventions 
masked by a pretence of laissez-faire. As a result, Britain's 
supply is dangerously unbalanced - over-dependent on gas, and 
unable to generate enough low-carbon power to meet the exacting 
targets the government has set to combat climate change.

Home truth two: meeting the demand for secure, diverse and clean 
supplies in the next 20 years will require huge investment, 
substantial price rises for all consumers, and probably a 
draconian effort to force households to save power.

We have been living in a fool's paradise for years. We have to 
recognise that a combination of tight world energy markets, the 
increasingly antiquated state of Britain's infrastructure and the 
demands of reducing carbon emissions have brought it to an end.

Home truth three: this effort will push government into a new, 
more overt role in setting the framework for the energy business. 
That doesn't just mean taking the first cautious steps towards 
building a new generation of nuclear power plants. It also means 
resolving the contradictions built into current policy in a way 
that is both transparent and durable. Billions of pounds over 
decades are at stake. Business will not invest unless it is given 
a stable contractual environment.

Is this what the latest government consultation will bring? On 
the evidence of the past few years, I wouldn't count on it.

As one senior oilman said within my hearing the other day, energy 
policy in this country has long been "a bit of an oxymoron - like 
a family holiday". Hands-on management became discredited in the 
dying days of Old Labour (remember Tony Benn and the Advanced 
Gas-Cooled Reactors?).

In the Thatcherite 1980s, energy was to be left to the market: 
privatised utilities duked it out with arm's-length regulators, 
and perish the thought of a co-ordinating government hand. Under 
Tony Blair, intervention has focused more on climate-change 
targets than on security of supply. For the business of actually 
producing power and getting it to the consumer, the watchwords 
have been patch and mend.

In fact, it was always an illusion to think that energy was a 
matter purely for the market. Government sets the prices, 
dictates market structures and subsidises pet technologies and 
the consequences have been perverse and potentially harmful.

Take the "dash for gas" of the past 10 years. The industry built 
an array of new gas-fired plants without thinking through where 
the gas was coming from or how to get it here. The result: as gas 
consumption soared, Britain's production slipped, alternative 
supplies from Norway were slow to come on stream, and British 
companies such as Centrica - at the end of a long supply chain 
dominated by Russia and Germany - found themselves scrambling for 
gas on the open market.

To compound the problem, Britain failed to construct remotely 
adequate domestic gas-storage facilities.

Thus when supplies are under strain everywhere in winter we will 
find ourselves short, for the perfectly understandable reason 
that other European countries with gas in storage and long-term 
contracts prefer to consume it themselves.

All the while, the big-ticket decisions - What was the right 
energy mix for the longer term? What role for nuclear? - were 
ducked and deferred.

Labour's 2003 energy white paper was a classic. Instead of 
squaring up to the long-term issue of how to replace our existing 
nuclear plants when many of them are retired about 2020, it laid 
the main onus for the reduction of emissions on renewable-energy 
sources such as wind power.

I have not come across a single expert outside the green lobby 
who believes that windmills have a chance of meeting the agreed 
targets for reduced CO2 emissions - or that they amount to 
anything more than a small part of the answer to our energy 
problem.

Regardless, Whitehall is pouring public subsidies into them 
equivalent to the disastrous Anglo-French investment in Concorde. 
Meanwhile, CO2 emissions have actually been rising of late, 
thanks to a resurgence of coal-fired generation.

Against this background, meeting those pesky Kyoto treaty targets 
will come to seem like pushing a boulder uphill. Failure to 
deliver on key promises will make Blair's great climate-change 
campaign during his G8 presidency last year seem like - well, so 
much hot air.

So a lot is riding on Johnson's three-month energy consultation. 
Given the failures of the past, it seems an uncommonly hasty and 
flimsy exercise on which to base policy decisions affecting 
billions of pounds of mostly private investment, and intended to 
last decades. For the sake of Digby Jones's blood pressure, among 
other things, let's hope they get it right.

Backchat

What's the solution to our energy problem?

Tell us your views by visiting our online Backchat forum at 
www.timesonline.co.uk/backchat 


Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.

*****************************************************************
 53 Calgary Sun: Klein touts energy hub
             
EDMONTON -- Alberta will build a global energy centre by 2021
that will pump an additional $50 billion into the province's
economy annually, predicts Ralph Klein. 													

 The premier told the Alberta Chamber of Resources yesterday the
energy production system will include state-of-the-art refining
and processing, massive storage facilities and a world-scale
petrochemical complex. 													

 He said the centre, also to include electrical generation and
transmission facilities, will drive new industrial investment in
the province and smooth out Alberta's boom-and-bust
rollercoaster. 													

 "Like the song says, you ain't seen nothing yet," Klein told
the annual general meeting of resource industry executives.
"It's one of the legacies I would like to leave." 													

 He promised Alberta's resource sector will be "bigger, more
diverse and busier than ever." 													

 "In addition to the energy-production system, Alberta will be a
leader in technology development and environmentally sound
energy development," he said. 													

 A big part of his plan includes a shift to "clean coal" and
other non-conventional energy sources -- wind, solar and perhaps
even nuclear, he said. 												 						
 														 												 						 													

 Klein said he'll be outlining in his Feb. 21 annual TV address
and in the Throne speech what Alberta plans to do to encourage
those developments. 													

 But he said he believes new technology can be invented to burn
coal with fewer emissions and that will spur Alberta prosperity
since the province has a 300- to 1,100-year supply of coal.
													

 "A new day is dawning for coal and it's dawning in Alberta,"
the premier said, borrowing a page from speeches Tory leadership
hopeful Jim Dinning has been making around the province over the
past year. 													

 Klein added Alberta's coal seams also contain an estimated
500-trillion-cu.-ft. of natural gas. 													

 Conventional oil and gas and the oilsands will continue to
drive the province in the short-term as the U.S. becomes more
dependent on Alberta for a secure supply of energy, Klein said.
													

 "We're close. We're friendly. We're stable and we have abundant
energy sources capable of meeting the continent's needs for
decades to come." 																								 												 					
					 					 					
Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc.All rights reserved.                                 
                      
*****************************************************************
 54 Rediff: Put more reactors in civilian N-programme - US
 
Ajay Kaul and V Mohan Narayan in New Delhi | 	January 29,
2006 19:12 IST

Providing glimpses of the "difficulties" involved in
implementation of the July 18 nuclear deal, the US has said if
India did not put a "great majority" of its nuclear reactors
into the civilian programme, the American Congress would think
New Delhi has an agenda different from that of developing
civilian nuclear industry.

Even as the two countries insist that they were working to
implement the deal before President George W Bush's visit to
India in March, US Ambassador David C Mulford said India's idea
of separating civilian and military nuclear establishments has
not so far met the "test" of credibility and "minimum standard"
that would be required for the Congress to act favourably.
  + PM's US Tour

"The condition that has to be met for it (civil nuclear
cooperation deal) to be successfully negotiated is that there
has to be, what I would call, a credible separation of civil
nuclear from strategic," he told PTI in an interview in New
Delhi earlier this week.

Talking a week after the meeting between Foreign Secretary Shyam
Saran and US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns on the
nuclear issue after which the latter spoke about "difficulties
ahead" in the negotiations, Mulford said for credibility of its
plan, India must "elaborate" it.

He said India does not have to fully implement the plan, but has
to commit to it. "On the basis of that commitment from India, we
would seek to change the US law and we would seek to gain the
consensus of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in the world -- 35
countries that control nuclear technology and fuel," the
ambassador said. 

"What's a credible separation plan has to be something that is
sufficiently believable to members of the US Congress so that
they would agree to alter the law and, in a way that would also
be acceptable to the NSG of countries," Mulford said.

Though both sides are working to implement the deal before
Bush's visit, the ambassador gave some indications of the
complexities involved in the ongoing negotiations.
  + The Iran vote and after

"The credibility test has to be pretty high in order to get that
kind of support (in the Congress). For example, if the plan
that's put forward doesn't appear to put, you know, the great
majority of nuclear reactors into the civilian programme, then I
think, members of the Congress are going to say, wait a minute,
we thought that India wanted to develop a civil nuclear
industry. So if that's the case, why are they putting so little
on the civil side. They must have some different agenda," he
said.

India has 22 nuclear reactors and differences persist between
the two countries on the issue of how many of these should be
put in the civil side so that they could be brought under IAEA
inspection.

Burns, after his talks with Saran in January, had said there
were "difficulties ahead" and "much more progress" was needed in
the negotiations unique in nature because the US and NSG had to
make India as a one-off case.

Even two days back, Burns had said in Washington that there are
a "few issues" that remain "barriers".

After his talks with Burns, Saran had said, "We have come to the
conclusion that we need to discuss this in greater detail in the
coming days and weeks." 

Noting that the US knew that India has nuclear weapons, Mulford
said, "We are not doing anything about that. But we have to
understand their (India's) basic industry is moving strongly
into the civilian side. Otherwise, it doesn't match the game
plan."

He added, "We have to deliver a credible plan and that standard
has not been met yet."

Underlining that negotiating the deal was a "very complex"
issue, the US Ambassador said, "(There are) lots of points to
discuss and so on. But we hope we can."

Asked whether it meant the plan outlined by India at the
December meeting was not credible, he said, "That didn't meet
the test." 

  © Copyright 2005 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or
*****************************************************************
 55 newsobserver.com: Surge in nuclear power likely

January 29, 2006

The industry may benefit from federal incentives and global 
warming concerns 

Perennial cloud at Shearon Harris plant is water vapor. 
  
Wade Rawlins, Staff Writer The white cloud that billows from the
tower at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant contains the essence
of a nuclear energy revival.

The cloud is just cool water vapor, pure and simple, and it's
why the once-feared and criticized energy source is gaining new
interest. As attention focuses on air pollutants that are linked
to global climate change, nuclear energy's "clean" emissions are
looking good again.

When Progress Energy announced last week it would seek a license
to build up to two new reactors at Shearon Harris in
southwestern Wake County, it joined a growing list of power
companies that are considering restarting their nuclear
construction programs.

A confluence of events has spurred the renewed interest in
nuclear energy. Power companies face tougher pollution limits on
coal- and gas-fueled power plants, and they worry about the
prospect of new limits on greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide. Then last year, federal incentives for nuclear power
made construction appear more feasible.

Such attention to nuclear power comes after a quarter-century
lull, the result of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in
Pennsylvania. The accident raised public fear and distrust, and
caused utilities to cancel existing orders for new reactors.

Critics say fears of radiation leaks and accidents continue to
be justified. In addition, the industry faces unresolved
questions about the long-term disposal of the radioactive waste
that nuclear power plants produce.

But such concerns are dampened by growing alarm over global
warming. Scientists know human activities such as burning of
coal and gas are contributing to rising levels of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They think the
buildup of greenhouse gases, which trap heat, are contributing
to global warming but are still debating how quickly
temperatures will increase and how much.

As Progress officials look at what kind of regulations would
probably apply to a new power plant built to start running about
2015, a nuclear plant's lack of air emissions holds appeal. The
company will make a final decision in about two years.

"The higher the likelihood of carbon regulations, the less
likely you are to build a coal plant and the more likely you are
to build a nuclear plant," said Bill Johnson, president and
chief operating officer of Progress Energy, which has its
headquarters in Raleigh. "We are planning as if there will be a
carbon-constrained future."

Such constraints are already forming. In December, for example,
seven northeastern states reached a regional agreement to cut 10
percent of carbon emissions from power plants by 2019. It may
presage similar curbs on carbon in other parts of the country or
an eventual federal cap.

Growth and power

The need for more power plants to produce electricity is driven
by growth, and it's no surprise that the Southeast is leading
the revival of interest in nuclear energy. It has been among the
nation's fastest-growing areas, and it is projected to account
for more than half the nation's population growth between 2000
and 2030, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Progress said more than 550 people per week moved into its
service area in North and South Carolina in 2005. The utility
expects 300,000 more customers to arrive in the next 10 years.
That rising demand for power has prompted nine power companies,
seven with headquarters in the South, to seek licenses or
express strong interest in new nuclear reactors. Twelve of the
13 new reactors proposed so far would be in the region. Some
applications are for more than one reactor unit.

Progress Energy's announcement follows a similar decision by
Duke Power in October to seek a license for two reactors.

"Nuclear power is the single most significant technology
available to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, and it's
cost-effective," said Rita Sipe, a spokeswoman for Duke Power.

People in the Carolinas already get much of their electricity
from nuclear plants. Reactors owned by Progress Energy and Duke
Power generate about 45 percent of the power used in North and
South Carolina -- about twice the national average. Coal-fired
plants produce about 50 percent, and other technologies,
including natural gas and hydro dam, produce about 5 percent.

Self-promotion?

If Progress Energy wanted to build a new coal-fired plant, that
facility's pollution would likely push the utility over its
federal limit for certain air pollutants unless the output were
offset by shutting down older plants, adding more controls or
buying pollution allowances, said Dana Yeganian, a Progress
Energy spokeswoman.

In addition, utilities are facing the prospect that carbon
dioxide emissions may one day be taxed or limited, which could
increase the cost of building or operating a new coal-fired
plant. That makes nuclear power more attractive.

Not everyone is so gung-ho about nuclear's new cachet. David
Lochbaum, a nuclear security expert at the Union of Concerned
Scientists, a Washington-based watchdog group on environmental
and energy issues, said the buzz about nuclear power is the
industry's latest effort to revive itself.

"Ten to 15 years ago, it was the answer to acid rain," Lochbaum
said. "Now it's being repackaged as the answer to global
warming. If it could be repackaged as an answer to long lines at
the Department of Motor Vehicles, we'd see that, too."

What's different now, Lochbaum says, is the industry has strong
support from the Bush administration and Congress. Last year,
President Bush became the first president in a generation to
visit a nuclear plant, proclaiming at a facility in Maryland
that it's time to start building nuclear plants again.

In the federal energy bill passed last year, Congress has
offered substantial incentives to build new plants, including $2
billion in subsidies for the new generation of reactors and
government backing in case of licensing delays at the plants.

A shift in sentiment

Some environmental groups -- longtime staunch opponents of
nuclear power -- have softened their stance because of concerns
about global warming.

Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, a national
advocacy group, said last year that climate change has become an
urgent problem and that the nation needs to reassess all energy
alternatives that put less carbon in the air, including nuclear
generation. These alternatives include solar power, wind, hydro
dams, hydrogen fuel cells and the conversion of plant materials
to electricity.

Last month, the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of
the Democratic Leadership Council, said lawmakers should
acknowledge nuclear power's potential to reduce reliance on
natural gas and help combat climate change.

But Stephen Smith, executive director of Southern Alliance for
Clean Energy, based in Knoxville, Tenn., said utilities in the
Southeast tend to want to focus on nuclear power as the only
solution to global warming.

"They are gearing up in a big way to resurrect nuclear power and
are not looking at other alternatives," Smith said.

Another advocate of alternative energy sources, William
Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and
Earth Sciences at Duke University, said nuclear power should be
considered, but it needs to be weighed carefully because even a
mishap at a nuclear plant can have large consequences.

He said a radiation release akin to the 1986 accident in
Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union would render areas of the
Triangle uninhabitable for 10,000 years.

"That to me is a very sobering thought," Schlesinger said. "You
don't have to look farther than Russia to see that played out."

Schlesinger said comparisons of nuclear power and other energy
sources should include the costs of protecting nuclear plants
and fuel shipments, and of disposing of nuclear waste -- a huge
problem that the government has not resolved. A permanent
federal repository for nuclear waste in Nevada is years behind
schedule, and nuclear plants, including Shearon Harris, are
forced to store spent fuel rods on site.

Adrian Heymer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear
industry policy group, said renewable energy sources should be
part of the mix. But the U.S. Department of Energy has a
projected need for about 225,000 megawatts of new electricity
between now and 2025 in the United States -- an increase of more
than 20 percent.

"The problem is we do need a lot of energy and power going
forward," Heymer said. "It can't all come from wind. The wind
doesn't blow all the time."

Heymer said the flurry of interest in new nuclear reactors could
be just a start, if the first plants prove successful.

"It looks great on paper, but no one built one for a long time,"
he said. "We have to prove that we can build these facilities.
If we're successful, you could see a greater surge than what
you've seen so far."

(News researcher David Raynor contributed to this report.) Staff
writer Wade Rawlins can be reached at 829-4528 or
wrawlins@newsobserver.com.
   
 © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 56 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: There is no nuclear nirvana 

Today: January 29, 2006 at 8:18:49 PST 

Editorial: There is no nuclear nirvana 
A Bush proposal to fund researchers seeking an answer to deadly
nuclear waste is no reason for optimism, or to believe that it
is safe to begin building more nuclear plants


 President Bush has been using high oil and natural gas prices,
and concerns over generating electricity from dirty coal, to
boost his campaign for more nuclear power plants. Now he is
adding another justification -- an immediate future in which
technology will triumph over nuclear waste.

 Bush is putting $250 million into his fiscal 2007 budget as a
startup fund to initiate waste reprocessing, a technology
abandoned in the 1970s by President Jimmy Carter. Reprocessing
at that time resulted in an end product of pure plutonium, from
which nuclear weapons can be made. The fear was that security
lapses could result in the plutonium getting into the wrong
hands.

 But technology today offers the promise of an end product that
is a mixture of plutonium and another element, the Bush
administration asserts. This new mixture would supposedly be
more secure because it would be almost impossible to handle by
anyone except specially trained technicians.

 We believe Bush is being deceptive in citing this technology to
advance his push for resuming construction of nuclear power
plants after a 35-year hiatus. Nuclear plants sprang up around
the country in the 1950s and 1960s amid optimism that technology
would quickly solve the problem of highly radioactive waste.

 The country should not repeat that mistake. This latest
reprocessing technology is far from proven. In fact, many
scientists say it will be years, perhaps decades, before it will
be ready for testing. If dozens more nuclear power plants are
built during that time, and the technology proves unworkable or
too expensive, what does that mean for Yucca Mountain?

 Ninety miles northwest of Las Vegas and under construction as
the country's only burial site for nuclear waste, Yucca Mountain
is now stalled, owing to Nevada's persuasive arguments that it
wouldn't be safe.

 With even more nuclear power plants up and running based on the
false premise of a wondrous new technology, the pressure to
open, and even expand, Yucca Mountain could become overwhelming.

 This would imperil the safety of Southern Nevadans, who should
let Washington know that they aren't optimistic about
reprocessing.

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 57 Sunday Herald: Government set to reap profits of worldwide interest in nuclear power 

  By Matthew Magee 
 
 Nuclear energy has become a hot topic across the globe this
winter. In the UK, it may embroil Prime Minister Tony Blair in
controversy, but worldwide interest in the future of nuclear
power looks set to pay off for the government. 

The publicly owned firm Westinghouse has sold, subject to
regulatory approval, for more than double the expected price as
other countries consider building more nuclear power capacity.

When Westinghouse, the US subsidiary of government-owned British
Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), was put on the market in July, its price
tag was $2 billion (£1.12bn). This figure represented a healthy
premium on the $1.2bn (£670m) BNFL paid for it in 1998. 

But as oil prices rose and gas shortages bit over the winter,
nuclear energy raced to the top of the worlds agenda. Luckily
for the government, Westinghouse designs nuclear reactors and is
primed to take advantage of the imminent boom in nuclear power.
The companys selling price reflected that blooming demand: the
company was bought by Japans industrial and electronics firm
Toshiba for close to $5bn (£2.8bn).

The question on analysts lips last week was: is this a deal too
far for Toshiba? The company is seen as unlikely to take on the
whole of the debt in the acquisition and trading company
Marubeni has confirmed that it might take part in the deal. 

US company Shaw Group is another firm linked to the deal by
observers. The Wall Street Journal reported that Shaw Groups
participation would ease concerns in the US Congress about the
sale. Some government figures, notably Texas congressman Ralph
Hall, have expressed reservations about US nuclear energy being
in foreign ownership. A US partner could reduce opposition . 

The deals political sensitivity has led to lobbying by US
President George W Bush direct to Blair on behalf of General
Electric, according to press reports in the UK. Blair last week
denied any such lobbying took place.

The current agreement between Toshiba and BNFL is subject to US
government approval. The board of BNFL approved the deal late
last week. 

Trade and industry secretary Alan Johnson said last week that
the sale was taking place because it was not the governments job
to own companies such as Westinghouse. He added:  Westinghouse
is currently putting four nuclear reactors into China. Its a
very high-risk strategy and we actually dont think the taxpayer
should be taking that risk.

China is at the heart of the deal. There is a technology war in
the nuclear energy business and Westinghouses pressurised water
reactor systems have proved more popular there than the
competing boiling water technology favoured by competitor
General Electric. Analysts predict that China will spend $54bn
(£30.26bn) on nuclear reactors between now and 2020 in order to
service the power needs of its growing, and industrialising,
population. 

Meanwhile, Westinghouse itself appears to have a rosy view of
its future, no matter who the owner is. The company has
announced it will hire 400 new people in the coming six years to
add to its staff of 9000. It has even offered $1000 rewards to
Pittsburgh headquarters employees who recommend a successful job
applicant. 

Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert told a US news paper that
the company was hiring in preparation for a rise in orders and
because a large number of the companys employees hired in the
1960s were due to retire. 
29 January 2006 			 			 		 			 				 					

 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved 			 		
*****************************************************************
 58 post-gazette.com: Another U.S. energy firm seeks new Westinghouse nuclear plant

Saturday, January 28, 2006 By Christopher Snowbeck, Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette
 
Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear Operating Company yesterday 
said they want to expand an existing plant with new nuclear power 
technology from Westinghouse Electric Co., the latest in a series 
of announcements that apparently put the Monroeville-based 
nuclear plant designer at the forefront of a resurgence of 
nuclear power in the United States.

 The move comes on the heels of Progress Energy Inc.'s
announcement earlier this week that it was considering buying a
nuclear reactor from Westinghouse for its power plant near
Raleigh, N.C. In the fall, both Duke Power of North Carolina and
NuStart Energy Development, a consortium of U.S. utilities,
announced separate construction projects that will feature
Westinghouse technology.

 Westinghouse's newest reactor design, the AP1000, is the first
of the latest generation of advanced light water nuclear
reactors to receive design approval from the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Capable of generating about 1,100
megawatts of electricity, the AP1000 has put Westinghouse ahead
of competitors, Southern Nuclear said in a news release.

 Construction of the last new reactor in the United States was
completed in 1996. While no new nuclear plants have been ordered
since 1978, a year before the disastrous accident at the Three
Mile Island plant near Harrisburg, Westinghouse appears poised
for growth due to both domestic and international projects,
including potentially two dozen plants China is considering for
its country.

 Westinghouse is slated to change hands this year under an
agreement reached this week calling for its British parent,
British Nuclear Fuels PLC, to sell the company to Japanese
engineering and electronics giant Toshiba Corp. reportedly for
$5 billion. Westinghouse this week also said it planned to hire
400 workers a year for the next six to seven years to
accommodate growth and replace workers who are retiring.

(Christopher Snowbeck can be reached at or 412 263-2625.) 			
 [Paid advertising] 
			 			 			
Copyright ©1997-2006 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights
Reserved. 			 		   	 
*****************************************************************
 59 APP.COM: Reactor shutdown planned | 

Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Saturday, January 28, 2006
 	 	   	 	 	
COLD WATER A PERIL

Waiting for right time so fish remain safe
 Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 01/28/06 

BY NICHOLAS CLUNN MANAHAWKIN BUREAU

                                                 
LACEY — Operators looking to repair two key pumps at the Oyster 
Creek nuclear power plant are planning to shut down the reactor — 
as soon as it's safe for fish.

A sudden shutdown during a cold period would likely kill fish in
a canal where water that has cooled parts of the plant is
discharged. The fish, which are attracted to the canal because
it's warmer than Barnegat Bay, would die from a sudden drop in
temperature this time of year.

Plant environmental experts will watch forecasts to determine
when the weather will turn warm enough for a shutdown. It wasn't
clear when that may happen.

"When we think that it's going to get the warmest that it will
get for this time of year, we will take the plant offline,"
plant spokeswoman Rachelle Benson said.

To prevent a fish kill, AmerGen dropped heaters into a section
of the canal to keep it about 50 degrees. Fish are now kept in
that section with a special boom and a net.

Bluefish and other species that are particularly sensitive to
cold will be removed with fishing poles and nets and then
donated to Shore-area food banks, Benson said. Catches headed
for food banks will be tested first.

Stripped bass will be relocated to a different part of the canal.

Operators are working with local aquarists and government
officials to minimize the impacts of the shutdown, Benson said.

The plant on Friday operated at 53 percent capacity for the
third consecutive day. Operators dropped power after a motor
issue led to the shutdown of a recirculation pump. Oyster Creek
has five such pumps, which continuously pump cooling water
through the reactor. The plant can operate safely at reduced
power with three pumps, Benson said.

Because New Jersey is tied into a regional electrical grid, the
lights at homes normally powered by Oyster Creek will stay on
without interruption during a shutdown.

Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com		 		 		

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 60 Indian Point plan attacked

By GREG CLARY gclary@thejournalnews.com

THE JOURNAL NEWS
 
(Original publication: January 28, 2006)

WHITE PLAINS  The county executives from Westchester and
Rockland continued yesterday to point to what they said were
flaws in the emergency evacuation plans for Indian Point and
joined forces with four congressional representatives from the
Lower Hudson Valley to ask federal officials not to certify the
plan this year.

Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Harrison, sent a letter to the head of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency citing Westchester, Rockland
and Orange counties' refusal to certify the plan. The letter was
signed by three other federal representatives  Sue Kelly,
R-Katonah, Eliot Engel, D-Bronx, and Maurice Hinchey,
D-Middletown.

"We all agree that the current emergency plans are flawed,"
Lowey said at a morning news conference at her White Plains
office, accompanied by Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano
and Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. "This is too
important a decision not to include local input."

Westchester, Rockland and Orange counties have refused to sign
off on the emergency plans for the 10-mile evacuation zone
around Indian Point before, but that has not stopped federal
officials from approving them.

A spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the
plants, yesterday said the emergency evacuation plan has been
enhanced annually and "markedly enhanced since 9/11."

"We've incorporated lessons learned from exercises and events
from across the country," Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said.
"This plan has been tested like no other nuclear plan has been
tested and has demonstrated its effectiveness."

Steven Llanes, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, which controls FEMA, said his agency would respond to
the congressional delegation's letter at a future date. He said
he was not prepared to comment on other issues related to the
evacuation plan.

Asked if the effort to get the evacuation plan decertified was a
backdoor strategy to have the plants closed, Vanderhoef, Lowey
and Spano said there was nothing indirect about their effort.

"This is the front door," Vanderhoef said.

Orange County has refused to recertify the evacuation plan for
this year, while Putnam sent its certification letter last
month, according to state emergency management officials.

Orange County officials were not available yesterday, but Putnam
County Executive Robert Bondi said he felt there was no choice
but to certify the plan.

"It's a ... reporting of all the actions that Putnam County
emergency preparedness staff and volunteers have taken in the
last year to comply with our federal and state mandates," Bondi
said. "That doesn't say that the plan can't be improved or that
the plan will protect Putnam County under any scenario that one
could imagine."

Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms 
*****************************************************************
 61 Rutland Herald: Legislators seek to OK Yankee extension

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 
January 28, 2006 

By Susan SmallheerHerald Staff   
  			 
MONTPELIER — Vermont Senate leaders want Entergy Nuclear to get
legislative approval for the company's bid to keep Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant operating for another 20 years.

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch, D-Windsor, said Friday the
Senate Finance Committee would take up legislation next week
calling for the legislative approval.

Action on the bill, introduced last year by Sen. Jeannette
White, D-Windham, had been stalled for a year.

But Welch said Entergy's announcement Friday that it had
formally submitted its request to federal regulators to keep the
33-year-old reactor running prompted his action.

Welch said he sent a letter Friday to Jay Thayer, Vermont Yankee
site vice president, asking that the company support the
legislative review.

"We must perform a series of independent studies that examine
all of the health, safety, economic and environmental
consequences of having a relicensed nuclear facility in
Vermont," Welch said.

He said the Legislature should closely review the 20-year
extension and approve or disapprove of the plan. While federal
regulators have the final say on many issues affecting the
plant, he said, the state should by no means play a passive role.

"We can't tell a judge or a judicial body what to do," Welch
said, referring to the Public Service Board, which also must
approve the license extension.

Entergy spokesman Robert Williams said the company supports such
a review, and he pointed to the 2005 vote in the Legislature
supporting the company's plans to build a high-level radioactive
waste facility on the reactor site in Vernon.

"It is our view that the legislators clearly demonstrated that
they recognize the important role that VY plays in the Vermont
electricity supply. In fact, they supported our dry-fuel storage
by 113-5 in the House and 18-6 in the Senate," Williams said.
"As for the state Legislature, our interest there continues to
be in promoting discussion and understanding of Vermont Yankee's
role as a major contributor to the long-term baseload power
supply in the state," Williams said in a prepared statement,
declining to answer any questions.

Welch said he was "astonished" when Health Commissioner Dr. Paul
Jarris said Thursday he supported increasing the amount of
radiation Vermont Yankee can release into the environment.

Jarris' office Thursday released a report that showed that
Vermont Yankee could exceed state radiation exposure standards
by up to 26 percent because of its anticipated 20 percent power
boost.

Jarris said that while the department would enforce the current
state limit and was beefing up monitoring around the plant, he
said the current standard was not based in science.

"I'm astonished what Jarris said, as a doctor," Welch said. "As
a layperson, it's somewhat baffling. His job is to protect our
health and safety."

Welch said it is Jarris' role to enforce regulations, not to
make them.

White had said earlier this week that her bill had been "stuck
on the wall" of the Senate Finance Committee room since last
year, Welch said the issue should be addressed now that Entergy
has filed its formal application with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.

White and others had expressed concern that Entergy was trying
to thwart her legislation by filing with the NRC before the law
takes effect.

But Welch said that wouldn't be the case. "It's not a race to a
filing in a clerk's office," he said.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the application arrived via
FedEx on Friday and that it would be posted on the NRC Web at
www.nrc.govby Monday.

Sheehan said that it wasn't unusual for states to get involved
in the relicensing issue, even with the federal authority over
most issues facing nuclear power plants.

Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.
   
    		
© 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 62 Independent: Nuclear decision set for this summer 

By Jason Nissé and Tim Webb 

Published: 29 January 2006 

Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has
vowed that the Government will make a definitive decision on
whether to build new nuclear reactors this summer. 

Speaking exclusively to The Independent on Sunday, just days
after launching a fresh energy review, Mr Johnson said that a
decision would be made after consideration of the review. 

The review will last for three months and will report to Mr
Johnson and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, in April. At the
same time the ministers will receive an interim report from the
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which is looking at
options on what to do with the UK's nuclear waste. A final
report from the committee is due in July. 

Mr Johnson said that at around that time a final decision would
be made about nuclear reactors. "We need to decide now whether
to go down the nuclear route," he said, adding that the decision
would depend on "waste and affordability". 

In the document setting out the energy review, the Government
also warned that there were only enough known recoverable
reserves of uranium to last for 50 years. If the expected
expansion of nuclear power takes place, these supplies would
last for even less time, it said. 

The energy review cited the figures on uranium reserves from a
report by the World Nuclear Association. It added that there had
been little exploration for new deposits of uranium since the
mid-1980s and that new mines were planned in Australia, Canada,
Kazakhstan, Russia, Brazil and Namibia. 

John Large, a nuclear consultant, said uranium reserves would
grow as a result. "The extraction technique will improve to get
more out. There is plenty left." 

Prices of uranium for use in the fuel cycle have rocketed in the
past three years, from $10 per pound to $37. 
            

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 63 APP.COM: Oyster Creek not worth risk | 

Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Posted by the on 01/29/06
                                                 
Arecent "West Wing" episode depicting an accident at a nuclear 
generating station in California focused needed attention on a 
major problem with Ocean County's Oyster Creek plant.

In the TV show, the fictional president is forced to choose
between releasing a significant amount of radioactive steam that
is building up in the plant or risking a steam-pressure
explosion that would spew deadly radioactive contamination over
a much wider area — possibly across three states. He chooses the
former, learns the amount of radiation released is slightly
above EPA standards for acceptable exposure, but then learns —
as in the real world — there is no safe level of exposure to
radiation.

Oyster Creek's original design was flawed. Its containment
system would likely fail in a similar build up of radioactive
steam. That's why as early as 1972, the Atomic Energy
Commission's top safety official recommended that no further
Mark I reactors like Oyster Creek's be built.

Why do we have a bunch of short-sighted engineers monitoring a
deadly nuclear chain reaction 24-7 in the midst of one of the
fastest-growing counties in the country? So they can boil water
to turn a generator to make less than 1 percent of the
electricity circulating on our regional grid. And to make a
return on investment for a huge energy conglomerate.

Many people, including plenty who support the nuclear industry,
conclude the risk that Oyster Creek poses to millions of New
Jerseyans is just not worth the limited benefits. Gov. Corzine
and Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, both D-NJ, must
stand up and be counted with those of us who want to see Oyster
Creek's operating license retired. The sooner the better.

Jeffrey Brown

BRICK
           
  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 64 toledoblade.com: Ex-engineer, consultant face charges in U.S. court

Article published Friday, January 27, 2006
 
 Men linked to woes at Davis-Besse plant
 
By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER

A former Davis-Besse systems engineer and an outside consultant
who had been affiliated with the Ottawa County nuclear power
plant for several years are to appear in U.S. District Court in
Toledo today for their arraignments on criminal charges of
making false statements to a federal agency.

 
Andrew Siemaszko, 51, of Spring, Texas, and Rodney M. Cook, 55,
of Millington, Tenn., are to appear at 2:30 p.m. before
Magistrate Vernelis Armstrong, who will read the charges that
have been filed against them following a two-year investigation
by a federal grand jury in Cleveland.

 Mr. Siemaszko, a former systems engineer, and David C. Geisen,
45, of DePere, Wis., were each indicted on five counts.

 Mr. Cook, a contractor-consultant, was indicted on four counts.

 Mr. Geisen, who was an engineering manager with Davis-Besse
that isowned and operated by Akron-based First Energy Corp.,
before taking a job as an engineer at the Kewaunee nuclear plant
near Green Bay, Wis., is to be arraigned by the magistrate at
2:30 p.m. Wednesday.

 All three face up to five years in prison and $250,000 fines if
convicted.

 The U.S. Department of Justice accused them of withhold-ing
information in the fall of 2001 about massive rust on the
outside of Davis-Besse's old reactor head that was thinning out
the device and causing hairline cracks.

 Although the NRC admits being provided in 2000 with a
photograph that depicted heavy streaks of rust forming on top of
the reactor cap, the agency has said it did not know what to
make of the picture.

 The agency said that technical information written in the fall
of 2001 by Mr. Siemaszko, Mr. Geisen, Mr. Cook, and a fourth
person, Prasoon Goyal, was framed in a way to deceive regulators
about the extent of damage and the danger risk.

 Mr. Goyal of Toledo is a former senior design engineer at the
plant. He has agreed to testify to avoid prosecution, however,
as part of the agreement, he is to be barred from further
employment in the nuclear industry for a year.

 The NRC, in a separate civil action, has called for Mr.
Siemaszko and Mr. Geisen to be blacklisted from the industry for
five years.

 An appeal of Mr. Siemaszko's employment sanction is being heard
by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Two watchdog
groups, the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge,
Mass., as well as Ohio Citizen Action, have been granted
intervener status by that board to assist with Mr. Siemaszko's
defense in the civil matter.

 David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear safety
engineer, yesterday submitted an eight-page rebuttal to the NRC
in which his group laid out a paper trail, based on publicly
available documents, to support its contention that Mr.
Siemaszko was rebuffed by FirstEnergy in 2000 when he tried to
postpone Davis-Besse's restart to do more maintenance on the old
reactor head.

 The group claims the NRC's employment sanction against Mr.
Siemaszko is "baseless, unfair, and deplorable."

 "Everybody - Andrew, FirstEnergy, and the NRC - knew there was
boric acid on the head. They thought it was flange leakage," Mr.
Lochbaum said, referring to a type of leakage common at many
nuclear plants that usually doesn't result in
near-castrastrophic damage.

 "Now, they're blaming Andrew. It just seems that everybody was
caught surprised by the hole in the head in 2002 and everybody's
assumptions up to that point were proven invalid. It seems
everybody's guilty or nobody is," he said.

 "There was a pattern in which FirstEnergy set up people like
Andrew because it failed to give them the tools to do their
jobs," Mr. Lochbaum said.

 FirstEnergy has said Mr. Siemaszko needs to be held accountable
because he signed off on some paperwork in 2000 that said the
plant was ready for restart.

 But Mr. Siemaszko has said he was forced to do so under the
threat of losing his job.

 Scott Burnell, a NRC spokesman, was asked yesterday if the
agency's headquarters had any response to the public documents
cited by Mr. Lochbaum's rebuttal.

 "None whatsoever. It's before the [Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board]. It's a pending matter," he said.

 Cleveland-based U.S. Attorney Greg White and David Uhlmann,
chief of the U.S. Department of Justice's environmental crimes
section, said any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by FirstEnergy
senior officials would not have been strong enough to convince a
jury of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 The NRC's decision to unknowingly let Davis-Besse continue
operating until Feb. 16, 2002, six weeks later than the agency
staff's recommended date of Dec. 31, 2001, was made after
several days of face-to-face negotiations at the NRC's
headquarters in Rockville, Md.

 Contact Tom Henry at:
thenry@theblade.com
or 419-724-6079.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 65 TheStar.com: Big power sites are all wrong
 
Sun. Jan. 29, 2006. | Updated at 01:33 PM 

Big power sites are all wrongJan. 28, 2006. 01:00 AMCAMERON SMITH
Does the left hand at Queen's Park know what the right hand is
doing? More specifically, do people in the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing ever talk with those in the Ministry of
Energ?.

 Even more specifically, has it ever occurred to both that the
ground is shifting beneath their feet? That technology has
changed the way they should be planning?

These questions should flash across their awareness once two
facts are placed side by side: First, municipal affairs is
working on how to accommodate another 4 million people who are
expected to settle in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area before
2031 (an area from Lake Ontario up to Peterborough, across to
Orillia and down to Brantford and the Niagara Peninsula);
second, the energy ministry is planning how to provide enough
electricity to keep Ontario running up to the year 2025.

How electricity is supplied will, of course, shape how
development occurs. So far, planning assumptions at Queen's Park
seem to call for "more of the same."

This translates as building more massive nuclear generating
stations that will supply half of Ontario's electricity. It also
means a staggeringly high investment, which will require
maintaining the current, near-monopolistic control of the market
if nuclear plants are to remain financially viable.

What new technology can do, however, is free new developments to
locate anywhere and generate their own electricity, often as
part of heating and cooling systems. No longer need they be
encouraged to stay in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area where
nuclear electricity can be delivered easily and relatively
cheaply.

According to Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, big,
cumbersome, distant and vulnerable electricity systems  exactly
the kind Ontario now has  are about to give way to small,
flexible, close and reliable ones. Lovins, who probably is North
America's foremost authority on energy efficiency, calls these
new systems "distributed" or decentralized generation. The bulk
of their electricity could come from renewable resources.

Lovins' ideas are contained in a book called Small is
Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical
Resources the Right Size. Details are at .

He says "the economic benefits of distributed generation
typically raise (its) value ... often as much as tenfold ...
through improved system planning, utility construction, service
quality and avoided social costs."

It's the kind of system Spain and Germany are adopting. As a
result, they're focusing on balancing their distribution systems
instead of obsessing on balancing generation, as Ontario
planners are doing (because restricting generation to big sites
reduces flexibility in handling both peak demands and plant
failures). 

If there is a host of small generators, as in Spain and Germany,
it's no big deal if one isn't producing enough, because its
supply can easily be replaced from among hundreds of others.

Queen's Park should be paying attention and remember that Lovins
was right once before. In the 1970s, he warned that Ontario's
method of forecasting electricity requirements was way off the
mark. Ontario didn't listen, and the province overbuilt its
generating capacity with next-to-ruinous financial consequences.

Spain and Germany are proving Lovins is right again. Germany, in
fact, is closing down all its nuclear plants. Queen's Park
should go back to the drawing board.

Cameron Smith can be reached at .

Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
 66 Daytona Beach News-Journal: Nuclear power generating a comeback - 

Jim Saunders

1-29-2006

TALLAHASSEE -- For more than two decades, nuclear energy stalled 
in the United States.

Nuclear plants kept cranking out power, feeding the public's 
voracious appetite for electricity. But after Americans watched 
the ominous scenes at Three Mile Island in 1979, policymakers and 
utilities shelved the possibility of building new plants.

Now, however, nuclear is making a comeback. And with worries 
about the country facing long-term energy problems -- and with 
political support lining up -- utilities are looking at building 
a new generation of nuclear plants, possibly including one in 
Central Florida.

Progress Energy Florida is studying potential sites for a new 
nuclear plant, the first step in what could become a decade-long 
project the company says would help meet the state's energy 
needs. If Progress decides to build a plant, it would be the 
first time since 1983 that a nuclear reactor has started 
operating in Florida.

Though it might remain unclear for some time about whether 
Progress will actually build a plant, the idea of going nuclear 
has already drawn support from Gov. Jeb Bush and other state 
officials.

The issue is being actively discussed in legislative committee 
rooms and among state regulators. Supporters say adding nuclear 
power could be crucial to weaning Florida from an increased 
reliance on natural gas to fuel power plants -- a reliance that 
helped send residential and business electric bills skyrocketing 
this month.

"We've got to get less and less dependent on natural gas and 
oil," said Senate Communications and Public Utilities Chairman 
Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs.

Progress, which operates a nuclear plant near Crystal River in 
west-central Florida, expects to choose a potential site this 
year. Jeff Lyash, a senior vice president for the company, said 
one possibility would be building another plant at the Crystal 
River complex, though the company also is looking at other 
undisclosed locations.

Progress' parent company announced last week that it had chosen a 
site about 20 miles outside Raleigh, N.C., to possibly build a 
nuclear plant. But Lyash said that will not affect the company's 
decision about whether to build a plant in Florida.

If Progress and other utilities hope to build more nuclear plants 
across the country, they will have to overcome public-relations 
and environmental battles.

From a public-relations standpoint, the industry likely will 
encounter lingering perceptions and fears that grew after the 
partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. 
That accident, which was followed by a deadly explosion in 1986 
at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine, led to massive scrutiny of 
the nuclear industry.

Environmentalists argue that nuclear power is still riddled with 
safety concerns, including questions about the future disposal of 
radioactive fuel rods that are removed from nuclear reactors.

The federal government has long planned to transport fuel rods to 
a disposal site in Nevada, but the process has not started. As a 
result, many utilities, such as Progress, store rods in special 
vaults at their plant sites.

Holly Binns, field director for the Florida Public Interest 
Research Group, said the federal plan to move radioactive waste 
across the country would raise widespread safety concerns.

"It's untenable," Binns said. "It's unworkable."

<b>GROWING NEEDS

</b>The electric industry moved gradually in recent years toward 
trying to build new nuclear plants. But the movement has picked 
up momentum during the past year for a number of reasons, ranging 
from political support in Washington to worries about natural-gas 
and oil supplies.

Hurricanes in the gas-rich Gulf of Mexico, upheaval in the Middle 
East and surging worldwide demand have caused natural gas and oil 
to become more expensive. Meanwhile, President George W. Bush and 
Congress have backed the idea of building more nuclear plants, 
passing an energy bill last year that provided tax credits and 
other incentives for the industry.

Florida's power companies and customers have gone through a 
turbulent time during the past 18 months. With utilities getting 
hammered by hurricanes and unexpectedly high natural-gas and oil 
prices, state regulators have repeatedly approved customer rate 
increases.

At the same time, Florida's population continues to steadily grow 
and demands more electricity to power air conditioners, hot-water 
heaters and appliances. For utilities, that creates a fertile 
customer base -- but also a need to sink hundreds of millions of 
dollars into building power plants for the future.

Florida's problems are compounded by the fact that the state will 
become more heavily dependent during the coming decade on natural 
gas as a fuel for power plants. That is because utilities have 
focused on building natural-gas plants, which are cheaper and 
easier to construct than nuclear or coal plants and are more 
environmentally palatable.

Progress and Florida Power &amp; Light, which combine to provide 
electricity to most of Volusia and Flagler counties, already 
operate five nuclear plants in the state: Crystal River, with one 
unit, and St. Lucie and Turkey Point, with two units each.

Florida Power &amp; Light, which operates four of the five, 
doesn't have any immediate plans to build another nuclear plant, 
but it is part of an industry consortium that is working to help 
companies start building plants in other parts of the country.

"We obviously are very bullish on nuclear -- very supportive of 
the development of the next generation of nuclear power plants," 
said Rachel Scott, a Florida Power &amp; Light spokeswoman.

<b>WHAT'S NEXT?

</b>If Progress decides to build a nuclear plant, the process 
likely would take about a decade because of the lengthy time 
needed for planning, licensing and construction.

It also would be expensive: The first new nuclear plants across 
the country are expected to cost $1.5 billion to $2 billion each, 
with later plants likely to cost $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion, 
said Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the industry-backed Nuclear 
Energy Institute.

The federal government regulates much of the process of building 
nuclear plants, but Florida lawmakers also might consider taking 
steps this spring to ease the construction of nuclear or coal 
plants. For example, Department of Environmental Protection 
Secretary Colleen Castille released an energy proposal this month 
that called for streamlining the state's oversight of site 
selection for new power plants.

But Binns, the Public Interest Research Group field director, 
said she is concerned that such ideas could limit the ability of 
residents and local communities to influence plant-construction 
issues.

"These are decisions that affect communities for decades," she 
said.

Government and utility officials, however, say they are sensitive 
to the need to build public support before trying to add a 
nuclear plant.

"We're not going to put a nuclear power plant where a community 
does not accept a nuclear power plant," Bill Habermeyer, 
president and chief executive officer of Progress Energy Florida, 
said during a state energy forum in December.

But supporters also say the nuclear industry has made major 
progress since the Three Mile Island accident and that plants 
have proven to be safe environmentally. Lyash called Three Mile 
Island a "wake-up call" that changed the way utilities operate 
nuclear plants.

House Utilities and Telecommunications Chairman Ken Littlefield, 
R-Wesley Chapel, said time might be the most important factor in 
dealing with negative perceptions about nuclear power.

"Anytime you have a Three Mile Island or a Chernobyl or an event 
like that, it usually takes about a generation for that 
perception to be overcome," Littlefield said during the energy 
forum.

<A 
href="mailto:jim.saunders@news-jrnl.com"><i>jim.saunders</i>@news 
-jrnl.com

THE CASE FOR, AGAINST MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

PROS: Clean, cheap, plentiful.

No air pollution: Unlike fossil fuel-burning plants, 
well-operating nuclear plants don't emit greenhouse gases or 
other pollutants. The nuclear power industry estimates 22.2 
million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions were avoided in 
Florida in 2004 because 13 percent of the state's power was from 
nuclear plants.

Lower costs: While operating costs are similar, the cost of 
uranium -- the raw fuel for nuclear power plants -- is less than 
natural gas, oil or coal.

Untapped supplies: The Earth has limited supplies of coal and 
oil, and accessing them has geopolitical and environmental 
consequences. Nuclear plants could continue producing power after 
coal and oil become scarce.

CONS: Radiation

Waste disposal: More than 2,300 metric tons of high-level 
radioactive waste is temporarily stored at Florida's three 
nuclear power sites. The Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, slated to 
become the repository for all U.S. nuclear plant waste, will not 
begin accepting waste until 2010 or later. When it does, the 
waste will be transported there on railroads and highways, with 
the South Florida waste likely passing through Volusia and 
Flagler counties.

Accidents: Nuclear industry spokesmen and regulators alike say 
safety systems have vastly improved since 1979, when radiation 
leaked from the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania 
and a meltdown was narrowly avoided. But mishaps still occur, 
including a fire last June at a South Florida reactor; it caused 
no radiation to leak but shut the reactor down for 21 days.

Vulnerability: Security at the nation's nuclear power plants is 
high, yet some fear the potential for spreading dangerous 
radiation makes the plants and eventually the transportation 
routes inviting targets for terrorists.

SOURCES: Nuclear Energy Institute, Iowa Public Television, 
ThinkQuest.org, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Miami 
Herald

 			 			 
|  &copy; 2006 News-Journal&nbsp;Corporation 
bbnews-journalonline.com (SM)  
*****************************************************************
 67 Indian Express: 16 N-reactors, how many to declare? 

  India says no to US proposal that all power-generating nuclear
reactors be on civilian list; DAE asked to revert with how many 
 
  PRANAB DHAL SAMANTA     

Posted online: Sunday, January 29, 2006 at 0109 hours IST

['Kaiga: indigenous, operational' 

 NEW DELHI, JANUARY 28: New Delhi has said no to Washington’s 
proposal that all its power-generating nuclear reactors be put on 
the civilian list. With negotiations on the landmark nuclear deal 
going right down to the wire, India is working on how many—and 
which—of the 16 indigenous reactors can be put on the civilian 
list without affecting the country’s strategic objectives. 

India has 22 reactors in all, of which the six from abroad are
under safeguards. The remaining are indigenous, of which 11 are
operational, five under construction. India’s strategic
programme runs from the fissile material produced by its
indigenous reactors. 

The Department of Atomic Energy has been asked to soon revert
with the “final bottomline” of how many reactors it can put on
the civilian list. The urgency is significant, given that New
Delhi hopes to get back to Washington by early February with its
final position. 

In fact, Washington’s key interlocutor in the talks,
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, said in Washington today
that a deal is likely to be reached before President George Bush
visits India. He said that despite the hurdles the agreement has
faced, including opposition in the US Congress and the
non-proliferation lobby, and difficulties in negotiating
separation, the two countries were close to clinching a deal. 

“I think we have made a lot of progress over the last six
months. I was not discouraged by my talks in Delhi last week,”
Burns told reporters. “That (a deal) might happen before the
President’s visit.” 

Burns added: “It is my assessment, and I have been the one
negotiating this for six months, that we are very close to an
agreement.” He said more progress was needed on a few issues,
which were confidential. 

        The problem 16   
            

• Madras 1 &2 • Narora 1 &2 • Kaiga 1 &2 • Kakrapar 1 &2 •
Rawatbhata 3 &4 • Tarapur 4 
Under construction 
• Tarapur 3 • Kaiga 3 &4 • Rawatbhata 5 &6         
    
The key issue is that of reactors. At the meeting between Burns
and Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, the US felt that matters
could proceed if India simply put all its power-generating
reactors on the civil list. This was the method adopted in other
nuclear-weapon states. 

That’s easier said than done. For, in India, all these reactors
are dual-use in nature, for power production as well as for the
strategic programme. Barring one of the 13 reactors, all have a
modest capacity of 220 MW. India’s total capacity is 3200 MW,
far less than any of the other nuclear weapon states. 

India has been trying to explain to the US that it cannot shift
its strategic requirement to two or three reactors because there
are capacity constraints. 

Placing bulk of these reactors on the civil list would translate
into a negative impact on India’s strategic programme and it was
agreed back on July 18 that this aspect will not be touched. But
Burns, sources said, was also clear that Washington would like
to see an ‘‘appreciable proportion’’ of India’s reactors on the
civil list. 

Between these two positions, both sides are now seeking final
political directions. At the same time, India has indicated to
the US that it cannot place a “large number” of reactors in the
civilian list. In Washington, too, sources said, it is beginning
to sink in that the Indian programme is far too small to talk in
terms of huge numbers. 

And while both sides work through this politically, contact on
other fronts is continuing. US Undersecretary of State for
Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky will be here on Tuesday; it is
also understood that US Assistant Secretary in Department of
Energy David Garman is keen on making his visit soon for the
dialogue with Saran. 

—with Sujeet Rajan in New York

© 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 68 Newsweek: International: Another Nuclear Dawn - 

MSNBC.com

Nuclear power died in the last century, but things have changed 
since then. world leaders are now taking a second look at the 
atom
  
By By Fred GuterlNewsweek International

Feb. 6, 2006 issue - The story of nuclear power seems to have
begun and ended in the 20th century. First came the
fireworks-two atom bombs that ended a world war and announced
vast stores of energy in the fine structure of the atom. Then
came a new industry that promised electricity "too cheap to
meter," but instead foundered on high costs and inexcusable
accidents. Its epitaph was written in the 1980s, when only the
blind or the biased could still have believed that the hundreds
of billions of dollars invested in nuclear power was money well
spent.

So much has changed. The prices of oil and natural gas have gone
through the roof and are expected to stay there. Wariness of
major suppliers like Russia and Iran is forcing political
recalculations across the world. Coal is cheap and plentiful,
but it's a big source of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that
157 nations are committed to reducing. Environmentalists, who
used to be the natural enemies of nuclear power, are now busy
beating their drums over climate change. Energy demand is
expected to rise worldwide by about 50 percent in 20 years, with
growth in developing nations hitting 90 percent. Energy will
have to come from somewhere. It's becoming plain that the world
needs to exploit renewable sources such as solar and wind. It
needs to find clean-coal technologies. It needs to make
factories and homes energy efficient. And as leaders from India
to Germany have declared recently, it needs nuclear power.

Is nuclear energy worthy of a comeback? There's some truth to
the argument that 20 years ago the industry and its regulators
were beginning to get things right just as the public was
running out of patience. Since then nuclear research hasn't
exactly been a growth industry, but engineers have made steady
improvements. Reactors now being built, if operated properly,
could improve the industry's accident rate tenfold, according to
John Deutch, a nuclear power expert at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. New designs could do better. Advanced
boiling water reactors (ABWR), for instance, are made to work
even when they lose coolant, without overheating. Japan now
operates three ABWRs and Taiwan is building two. Pebblebed
reactors use uranium balls that dissipate heat so well they shut
down during an accident. China and South Africa are building
pilot plants.

Nuclear technology still has two potentially fatal problems. The
first is the so-called fuel cycle. Uranium fuel turns into
radioactive waste, which must be either recycled or disposed of.
Both options are problematic. Reprocessing puts pure plutonium,
the stuff of bombs, into circulation; and disposal is
politically and technically tricky. Scientists have tried to
invent a way out of this mess-one new technology turns nuclear
waste into fuel that is worthless in bombs, but it is unproven.
Proliferation seems destined to remain a diplomatic nightmare,
as the current imbroglio over Iran's nuclear program attests. To
contain the spread of weapons material, nuclear nations may
allow Iran and other countries to develop civilian reactors in
exchange for giving up control over the fuel cycle .

The other question is whether nuclear power is viable
economically. On paper, high energy costs create an opening in
the marketplace. But, says Deutch, "one doesn't know what costs
will be until real plants get built." Much depends on whether
industry and its regulators get things right this time-and
whether environmentalists and the public give them a chance. An
accident here or there may close nuclear power's second chapter
as quickly as it closed the first. This time the stakes are
higher.© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.


*****************************************************************
 69 Hudson Valley News: Lawmakers urge FEMA to reject recertification of Indian Point
evacuation plans   

Saturday, January 28, 2006 

Congresswoman Nita Lowey of Westchester and Rockland counties
Friday joined local officials in calling on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to refuse to recertify the
evacuation plans for the Indian Point nuclear power plants,
which have already been rejected by Westchester, Rockland, and
Orange counties. 

"Indian Point sits in the middle of a densely populated area. 
Our roads are overwhelmed during routine commuter traffic, yet
the Indian Point evacuation plans depend almost entirely on
roads and highways, Lowey said. If FEMA again certifies these
evacuation plans, it will be turning a blind eye to common sense
and serious safety concerns. 

Population distribution map is from the 2003 "Witt Report" 


A review of emergency preparedness at Indian Point completed by
former FEMA Director James Lee Witt in 2003 uncovered
deficiencies, including traffic-related challenges that would
likely result during an evacuation.  Wind storms seriously
impeded travel flow throughout the area last week when one major
artery was compromised, causing congestion on roadways miles
away. 

Lowey joined Representatives Maurice Hinchey, Eliot Engel and
Sue Kelly in urging FEMA to refuse to certify the Indian Point
evacuation plans.  The Members further asked FEMA to release the
criteria used for making decisions about recertification so that
local officials and residents can better understand FEMA's
review of the plans. Engel, a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, said, "FEMA  can not in good conscience recertify the
emergency response plan for Indian Point. Even in the best of
circumstances, an orderly and safe evacuation of the area in the
event of an accident or, worse, a terrorist attack, is
impossible. 

"It would be an outrage if FEMA were to certify an Indian Point
evacuation plan that has been rejected by the surrounding
counties as inadequate," said Hinchey. 

"The concerns in the Witt Report that have gone unaddressed and
the inefficient response to Hurricane Katrina have given local
officials practical reasons not to certify these plans.  FEMA
needs to acknowledge these flaws and work more closely with our
local communities to put adequate emergency preparedness plans
in place," said Kelly. 

    
  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's
                only Internet radio news report. 
  
*****************************************************************
 70 IRNA: Asefi says overall Russian nuclear proposal useful -

Tehran, Jan 29, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-Russia-Asefi 

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said here Sunday
that overall Russian nuclear proposal can be regarded as useful.

 Addressing domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press
conference, Asefi added that Secretary of Supreme National
Security Council (SNSC), Ali Larijani, in his recent meeting
with Russian officials, discussed place of uranium enrichment.

 He assessed Larijani's talks in Moscow as good. "In this round
of talks, topics of Russian proposal for Iranian nuclear program
were discussed.

 Asefi noted that Iran and Russia would hold second round of
nuclear talks in mid-February on details of the offer.




*****************************************************************
 71 New York City: Nuclear power plant shutting down to check malfunction
 
Newsday.com   
                        		     
January 28, 2006, 3:33 PM EST

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. --          The operators of the Oyster 
Creek nuclear power plant intend to shut down as soon as weather 
permits so they can investigate two broken pumps used to cool its 
reactor. 

One of the five large pumps, which circulate cool water through 
the reactor, shut down just before 9 a.m. Wednesday; the other 
shut down last summer. 

The malfunction is believed to be caused by a short in power to
pump ground cables, Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, told The Press of Atlantic City for
Saturday newspapers. 

"They're not going to know that for certain until they shut the
plant down and get into the containment building and get a
closer look," Sheehan said. 

The 630-megawatt plant in Lacey Township is the oldest
commercial nuclear power plant in the United States. 

The plant can operate at full power with one pump inoperable,
but with two down it was running at about 53 percent power last
week. 

Pete Resler, a spokesman for AmerGen, the energy company that
operates Oyster Creek, said Saturday that he would not disclose
when the plant is shutting down because it could impact energy
market prices. 

Plant operators will slowly shut the plant down so that the
discharge temperature drops by about one degree an hour _ a
process that could take up to 12 hours, said Rachelle Benson,
Oyster Creek spokeswoman. 

Meanwhile, the plant is working with aquariums, fishery experts
and state agencies to reduce the environmental impacts from the
shutdown, according to a statement the plant released Friday. 

___ 

Information from: The Press of Atlantic City,
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com 

Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press     
*****************************************************************
 72 New York City: Nuclear power plant temporarily shuts down to repair pumps

Newsday.com   
               
January 29, 2006, 7:06 PM EST

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) _ The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant 
has been temporarily shut down so workers can repair two broken 
recirculation pumps. 

The shutdown began Saturday at 10:22 p.m., plant officials 
announced Sunday, but it was not known how long the repair work 
would take or when the reactor would be restarted. Plans for the 
shutdown had been made public on Friday, but plant officials 
would not disclose a specific closing time because it could have 
had an impact on energy market prices. 

One of the facility's five large pumps, which circulate cool 
water through the reactor, shut down just before 9 a.m. 
Wednesday; the other shut down last summer. The malfunction is 
believed to be caused by a short in power to pump ground cables, 
officials have said. 

The 630-megawatt plant in Lacey Township is the oldest
commercial nuclear power plant in the United States. The plant
can operate at full power with one pump inoperable, but with two
down it was running at about 50 percent power last week. 

On Saturday night, plant operators slowly shut the plant down so
that the discharge temperature dropped by about one degree an
hour. They also worked with state and federal environmental
officials to reduce the environmental impact from the shutdown. 

Fewer than 70 bluefish died when operators shut down the plant,
stopping the flow of warm water into the Ocean County plant's
discharge canal. However, more cold-tolerant fish in the canal,
such as striped bass, were not affected, and workers will
monitor canal temperatures throughout the length of the outage. 

	 	 

Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press     
*****************************************************************
 73 Japan Times: Cheap ride on U.S. security

  Sunday, January 29, 2006   

 By ROBYN LIM

As a "rising" China presses on its maritime frontiers in the
East and South China Seas, tensions with Japan are increasing
rapidly because of the maritime basis of Japanese security. Yet
Japan thinks it can reduce defense spending, continue to rely on
the United States for its strategic security, and poke China in
the eye while expecting America to keep China on a leash. A
jumble of contradictions.

 U.S.-Japan base realignment talks are going badly, with America
insisting that the agreement reached last November is final,
while Japan is saying it is provisional. Yet Japan has no
regional friends. To the contrary, it has territorial disputes
with all of its neighbors. That reduces Japan's leverage in its
only alliance.

 Worse, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso misses few
opportunities to provoke China and South Korea. He may now be
intending to allow Taiwanese former President Lee Teng-hui visit
Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, where Lee's elder brother is enshrined.

 Because China sees Lee as a Japan-loving traitor intent on
splitting Taiwan from the motherland, such a move would be
tantamount to throwing a flame into an empty fuel tank.

 The U.S. does not want Japan kowtowing to a China that is
clearly intent on pushing the U.S. out of East Asia if it can.
But neither does America want to see Sino-Japanese tensions
escalate into a clash in the East China Sea over natural gas
reserves and competing maritime claims -- a clash in which Japan
would probably expect American support. If America starts to
think that this alliance is becoming more a source of danger
than security, it will begin seriously to reassess the risks and
benefits of remaining forward deployed in Japan.

 True, even the U.S. military would find it hard to contend with
vast reaches of the Pacific Ocean. Without access to bases in
Japan, it would be much harder for U.S. forces to project power
onto the East Asian mainland. The loss of bases in the
Philippines stretched U.S. maritime mobility.

 If America withdrew to Guam, there would be large costs, not
least because it would mean reduced U.S. ability to influence
events in East Asia. Moreover, such a withdrawal would be
irreversible. But Japan seems intent on making America think
harder about this option.

 True, U.S.-Japan cooperation in missile defense is going well.
Japan has also agreed that the U.S. can replace the
conventionally powered aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, home-ported
at Yokosuka, with a nuclear-powered carrier (because the U.S.
has run out of operational conventional carriers.)

 But Japan has also said it intends to cut the budget for
host-nation support by about 10 percent. Yet host-nation support
is only about 8 percent of the 1 percent of gross national
product that Japan spends on defense. Japan is also proposing
cuts in its defense budget. Many in America will see that as
near-free riding.

 In relation to Okinawa, politicians in Tokyo have been passing
the buck for years. They have never accepted Okinawa as fully
part of Japan, and it remains the poorest province because of a
lack of investment, especially in education. Of course, the
Okinawans know they are second-class Japanese, so they exact a
price in the form of the subsidies for hosting the U.S. bases --
welfare to which many are now addicted.

 But if American forces moved out, the Japanese military would
have to move in because of the growing threat from China. That
is the last thing the Japanese government really wants to do. So
Tokyo finds it convenient to have the U.S. provide security for
Okinawa and take the heat from those Okinawans antagonistic to
the continued U.S. presence.

 That does not impress the U.S. Marine Corps, not least since
Japan expects the marines to be in the front line if China were
to attack Japanese territory or Japan's vital interests. To
reduce the U.S. "footprint" on Okinawa, America has agreed to
remove the headquarters of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force to
Guam. But once the withdrawal from Okinawa starts, it might be
hard to stop.

 Guam has the huge advantage of being American territory where
an increased military presence is welcome. Moreover, the recent
U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have tested advanced military
technology that is rapidly shrinking distance, for example armed
unmanned aerial vehicles. The "tyranny of distance" in the
Pacific will not be forever immune from these improvements in
technology.

 Thus if Japan assumes that it is indispensable, it will
increase the risk that the U.S. will move to Guam, force Japan
to balance growing Chinese power as best it can, and refuse to
intervene until both parties have kicked each other rather hard
in the shins.

 Robyn Lim is professor of International Relations at Nanzan
University, and the author of "The Geopolitics of East Asia." 

The Japan Times: Jan. 29, 2006
(C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 74 [DU-WATCH] the killing fields: ghosts of the walking dead
 
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 13:23:48 -0600 (CST)

A Must-Read
==========
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11680.htm
The Killing Fields: Ghosts of the Walking Dead

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half 
million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in 
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard 
choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Oil, Simply Oil

By Manuel Valenzuela

01/26/06 "ICH" -- -- The story of Iraq and its people since 1991 is one 
of immense tragedy, of a fate cruel and evil that has befallen innocent 
human beings whose only crime has been living inside what was once the 
ancient land of Mesopotamia.  It is ironic that the land that first 
gave rise to human civilization has been made to suffer tremendous 
hardship in the last fifteen years, severely decimated and destroyed, 
its wounds hemorrhaging from incessant human cruelty.  The heart of the 
Fertile Crescent has become a barren wasteland, its waters, the Tigris 
and Euphrates, those veins of sustenance for our ancient forefathers, 
transformed into rivers of waste and pollution and decaying death, 
their fertility now mutated into toxicity.

Its cities and peoples, descendants of a civilization thousands of 
years old, rich in both culture and history, have been made to suffer 
the severe consequences of sitting atop modern humanitys most coveted 
natural resource, a black gold sought by nations and corporations of 
the rich and powerful north, a devils excrement that fuels economies 
and human greed, feeding apathy and wickedness, corruption and 
colonialism, and, as always, expanding comfort and excessiveness in the 
lands of the pillagers.  To those nations whose unlucky possession of 
oil has brought nothing but exploitation and misery, like Iraq, the 
black gold fever created has yielded a curse upon both peoples and 
lands, for in their strategic location exists the energy needed to feed 
todays wealthiest and most powerful nations.

These countries will stop at nothing in order to possess, and control, 
the drops and gallons and barrels and pipelines and valves and oil 
wells saturated with ever dwindling supplies of oil, becoming blind to 
the corrosive effects their exploitation has on both native people and 
land, in the process ripping apart ground, polluting environment, 
poisoning air, intoxicating water, corrupting leadership and condemning 
the citizenry to the sins of human nature possessed by greed, addicted 
to money and infatuated by power.

The destiny of modern Iraq was sealed millions of years ago, when 
fossil fuels underwent their natural evolution, over epochs becoming 
the black blood hiding underneath sand dunes and desert landscapes.  
Due to the changing patterns of an ever evolving planet, a land once 
lush in forest, jungle and one can imagine bountiful vegetation became, 
over eons of change, the vastly different landscape we are familiar 
with today.  Black gold replaced green Eden, to remain hidden for 
millions of years until that day when man developed the technologies in 
need of fuel.  This bone marrow, dormant and undisturbed, lay below 
ground, remaining unknown to primitive man for its use and capabilities 
had yet to be understood.

This resource, useless to peoples ancient and primitive, was to find 
access to the surface in the late 19th century.  It would be the 
beginning of the end for nations such as Iraq, their fate now in the 
hands of nations addicted to colonization and imperialism, for in oil 
the Western powers saw hegemony, control and advantage.  Thus, from the 
nadir of Earth the devils excrement rose, becoming, over a century 
later, a most troubling demon possessing humanity and destroying, in 
the span of a little more than a century, the planet's environment.

At the time ignorance made the effects of fossil fuel use unknown.  
Meanwhile, the northern thirst for oil, insatiable thanks to 
industrialization and expansion of economies, began to imprison, 
exploit and colonize the lands and peoples of the Middle East, 
enriching a few tribal leaders, making kings of goat herders and 
creating tyrants of former shepherds.  The market colonization of Arab 
and Muslim lands had begun, like a gold rush birthing a fever that has 
yet to stop.

In the process, lands that should never have been joined in unison were 
stitched together by Western powers ignorant to the regions history, 
culture and idiosyncrasies.  Rivals and hated enemies suddenly found 
themselves living in the same country, surrounded by Western imposed 
invisible borders, forced to subsist and govern together.  The 
traditional lands of entire peoples were without understanding divided 
apart or granted to other entities, thereby planting the seeds for 
future conflict. Ethnicities found themselves split apart by imaginary 
lines, with large segments of their populations living in different 
nations, their congruity eviscerated, their connections to each other 
severed.

Unwanted European minorities, for centuries oppressed and subjugated, 
hated and ostracized in their native lands, at times ethnically 
cleansed and nearly exterminated, were conveniently gotten rid off from 
European nations and sent to the land of the Palestinians, free to 
colonize a region for millennia owned and lived in by Palestinian 
indigenous peoples.  Given the right to oppress and ethnically cleanse 
native Arabs by England, who possessed the lands of Palestine, the 
European ethnic minority, claiming the land as their Biblical right, 
systematically began a campaign of terror against the natives, 
cleansing hundreds of thousands, murdering many and taking the lands, 
and wealth, of the Palestinian people, creating their own colony while 
occupying other peoples rightful land.

Thus, to atone for the sins of Europeans Israel was allowed to be born 
at the expense of the indigenous population, thereby condemning the 
Palestinian people to pay perpetual sacrifices and compensation to a 
people persecuted by Europeans, not Arabs.  In the dispossession of 
natives Israel was created, born in sin and human malice, a gift from 
England and Europe to make up for their past evils, becoming a short 
sighted endowment but a ticking time bomb in the much more important 
long term.  Today Palestine is a land of colonizers, settlers, 
occupiers and institutionalized apartheid, an area in turmoil and 
perpetual hatred, with Palestinians robbed of their lands, homes, farms 
and wells, imprisoned in walled and fenced-in ghettos and Bantustans, 
displaced and sent to rot in refugee camps and territorial hellholes.

Palestine has become a land of engendered revulsion, a place where two 
peoples are forced to live side by side under a history saturated with 
violence, oppression, plunder and a hunger for vengeance. It is a 
tinderbox threatening not just to the greater Middle East, but to the 
world at large. The manipulations by the British during the first half 
of the 20th century at trying to engineer a new nation governed by 
foreigners with only ancient continuity with the land, through the 
subjugation of the native population, was a clear example of 
forethought being but an afterthought, and today the world entire must 
bear the consequences of this foray into colonizing stolen land.

The lands of the Middle East were carved up by the great Western 
powers, intent on exploiting every inch of land and drop of oil.  They 
became colonizers, devastating economies, damaging cultures, 
impoverishing lives and pillaging wealth, both natural and economic.  
In time despots were appointed, supported and given comfort, named 
kings, princes, dictators and so-called presidents by leaders of 
northern lands unfamiliar with the ways of the Middle East, becoming, 
more than anything else, the tyrants, puppets and, most importantly, 
the strongmen of the West, able to maintain their power by suppressing 
and controlling their own people, depending on the morsels and crumbs 
given by the West for continued hegemony.

While they reaped the enormous wealth spawned by oil, allowing European 
companies complete pillage of black gold, the strongmen impoverished 
their subjects, ruling them with an iron fist, providing for their 
exploitation and raped destinies, with millions becoming severely under 
educated and, as a result, fervently religious, made susceptible to the 
fundamentalist teachings of mullahs and extremists. Tyrants and kings 
ruled unopposed, confident that Europe and later America would support 
their every move and decision.

Democracy and freedom in the Middle East became invisible and 
non-existent principles, far away realities seen only through the 
filtered media controlled by the state, promises made real only to the 
populations of the same Western nations that supported despots and 
incompetent rulers where oil flowed.  Elections are either non-existent 
or rigged charades designed to convince few.  The rights of women have 
always been relegated to that of property, with men allowed to dictate 
the destiny of females.  Liberty and human rights were and have never 
been allowed to cement themselves.  On the contrary, suppression and 
torture have metastasized themselves into Arabic countries, with full 
support and encouragement of the West, to the great detriment of 
millions of people.

The only interest the West, and particularly America, has with the 
Middle East is ownership and control of oil.  For over a century 
Western meddling in the region has concentrated on the availability of 
black gold. It has been to the great detriment of nations such as Iraq 
that its underground is saturated with the resource the West cannot 
live without.  Thanks to oil the people of Iraq, composed of three 
distinct ethnicities, mistrustful and historically spiteful of each 
other, have been thrown into a land whose Western imposed borders are a 
relatively new phenomenon.  Iraqis, along with all other Middle East 
peoples, have been forced to endure Western  and American  sponsored 
dictators for decades, with oil interests trumping those for freedom, 
democracy and human rights. It is the story of those condemned by the 
devils excrement.

Saddam as Both Friend and Foe

Saddam Hussein was for decades an American supported and financed 
dictator put in power to become the tyrannical glue that held Iraq 
together, for years doing as he was told, becoming Washingtons thug in 
power, free to do as he wished regarding the internal manifestations of 
Iraq, financed militarily and economically as long as he kept the oil 
spigots running and as long as he kept the price of a barrel of crude 
within the price range limitations of his handlers in Washington.

For decades he persecuted and oppressed both the Kurds and Shia, with a 
wink and a nod from the US government, enriching himself as he feasted 
on the spoils of Iraqi oil and American military and economic 
generosity.  It was good to be the prostitute of the empire.  When 
asked by Washington to destabilize Iran through war after the American 
sponsored tyrant and dictator  or shah  was deposed and the American 
Embassy  CIA station  held hostage thanks to the Iranian Revolution, 
Saddam embarked on a decade long battle against his eastern neighbor, 
using the vast arsenal of American manufactured weapons to punish Iran 
for its temerity in dethroning the empires despot that had for years 
been oppressing Iranian citizens, exploiting the nations wealth and 
pillaging its oil, all in the interests of the United States.  Saddam, 
in gleeful cheer, was to unleash hell upon those who had dismantled one 
of the largest CIA operations in the Middle East, a network center 
masquerading as an embassy where all orders to the shah originated from 
and where many Iranian internal problems arose out of.

As the war raged on the madness of Saddam became apparent, and, in a 
calculated and predictable move he, using chemical weapons technology 
supplied him by Americas government and corporate world, sent into the 
air WMD aimed at Iranian forces, killing untold thousands with weapons 
banned by international law, though with the full consent of American 
officials.  It was these same WMD that would later be used by Saddam 
against the Kurds of northern Iraq, again killing untold hundreds or 
thousands in the dictators bid to oppress a rebellious minority.

Saddam was a wicked tyrant, yet he was our wicked tyrant, and so not a 
word was uttered about his war crimes and crimes against humanity, and 
especially muted to our ears and made blind to our eyes was his use of 
American WMD technology against both Iranians and Kurds.  He was our 
evildoer, just like so many before and after him, from all corners of 
the globe, from Marcos to Suharto to Pinochet to Batista to Mobutu, all 
dictators whose hands were made bloody by the support and encouragement 
Americas government engendered. Saddam maintained power in large part 
thanks to American generosity and financing, much the same as dozens of 
US supported dictators have for decades.  It was only when he was no 
longer needed to further the interests of America that he became 
expendable. It was when his character exceeded his allotted power, when 
his ego thought itself capable of more than he could handle that he 
went from ally shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld to dictator and 
tyrant used to manipulate the fears of bed-wetting Americans.

Once expendable, Saddam became, like all once-favored despots and 
freedom fighters whose usefulness has expired, a bogeyman used to 
captivate the minds of American citizens.  Almost overnight Saddam 
became the reincarnation of Hitler, a dictator that prevented freedom 
and democracy from his people, a madman that had attacked his neighbor 
Kuwait, even though his neighbor was siphoning oil away from Iraqi 
fields and even though Kuwait had once been claimed by the peoples and 
lands of modern day Iraq, taken away from them by British interests at 
the turn of the 20th century and made a sovereign nation ruled by 
British supported monarchs.  The machines of propaganda had been turned 
on and miraculously, Saddams use of WMD was shouted for the world to 
hear, images of rotting Kurdish corpses used to turn friend into foe, 
his mustache spawning fear and insecurity in the minds of Americas 
citizens. The merciless engine of propaganda had been turned on.

Saddams mistake in invading Kuwait would doom Iraqi citizens for the 
next fifteen years, unleashing the human wickedness inherent in a war 
culture lacking the empathy and understanding of both history and 
culture.  Americas weaponized instruments of death and army of 
conditioned automatons devastated Iraq and its population during the 
Gulf War, bombing cities, decimating infrastructure and destroying the 
ministries of governance.  The aerial campaign, which in essence was 
the muscle of the war, dropped hundreds of tons of missiles upon 
unsuspecting targets, their potent payload killing untold numbers of 
innocent civilians.

Cluster bombs, banned by the international community, were 
indiscriminately dropped from the sky above.  Tomahawk missiles rained 
down upon homes and shelters and hospitals.  The terrorism of the rich 
was unleashed on millions of Iraqi civilians. It can be surmised that 
tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died at the hands of American 
terrorism, yet the real number will never be known because America does 
not do body counts, caring not an ounce for humans that are not 
American. From babies to pregnant women to mothers to boys and girls to 
peasant fathers to grandmothers and grandfathers, the toll of death was 
undoubtedly massive, for the aerial reign of terror was incessant, at 
all hours of the day and night.

It was in this war where the concept of smart bombs was introduced and 
experimented in, resulting in massive error in targeting and countless 
collateral damage.  Here in America, however, the spin masters at the 
Pentagon only showed us the minority of video that resulted in direct 
hits, becoming part of the propaganda that conditions and makes silent 
the masses.  Led to believe that our toys were performing perfectly, we 
were never made aware of the utter devastation upon Iraq and its 
people.  The misery and hatred and death and maiming engendered by our 
terrorism was conveniently whitewashed, made to disappear in a war with 
images only of smart bombs destroying their target.

In the end, Saddam was left in power, much to the detriment of 
millions, and much to the poor health of hundreds if not thousands of 
Kurds and Shia rebels who had been given assurances from America that 
they would be supported in their attempt to oust a clearly weakened 
Saddam.  They, of course, were betrayed by George Bush, Sr., which 
resulted in the subsequent slaughter of most rebels by Saddams forces. 
In his infinite wisdom, Bush the Wiser decided against sending his 
forces to invade and occupy Baghdad, knowing full well the consequences 
of such an idiotic move.  Instead, he maintained an aerial bombing 
campaign that would last until the start of the next Gulf War.

More cruel and evil than the actual bombing or the Gulf War was the 
economic genocide imposed on the Iraqi people under the guise of 
sanctions.  During the 1990s, under the rubric of WMD disarmament and 
failure to obey United Nations resolutions, Iraq was stripped of its 
ability to purchase and import vital medicines and nutrient rich food.  
For over ten years these sanctions debilitated Iraqs once shining 
health system and social services, creating an anemic organization 
unable to provide adequate healthcare to its citizens along with the 
necessary foodstuffs needed for survival.

Thanks to these sanctions, sponsored, supported and policed by America, 
anywhere from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 Iraqi civilians died, 500,000 of 
them children below the age of five. Dying of malnourishment, disease, 
illness, hunger and lack of medicine, where ordinarily under normal 
conditions few would die, Iraqis were made to bear the spear of 
American imposed genocide.  Quite simply, that is what the sanctions 
should be called in the books of history, for in few instances do we 
call the death of over one-million innocent civilians, half of them 
young children, merely sanctions.  Make no mistake about it, America 
stands guilty of genocide and mass murder, as well as in callously 
perpetuating a suffering never before seen in the lands of Mesopotamia.

The economic sanctions imposed devastated an entire generation of 
children, resulting in the death of half a million under age five as 
well as stunting the growth, and the development of the brain in 
millions more thanks to the unavailability of food and medicine.  
Collective punishment of an entire population was introduced to 25 
million Iraqis, most of whom had to survive on rations and through 
smuggled medicines, all made to suffer for a WMD program that had been 
abandoned and dismantled, as well as for a war culture that refused to 
feel the empathy for human suffering and the full consequences to its 
actions.  The human calamity that ensued is a crime against humanity, 
holding hostage millions who lay on the brink of death, absorbing 
immeasurable damage to body and mind, unable to escape the mass murder 
taking place around them.  Economic genocide is genocide nonetheless, 
and America should be ashamed for what it helped perpetuate.  Yet 
according to Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, the price 
[was] worth it.

During the next decade of sanctions, hospitals and schools fell into 
disrepair, sewers ran open and onto streets, the Tigris and Euphrates 
filled with human waste and garbage, electricity and food were in short 
supply and the entire population took a nose dive backwards in time.  
Meanwhile, the aerial terrorism that only wealthy nations can maintain 
never let up, resulting in perpetual terror and fear, not to mention 
incredible levels of stress and anxiety, and in the random bombing of 
homes and buildings and places of governance.  For over a decade the 
people and nation of Iraq was not allowed to escape the human hell 
brought to its borders.  The powers that were had decided to make Iraq 
an example, ruining the lives of its people, murdering 1.5 million 
people, letting an entire nation rot in the refuse of human decrepitude 
and to severely regress backwards in time a nation that had previously 
been among the emerging modern and secular nations of the Middle East.

With the start of the Iraq/Bush War in 2003, what seemed bad was about 
to get much, much worse, as the entire military apparatus of the 
worlds foremost war culture was brought inside the once ancient lands 
of Mesopotamia.  Thousands of tons of munitions, artillery and missiles 
have exploded inside Iraq, devastating, once again, homes, cities, 
streets, buildings, hospitals and ministries.  Though liberated from 
the reign of Saddam, Iraq still finds itself lacking adequate 
electricity, gasoline, medicines and other vital supplies.  The 
reconstruction promised by America has never and will never be 
delivered, as billions of dollars budgeted for rebuilding a nation in 
ruins have disappeared, pillaged by war profiteers and corrupt 
politicians from both sides of the ocean.

Anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 innocent civilians have died as a 
result of Americas occupation of Iraq, all dead because of lies, 
deceit, greed and love of the Almighty dollar, all dead thanks to 
incompetence, imbecility and ignorance, all dead thanks to America's 
silence, indifference, complicity and our addiction to comfort.  The 
occupation has resulted in a classic guerilla warfare resistance by 
Iraqis fighting for the freedom of their nation and the expelling of 
occupying forces.  This has resulted in tremendous suffering, deep 
insecurities and fears and an escalating cycle of violence, both 
against civilians and American forces, that threatens to leave Iraq in 
a perpetual state of violence and chaos.  The initial stages of civil 
war are apparent, and the real threat of Balkanization, where Iraq 
splits up into three separate mini-states, cannot be ruled out.

The Killing Fields

Meanwhile, all around Iraq and its cities a clandestine yet deadly 
killer lurks, invisible and unseen, devastating in its capacity to 
destroy human DNA, a silent death sentence that has and will befall 
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of unsuspecting human beings, 
both Iraqi and American.  This killer festers in the air, water, food 
supply, vegetation and ground, infiltrating the porous bodies of human 
beings, cementing itself for life.  It lingers on streets and rivers 
and buildings and homes, carried by wind and rain and through the daily 
weather patterns of Mesopotamia.

Slowly a land once fertile, an oasis between ancient rivers, the cradle 
of civilization is being contaminated by the ultimate weapon of mass 
destruction, poisoned, since 1991, by radiation equivalent to between 
250,000 and 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. Thanks to the thousands of tons of 
ordinance, munitions, missiles and bombs dropped during the Gulf War, 
and the tens of thousands of tons of ordinance, missiles and bombs 
dropped by America during the Iraq/Bush War, all saturated with 
depleted uranium (DU), the nation of Iraq is being destroyed from 
within by an invisible demon sent from the home of the brave and the 
land of the free. Many of its citizens are dead Iraqis walking, 
becoming ghosts of walking dead, unaware of the poison inside their 
bodies and the death that most certainly awaits them.

Depleted uranium is a silent mass murderer, a clandestine nuclear bomb 
whose mushroom cloud is never seen exploding, yet the radiation and 
heavy metals excreted from the weapons it envelopes when they strike 
their target, the heat evaporating uranium particulates into the air, 
become airborne contagions that latch onto our carbon and organic 
bodies.  It attacks our organs and our bones, our nerves and blood, 
mutating our DNA genetic sequence, destroying our immune systems, 
penetrating our reproductive systems and causing various terminal 
cancers.  It is the ultimate weapon of genocidal intentions, a perfect 
weapon if one wishes to slowly make putrid the human body, embedding 
itself into our DNA, guaranteeing that it passes onto the next 
generation of human being, usually resulting in macabre and grisly 
consequences.

Today in Iraq, thanks to the Gulf War, cancers have skyrocketed beyond 
the pale of comparison, leaving doctors dumbfounded how so many 
clusters of Iraqis with various cancers can exist when so few existed 
before.  Today the natural rate of deterioration of the body once DU 
enters it is over, resulting in an exponential and ominous increase in 
fatalities, most by cancer, disease and immune system chaos.  Depleted 
uranium used fifteen years ago is now being felt where American 
ordinance was dropped from the sky above, as lands, food supply, water 
and air once contaminated, inhaled and ingested release the WMD 
lingering in their midst.

Child deformities, stillbirths, mutated fetuses, miscarriages and birth 
defects have been springing up for quite some time now, as the DU 
embedded in the sperm and eggs of parents transfers over to the embryo. 
  The mutations taking place, along with the deformities now apparent 
yet hardly ever seen in human society, are gross distortions of human 
normalcy, creating beings the likes of which have never been seen 
before.  The photos of what DU can do to newborn babies and fetuses are 
available on the Internet. Entire regions, towns and neighborhoods are 
experiencing clusters of these mutations in their newly born babies, 
with doctors unable to explain the sudden rise in defects and 
deformities that did not exist previously.

What we are seeing is the beginning of decades of death in Iraq from 
the aftereffects of DU, an epidemic of radiation poisoning caused by 
American WMD.  An entire population has been exposed to nuclear 
radiation by America and its government  which has been aware of the 
effects of DU for some time  and soon the world will be witness to the 
death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iraqi citizens. The 
world has entered a black hole into a genocide that will possibly last 
for centuries.  We will see the Iraqi nations cancer rate skyrocket to 
levels we though impossible, affecting large segments of the populace, 
as well as the subsequent deaths of terminally ill patients, most of 
them children whose bodies have embedded inside them the deadly 
remnants of their parents depleted uranium.  We will witness, as we 
already can through the grisly photos of DU mutations in babies, the 
horrific rise in child birth defects and deformities and miscarriages 
and stillbirths that are already causing thousands of potential Iraqi 
parents to strongly consider ever giving birth for fear of producing in 
their child a gross distortion of a human baby.

The devastating increase in malignancies and cancers, now a great 
worry, will in the next few decades grow exponentially, laying waste to 
a large segment of the Iraqi population.  In essence, they have been 
given a death sentence by George W. Bush, who, when future historians 
see the complete damage DU has caused, will be compared to Hitler, 
Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao in terms of numbers of murders committed, 
easily surpassing the 1.5 million dead Iraqis as a result of Americas 
economic genocide of the 1990s.

Millions of Iraqis, forced through the consequence of their lives to 
live inside the smoldering radiation that is Iraq, unable to leave a 
land now poisoned and made toxic through Americas weapons of death and 
destruction, will have to face a future of uncertainty and trepidation, 
slowly becoming aware, if they are not already, that inside them lives 
a WMD that can not only kill them, but their sexual partner as well 
along with severely deforming any child they might decide to bring into 
this world. Inside a bubble of death they will live, forever to breathe 
the particulates of a pestilence first imported in 1991, unable to 
escape its damaging grip on organic human bodies.

Iraq has been transformed into a vast killing field, a wasteland 
overrun by the remnants of Americas silent WMD, a cheap and money 
saving weapon devastating to the human body, capable of killing perhaps 
millions of innocent human beings, capable of altering entire genetic 
sequences resulting in the severe birth defects, stillbirths, 
miscarriages and deformities now appearing almost daily in Iraq. The 
Cradle of Civilization has transmuted into the Iraqi Killing Fields, a 
place where only death and disease now prosper, where millions of 
walking dead stir up the dust of the same killer elements that will 
invariably leave them without life.

How many will eventually die in the next ten, twenty, thirty, fifty 
years?  How many Iraqis have been sentenced to death, becoming dead men 
and women walking, not knowing when or if the silent WMD will strike 
them ill or dead, not knowing if they will produce a grossly deformed 
human child whose few days living will be remembered for the 
devastation of its genetic blueprint?  Are the walking dead living 
cadavers waiting only for time to take its course and destiny to 
fulfill its mission? Will entire generations of Iraqi children be 
prevented from living thanks to their premature death and gross 
deformities, never having a chance at life thanks to embedded WMD in 
their parents bodies?  Are we seeing the last remaining lines of 
Iraqis distinctive ethnicity, with those now living becoming the last 
vestiges of what was once considered an Iraqi?

It is not necessary to construct gas chambers, incinerators, gulags or 
concentration camps to exterminate millions of human beings. We are 
seeing this reality today in Iraq, in multiple forms, in degenerate 
warfare, in countless acts of war crimes and crimes against humanity 
being perpetrated by American forces. In the end, millions have and 
will die at the hands of America and George W. Bush, some quicker than 
others, some in silent placidness and some in terrible agony, some by 
bullets and bombs, some by water-borne disease and malnourishment, some 
by radiation-filled cancers, mutated deformities and destroyed immune 
systems. The seeds of the Iraq Holocaust have been firmly planted in 
the now barren lands of the Fertile Crescent.

The Killing Fields of Iraq have risen like a phoenix torched by the 
radiation of depleted uranium, its invisible mist traversing barren 
desert and congested cities looking for organic bodies to invade.  Its 
poison will last 4.5 billion years, lingering in the environs of 
Mesopotamia and beyond, traveling by wind and weather and water, 
exporting Iraqs misery to other lands and peoples.  In silence and 
clandestine suffering disease and cancer and deformities will permeate 
Iraqi society, hovering like a never ending cloud cover inside Iraq, 
millions made to suffer the consequences of American made depleted 
uranium and George W. Bush imported misery.

The Killing Fields will in the next few decades take the life of tens 
of thousands, certainly, millions, perhaps.  Yet it will not only be 
Iraqis made to suffer the consequences of Americas invisible yet 
devastating nuclear war upon Iraq.  Already, 11,000 American soldiers, 
veterans of the first Gulf War, have died thanks to Gulf War Syndrome, 
cancer and disease.  Over 350,000 veterans, out of 700,000 who served, 
have asked for serious disability, most of these veterans being in 
their late twenties and early thirties, in the prime of their lives, 
cleared as healthy before the war in military conducted medical 
physicals.  Depleted Uranium is the most likely culprit, as many more 
get diagnosed with terminal diseases and illnesses every year.  Many 
veterans of Gulf War One and now the Iraq/Bush War have themselves been 
giving birth to deformed and defective children, much like their Iraqi 
counterparts.

Depleted Uranium, it seems, does not discriminate nor does it need a 
passport to infect human beings.  It has been imported into America by 
our returning soldiers, a great percentage of which most likely have 
remnants of depleted uranium buried deep inside them.  How many 
American veterans of Gulf War One and the Iraq/Bush War will in the 
next few decades succumb to cancer or destroyed immune systems?  How 
many of their children will be born like those in Iraq, unable to live 
more than a few days or months because their bodies are infested with 
DU, their appearance no longer presenting the appearance of a human 
child?

It is estimated that 40,000 to 80,000 more veterans will die in the 
next twenty to thirty years as the effects of DU run their course. How 
many more will produce offspring with genetic birth defects, gross 
mutations of fetuses, miscarriages and stillborns?  So much for Bushs 
hypocritical culture of life.  How many of our soldiers and veterans 
are dead men and women walking, waiting out a cruel game of DU lottery, 
hoping their bodies were spared the poison now rampant in Iraq? How 
many will have their lives altered, never to regain normalcy, never 
able to bear children, always to wonder if they will be next to fall.

The Killing Fields of Iraq do not discriminate and they do not stop at 
the border.  They do not bother with uniform colors or the crossing of 
oceans. They are the deadly consequence of criminality and 
indifference, of greed and emphasis on the bottom line.  Sadly, the 
nuclear silence now deafening in Iraq will alter the course of Iraqi 
history, not to mention the lives of thousands of Americans veterans 
who, after a year or perhaps five of living normal lives, will begin 
feeling the damage DU is doing to their body.

Depleted Uranium is but the next stage in Americas indifference to the 
Arab world, an indifference that has lasted decades, with the US 
concerned only for the Middle Easts vast yet dwindling oil wealth, not 
its human capital nor its interest in freedom, democracy or human 
rights.  In a twisted form of karma, DU has returned the favor to 
thousands of American soldiers, returning its deadly poison back to the 
same nation that created it, penetrating the porous skin and bodies of 
soldiers once occupying Iraq, now a land devastated with the invisible 
radiation of American DU ordinance. It has attached itself to our 
soldiers, in time to haunt their health and their families, possibly 
becoming manifest in the deformities of American babies.

Only the future knows who and how many Iraqis and Americans will be 
forced to confront premature death.  Many will never know what happened 
to them.  Many will come to the realization that the great military 
industrial complex, putting profit over people, as it usually does, and 
Americas upper echelons of governance, straight from the Pentagon and 
Oval Office, knowing full well the dangers of DU, nonetheless decided 
to commandeer the future lives of millions, deciding the lives of Iraqi 
civilians and American soldiers were not worth the millions of dollars 
saved by using cheaper DU.

The great sadness is that the Iraq Killing Fields, with its ghosts of 
walking dead, will remain unknown to the vast percentage of humanity, 
for this scandal will never be allowed to see the light of day, neither 
by Americas government or the corporate world that owns both it and 
the media.  Greater in scope than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the potential 
number of deaths greater than some evildoers of times past, Iraqs 
Killing Fields will continue killing and deforming, mutating DNA and 
inflicting untold levels of misery, simply because of its clandestine 
approach to death, its silent and whispered calls to disease.  Its 
secrecy and cover-up will only be surpassed by its criminality and by 
the complete callousness of government officials to the plight they 
helped birth.

There will be no blood and no violence, no bombs or bullets, though 
abundant suffering.  The calamity will not bleed, so it will not lead.  
It will be boring to the average American, becoming an unspoken 
genocide free of the violence we are so addicted to and enamored with.  
The front lines of this battle will be inside hospitals and in the 
homes of the afflicted, left to confront a destiny not of their own 
choosing, unable to understand how an invisible weapon of mass 
destruction could be allowed to be used on civilians and on cities, on 
humans and on soldiers on both sides.  Many will die in disbelief, 
their lives wasted, slowly rotting from the inside out, seeing their 
babies deformed, born stillborn or mutated, their last remaining years 
spent living as ghosts of walking dead, becoming prisoners only of time 
and of anger.

Iraqs Killing Fields are as real as the sun, as dangerous as a nuclear 
weapon, as devastating as any plague.  The devastation taking place 
inside it is anathema to humanity, a war crime and crime against 
humanity, a malfeasant manifestation by Machiavellian miscreants.  If 
the world entire were made aware of its seriousness, of its criminality 
and of the callousness of American leaders the backlash would be a 
giant tsunami of anger.  Alas, the quietness of the crime will be 
elevated, and silence will be the only noise emanating from the plains 
of the Killing Fields.

Meanwhile, the Killing Fields of Iraq continue to radiate their toxic 
and deadly poisons, contaminating more Iraqis and Americans with each 
passing day, like a parasite forever attaching radiation and heavy 
metals inside human hosts.  Only in 4.5 billion years will DU 
disappear, by then humanity will have ceased to exist.  Iraqis Ghosts 
of Walking Dead await humanitys attention, wanting nothing more than 
to receive assistance in combating a silent yet devastating killer that 
is forever altering the Iraqi landscape.

Mired by decades of war with Iran and later the United States, 1.5 
million of its citizens, including 500,000 children dead due to 
economic genocide, 100,000 to 200,000 dead due to American invasion and 
occupation, and now afflicted by an enemy they can neither see nor 
touch, the Ghosts of Walking Dead await our response to their hushed 
and clandestine call for help.  In their whispered plea can we see a 
perpetual future of cancer, death, disease, mutation, deformity and 
entire generations now endangered and at serious risk of devastation. 
In their whispered plea can we also see what might happen to tens of 
thousands of our own men and women, themselves hosts carrying the 
demons of the Iraqi Killing Fields back home.

The Killing Fields can be felt, their warm winds echoing the cries for 
help, their plains saturated with the clouds of poison, and of outrage, 
seeking our full attention in understanding a silent and clandestine 
genocide taking place where fertility once permeated and where the 
cradle of civilization once nurtured us before sending us all on our 
way to all corners of the planet and to most uncertain destinies.

Is the price of what America has done in our name worth our silence and 
indifference?
--------
Manuel Valenzuela is a social critic and commentator, international 
affairs analyst, current events observer, Internet columnist and author 
of Echoes in the Wind, a novel now published by Authorhouse.com. His 
articles appear regularly at his blog, 
http://valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com and at 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info as well as at other 
alternative news websites from around the globe. Mr. Valenzuela 
welcomes comments and can be reached at manuel@valenzuelas.net

		
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
		
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
*****************************************************************
 75 PI: FRENCH POLYNESIA: Nuclear-Test Workers Demand France Change Its Attitude 

Pacific Islands: PINA and Pacific 

Monday: January 30, 2006 

The head of an association of former workers of nuclear test
sites in French Polynesia has called on France to change its
attitude. 

Roland Oldham, president of the Moruroa E Tatou Association,
also called on France to shed more light on the combined
atmospheric and underground nuclear testing programme conducted
between 1966 and 1996, Tahiti Presse reports. 

Mr Oldham's comment is the latest in an intensified public
debate over effects of nuclear testing in a remote part of the
Tuamotu Archipelago. 

The debate has been revived as a result of leaked copies this
past week of a report drawn up after six months of work by a
French Polynesia Assembly inquiry committee. 

The report is due to be made public at the 09 Feb Legislative
Assembly session. 

For Mr Oldham, whose association campaigned for the Temaru
government to create the inquiry committee, there is still a
long way to go before the French State “recognises the damage to
the health and the environment” that he claims were caused by
the nuclear tests. 

”The Ministry of Defense did not change its position an inch,”
Oldham said. 

“It should be known that France blocked the inquiry committee by
not allowing permission to go to Moruroa and Fangataufa.” 

The two Tuamotu atolls 1,200 kms (720 miles) southeast of
Papeete were the locations for France’s 41 atmospheric and 140
underground tests. 

The French Defense Ministry did not provide the inquiry
committee with access to the meteorological data for the 30-year
period during which tests were conducted, Oldham said. 

“France's attitude has not changed even in the face of
overwhelming proof.” 

Former nuclear testing site workers are awaiting conclusions of
the Assembly's inquiry committee before they pursue their
demands for financial compensation. Mr Oldham said his
association plans to put pressure on the government of President
Oscar Temaru, a long time opponent of French nuclear testing in
French Polynesia, to seek independence from
France….TAHITIPRESSE/PNS   

        
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
*****************************************************************
 76 KBCI: Idaho Downwinders Hold Vigil On Statehouse Steps

2 Boise, Idaho

January 27, 2006

By Sarah Dallof

  BOISE -   

A vigil was held Friday night on the steps of the Idaho
Statehouse to mark the 55th anniversary of the first nuclear
test conducted at the Nevada Test Site. 

About 30 members of the group Idaho Downwinders and their
supporters attended the vigil. They carried signs and
photographs of loved ones who have passed away from illnesses
they say were caused by nuclear fallout from the tests 

Since the testing, four Idaho counties have reported unusually
high cases of thyroid cancer. However, the area doesn't fall
within guidelines for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 

Emmett native Dave Vahlberg who fought testicular cancer several
years ago says time is running out for his loved ones and it's
time to change RECA guidelines. 

"The tragedy is terrible to behold, terrible to watch," he tells
Local 2 News. "There are so many people that need assistance,
health clinics, something to help.We need help." 

Idaho senators Mike Crapo and Larry Craig and a Montana Senator
began pushing legislation in May to make downwinders in both
states eligible for compensation. The bill is waiting for a
first reading by the judiciary committee. 

Send questions and comments to: comments@kbcitv.com

KBCI-TV Boise
140 N. 16th Street
Boise, ID 83702
208-472-2222
News Fax 208-472-2211
Sales Fax 208-472-2210
Admin. Fax 208-472-2212

*****************************************************************
 77 reviewjournal.com: Test site provides nuke sensor proving ground
 
  Jan. 28, 2006

Homeland Security works kinks out of 'dirty bomb' detectors      

By KEN RITTER <br/>THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
	
The Department of Homeland Security uses a weigh station
equipped with radiological sensors at the Nevada Test Site in
Mercury to detect nuclear or radioactive material.

Photo by The Associated Press
 	   
NEVADA TEST SITE -- Beyond the checkpoints, fences, armed guards
and radiation hazard signs, government scientists in a remote
part of the Nevada desert are perfecting equipment that can
detect nuclear devices and "dirty bombs." 

Some monitors in use don't always work, said Vayl Oxford,
director of the federal Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. 

Nearby, Homeland Security scientists waited for a read-out from
a hand-held machine placed next to a large corrugated metal
shipping container. 

Indeed, the monitor failed at first to identify plutonium inside
the container. It worked on a second try. 

That's why they do the tests, Oxford said, and why they do them
here, a stone's throw from an ultra-secure bunker in the Nevada
desert where the nation's nuclear weapons are assembled. 

The location, known as the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures
Test and Evaluation Complex, is surrounded by barren mountains,
spiky yucca trees and craters left from decades of nuclear
weapons tests about 75 miles north of Las Vegas. 

The $33 million program, a division of the federal Homeland
Security Department, was created under a presidential order to
refine methods to protect the nation from radiological and
nuclear threats. 

The place provides an opportunity for scientists to test for
nuclear material, including weapons-grade plutonium, in secure,
controlled conditions. 

"We need to have space and distance to test these things," said
Richard Tighe, assistant general manager for Bechtel Nevada, a
government contractor on the homeland security program. 

The test site also hosts the National Center for Combating
Terrorism, which includes several facilities to improve the
nation's ability to prevent or recover from a terrorist attack. 

At the nuclear detection site, technicians test roadside sensors
like those deployed at ports of entry and some highway weigh
stations. The sensors detect neutrons and gamma rays emitted by
nuclear devices or by lethal radioactive isotopes that could be
dispersed by less sophisticated explosives in a "dirty bomb." 

The scientists also test the sensitivity of sensors in vehicles,
including white vans, black SUVs and a Jeep loaded with
sophisticated radiation sniffers and computers. 

Some of the vehicles have been used in New York: 

• John F. Kennedy International Airport. 

• Holland Tunnel. 

• George Washington Bridge. 

• Port Authority of New York and New Jersey facilities. 

The tests aim to see whether the 30 or so devices available
commercially can distinguish a bomb from less harmful sources of
radioactivity, such as a person who has had a radioactive
isotope injected during a medical procedure or household items
such as kitty litter or floor tiles that contain natural trace
amounts. 

Of the 10,000 alarms tallied to date across the nation, all have
been resolved by closer inspections and matching shipments to
manifests. 

Detecting radioactive materials in public places is an evolving
science, Oxford said. There are no national standards for
devices that range from the size of a steam iron to the two-door
prototype "Smart Jeep." 

The next generation of hand-held detectors should be able to
identify radiation sources without the need to open shipping
containers using what Oxford calls "discrimination capability." 

About 650 portal monitors have been deployed at border
crossings, ports and road inspection stations in 11 states,
Oxford said. Homeland Security hopes all 50 states eventually
will take part. 

After nine months of testing, and with federal budgets being
drawn up, program officials spent this week with congressional
representatives, reporters and first responders learning how to
use the devices. 

"If we're not going forward with an investment in this type of
technology, we could very easily miss an opportunity to defeat a
terrorist with a dirty bomb or a radiological device," said Rep.
Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. 	   



Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 78 Times Argus: Yankee plan could violate radiation rule

Vermont News & Information
 
January 28, 2006 

By Susan Smallheer Rutland Herald   

BRATTLEBORO — The State Health Department said Thursday that
Entergy Nuclear's proposed power boost could violate the state's
strict standards for radiation releases by as much as 26 percent.

A report released Thursday by the Department of Health said the
proposed 20 percent power boost at the Vermont Yankee nuclear
reactor in Vernon could boost radiation releases — called
"fenceline doses" — by up to 26 percent.

That could exceed the Health Department's standard, William
Irwin, radiological health chief for the department, wrote in a
report prepared for the Windham Regional Commission.

The report cited "recent communication" with Yankee officials.

But Health Commissioner Dr. Paul Jarris said that despite the
potential for violating Vermont's state standard for
radiological releases, he was confident the plant would pose no
health hazard.

"It is not a health risk, but there is a possibility it violates
state regulations," he said.

The current state limits, he said, were not a "science- or
health-based limit."

Entergy spokesman Robert Williams maintained that Vermont Yankee
would not violate state standards, and he said the Health
Department's new report contained no new information.

If the plant did exceed the state "fenceline" standard of 20
millirem per year, Williams said, the plant would take steps to
bring it down.

He said Entergy and the state were in dispute over the state's
2004 fenceline reading at Yankee, which was double the radiation
level claimed by Entergy. The state's measured level was on the
edge of violating the state standard.

The dispute is currently being reviewed by a third party for
"objective scientific evaluation" of the different reporting
methods, in the words of the Health Department.

According to the Health Department's report, Entergy expects to
boost power production Feb. 24 — a date Williams called only an
estimate and contingent on final federal and state approval.

Entergy wants to increase power production at Vermont Yankee
from 540 to 650 megawatts, or 20 percent.

Jarris said the state had taken steps to increase its monitoring
by increasing the number of special radiological monitors
surrounding the plant.

He said Vermont's fenceline radiation standard of 20 millirem
per year, was stricter than the federal Environmental Protection
Agency standard of 25 millirem.

Vermont's standard was adopted more than 30 years ago, when
Vermont Yankee was first being licensed, Jarris said, he would
support raising the state limit.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
said that NRC staff were reviewing the methodology that Entergy
uses to calculate its radiation releases.

Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, said Entergy used an unusual
methodology not employed at many nuclear reactors. He said the
methodology is based on calculations of readings taken from a
steam line inside the plant, rather than the traditional
monitors such as those used by the state.

Entergy has already received tentative approval from the NRC,
and the state Public Service Board has given conditional
approval, but a final decision is still pending.

The radiation issue was raised last week by James Matteau,
executive director of the Windham Regional Commission, who wrote
in a letter to Jarris said he had received confidential
information that Entergy would violate the state standard when
it boost power production.

Matteau said Thursday he was pleased to see some information
aired about the potential problem.

But he noted that the information only came out on the eve of
PSB hearings on Entergy's plans to build a high-level
radioactive waste facility next to the Yankee plant. That
facility will also increase radiological releases, he said.

"It answers my questions and raises more," Matteau said, adding
that the state and Entergy still disagreed on how the radiation
doses were calculated.

He pointed out that by the state's own calculation, Vermont
Yankee's fenceline radiation could be between 18 and 31 millirem.

"Twenty is not exactly in the middle," he said, referring to the
state standard.

Matteau said his reason for writing the Health Department was to
get the information to the public, "and not take a week to
answer my questions."

"I like these things explained in a clear, straightforward way,"
he said, "not with the usual insider baseball stuff — it drives
me nuts."
   
*****************************************************************
 79 BFP: Power increase brings Yankee radiation levels under public scrutiny

Burlington Free Press

burlingtonfreepress.com  |  Burlington, Vermont 
       
Published: Saturday, January 28, 2006
 The Associated Press


BRATTLEBORO -- A 20 percent increase in the power output of the
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant could result in the plant's
violating Vermont's standards for radiation releases by as much
as 26 percent, the state Health Department has concluded. 

Vermont Yankee officials dispute the state's method for
measuring radiation emanating from the plant, and Vermont's
health commissioner said Thursday the state's 30-year-old limit
for radiation measured at the plant's fence line may be too low. 

The method for measuring existing radiation releases has been in
dispute even as the plant gears up to raise its power output
from a rated capacity of 540 megawatts to 650 megawatts -- a
move expected to raise the amount of radiation emitted from the
plant. 

The change could leave the plant exceeding the state's standard,
which limits the amount of radiation that would be received by
someone standing at the plant's fence to 20 millirems a year,
William Irwin, radiological health chief for the department,
wrote in a report prepared for the Windham Regional Commission.
The corresponding federal standard is 25 millirems per year. 

Health Commissioner Dr. Paul Jarris said he did not believe the
plant would pose a health hazard, however.

"It is not a health risk, but there is a possibility it violates
state regulations," he said. The current state limits, he said,
are not a "science- or health-based limit." 

Robert Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee owner Entergy
Nuclear, said Vermont Yankee would not violate state standards.
If it does, he said, the plant will take steps to reduce the
radiation it emits. 

He said Entergy and the state were in dispute over the state's
2004 fence-line reading at Yankee, which was double the
radiation level claimed by Entergy. The state's measured level
was on the edge of violating the state standard at Vermont
Yankee's present power level. 

The Health Department said the dispute is being reviewed by a
third party for "objective scientific evaluation" of the
different reporting methods. 

A spokesman for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission said
staff there also were reviewing the methodology that Entergy
uses to calculate its radiation releases. 

Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, said Entergy used an unusual
methodology not employed at many nuclear reactors. He said the
methodology is based on calculations of readings taken from a
steam line inside the plant, rather than the traditional
monitors such as those used by the state. 

*****************************************************************
 80 LA Daily News: Actor records emotional tales

Article Launched: 01/28/2006 12:00:00 AM                                                        
               
By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer   

  	   
  TOPANGA - Armed with his video camera, William Preston Bowling
has stood on the sidelines of countless public meetings over the
past year, recording the angry, sometimes boring, but always
controversial debate over the Santa Susana Field Lab. 

Using emotional interviews of cancer survivors and footage of
flames devouring the old Rocketdyne lab buildings during a
wildfire last September, the Topanga resident, real estate agent
and aspiring documentary filmmaker has tried to stir up debate
over the massive cleanup at the former nuclear research and
rocket engine testing facility. 

His first short film - "H2oh No!" - introduced viewers to the
Santa Susana Field Lab in the hills between Chatsworth and Simi
Valley, and recounted recent findings of radioactive tritium in
the groundwater at the lab. 

Tonight, he's screening his second 10-minute film, "Afterburner:
The Fire at Rocketdyne," based on neighbors' concerns that the
Topanga Fire released contamination into the air as buildings,
soil and vegetation burned. 

The Boeing Co., which owns the lab, has said there was little
risk from burning vegetation, and air quality tests during the
fire showed no sign of contaminants. 

Spokeswoman Inger Hodgson said company officials haven't seen
the films, but are committed to answering people's questions and
concerns about the ongoing environmental investigation at the
site. 

Bowling said his goal is to use film to get people interested in
the field lab cleanup. 

"I stumbled across this and then started digging and digging in
deeper. I don't think 25 percent of the people living around the
lab know about it. Once people know, they can make their own
decisions, but a lot of people don't know." 

Bowling, 37, said he learned about the field lab while
researching his grandfather, who was a downwinder exposed to
radiation from nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site in the
1950s and 1960s. 

Typing the words "nuclear" and "cancer" in an Internet search
engine, he came across a site that mentioned Topanga. 

"I said, Wait a minute; I live in Topanga." 

He read about the Santa Susana Field Lab and the partial nuclear
meltdown that took place there in 1959. 

Attorneys investigating the site for a lawsuit estimated the
meltdown released 260 times the amount of radiation that escaped
during the incident at Three Mile Island near Middletown, Pa., in 
March 1979. And the cleanup continues today. 

"I couldn't believe this existed. I thought, oh, my God, I've
driven by this place. I've seen the sign at Woolsey Canyon,"
Bowling recalled. 

Shocked that he and most of his neighbors in Topanga Canyon had
never heard about the meltdown 11 miles away, Bowling decided to
begin filming the public meetings. Soon he was a familiar face
among the lab watchdogs, and women whose husbands worked at the
lab and who died of cancer told their stories to his camera. 

A one-man operation, Bowling hopes to turn his short films into
a full-length feature documentary. 

"I'm an out-of-work actor and, of course, every actor wants to
direct. This is the only way I can do it on my own without a
million-dollar budget." 

Last summer, Bowling's piece was screened at the Topanga Film
Festival, one of 17 films chosen from 100 submissions. 

Film festival founder and director Urs Baur said reaction to
Bowling's film was mixed. Some criticized his naive approach to
filmmaking - the short movies offer more questions than answers
- but others were moved by the story of a radioactive,
contaminated site in their backyard. 

"We thought the film had merit for several reasons," Baur said.
"Beyond the importance of making people aware of Rocketdyne, we
are interested in people, like Bill Bowling, that are simply
moved by something, pick up a camera and fearlessly and
single-handedly pursue a story and make a film." 

Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746 

IF YOU GO: "Afterburner" will be screened at 7:30 tonight at
Topanga Community House, 1440 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd. 

Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 81 DenverPost.com: Drilling pursued at nuke test site

Article Launched: 01/29/2006 01:00:00 AM                                                        
		
State to review applicant's plan
 			 			 			 			 			 			 
  By David Olinger Denver Post Staff Writer   

Wesley Kent stands near the site of a nuclear test
detonated below Battlement Mesa in 1969. Kent, who has a cabin
nearby, is worried about a Texas company s application to drill
there. (Special Ed Kosmicki)       
				 				 					 					 				 

Battlement Mesa - It takes Wesley Kent two minutes to walk from
his log cabin to the deserted nuclear test site. 

Using his snowshoe as a shovel, he scrapes bare a patch of
ground to reveal a remarkable commemorative plaque. On Sept. 10,
1969, it states, a nuclear explosion "was detonated in this
well," 8,426 feet below. 

The "nuclear gas stimulation" blast, intended to crack rocks
shielding a billion-dollar lode of methane, was nearly three
times as powerful as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima and
yielded the same deadly byproducts. 

So when a new methane boom erupted across Garfield County, Kent
figured his weekend retreat would be the last place anyone dared
to drill. 

He was wrong. In March, Colorado regulators will decide whether
to let a Texas gas company bore holes as close as 900 feet to
the radioactive blast site below Battlement Mesa. 

The company's application jolted neighbors like Kent, who say
the quest for mineral riches beneath their land seems to accept
no limits. 

For enough money, "they'd drill through Abraham Lincoln's
brain," he said. 

In recent years, no gas company has proposed drilling this close
to a nuclear test site anywhere in the United States. 

The applicant insists its Colorado plan is safe. The U.S.
Department of Energy is studying the risks, a project expected
to take three years. Nuclear experts say the hazards, if any,
would vary with the particular geology of the site. 

Typically, many radioactive elements "would be pretty much held
in the glassy melt" of rocks around the blast, said Darleane
Hoffman, a nuclear chemist who studied their movement from a
Nevada test site. But "if I lived there, I would want to see
them test the gas samples." 

In Garfield County, gas companies are permitted to drill 9,600
feet down, well below the blast site, but must avoid a buffer
				 				 					 					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 zone
around it. 

The application to penetrate that zone comes from Presco Inc., a
small, private company based in The Woodlands, Texas, that
specializes in unconventional gas projects. 

Kim Bennetts, Presco's vice president for exploration and
production, said independent experts will provide evidence in
Colorado that its plans pose no public health threat. 

"There's no risk of any safety hazards to anyone," he said.
"We'll be presenting testimony at the hearing to hopefully prove
that." 

According to Bennetts, the worst hazard was expelled long ago,
when a different company drilled directly into the blast cavity
to collect methane freed by the nuclear test. 

"That would have been the most dangerous thing anyone could have
done, and it was done 35 years ago," he said. 

In Colorado, Presco has been drilling only in the rugged hills
near the nuclear test site, at locations a mile or two away. The
company focused its efforts there, Bennetts said, because when
it arrived in 2001, "it was the only place there was open
acreage that we were able to attain." 

"Things do go wrong" 

The question before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission: How close is too close to ground zero? 

Two years ago, the commission established a half-mile buffer
zone and required a hearing before anyone could drill within it. 

It plans to hear Presco's request in Garfield County, to give
local residents a chance to speak. "We try to do that if there's
a great deal of public concern," commission director Brian Macke
said. 

He said one-half mile "was believed to incorporate a very large
safety factor," and if the commission agrees to shrink it,
Presco's application "could potentially be approved with other
conditions" to ensure public safety. 

Presco is volunteering to test the water and gas and plug any
well where radioactivity 				 				 					 					 					 				 				
				 					 					 				 is detected. 

Critics are wary of company assurances that its drills will not
disturb a dormant monster. They note that another gas driller
has been delivering bottled water to Garfield County homeowners
near a creek polluted by a leak. 

"We're very dubious of their claims that nothing can go wrong,"
said Duke Cox, president of the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance.
"Things do go wrong. They go wrong all the time." 

Presco had one recent accident near the existing buffer zone.
According to a state report, its drilling mud hit an underground
spring and spilled into Battlement Creek, where an inspector
found discolored water 3 1/2 miles downstream. 

That alarmed Pat Warren, the nearest full-time resident to the
nuclear test site. 

"I went out one day, and the water was white. Holy mackerel,"
she said. 

Three years ago, she and her husband moved to a 37-acre ranch
above Battlement Mesa with a stunning view of the Colorado River
valley and the imposing Book Cliffs. They hung an arched sign
over their piece of paradise, calling it Take a Break Creek. 

Now they joke bitterly about renaming it Glow-in-the-Dark Park. 

"We're devastated. Totally devastated," she said. "We cannot
figure out why they're pushing so hard to do this." 

Peacetime engineering 

Edward Teller, the physicist known as the father of the H-bomb,
launched the project that left the plaque by Wesley Kent's
cabin. 

Teller inspired a federal campaign to show how the death-dealing
power of atomic bombs could be used for peacetime "geographical
engineering" as well. 

Proponents crafted an impressive list of jobs demanding
something stronger than dynamite: Blasting a wider ocean canal
near or through Panama. Harvesting shale oil and deep deposits
of natural gas. Moving mountains for highways. 

The campaign set off more than two dozen nuclear explosions, 
mostly at the Nevada Test Site, before it was halted. For Project 
Rulison, it ventured to Colorado - an agricultural community in a 
Colorado River valley that held oil locked in shale and gas 
buried in thick sandstone formations. 

In 1969, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that the
government and a Texas company would detonate a tube of uranium
at the bottom of a deep shaft in the hills above Rulison,
cracking rocks shielding a gas field worth a hoped-for $1
billion or more. 

The project brought a federal lawsuit and a small band of
protesters who tried to halt the test by occupying a 5-mile
evacuation zone. Dick Lamm, a young lawyer who would become
Colorado's governor, vainly pleaded for a U.S. Supreme Court
injunction on the day of the blast. 

On town streets and at an official viewing area, government and
industry leaders gathered with curious citizens for the
countdown. 

Vi Searcy, who drove from Grand Junction to Parachute for the
big event, remembers "the ground kind of rolling" beneath her
feet as the shock wave from a 43-kiloton explosion 1 1/2 miles
below generated an earthquake measured at 5.5 on the Richter
scale. 

In Parachute, gas-station owner Betty Letson noticed bricks
tumbling from the walls of the post office next door. 

Craig Hayward, the grandson of the test site's landowner,
remembers "rocks falling on both sides of the river" from the
cliffs above. Across the ground, "there was a wave; you could
see it coming," he said. "Cars were swaying back and forth."
Afterward, he found his grandfather's cabin had moved several
inches off its foundation. 

Chester McQueary, a protester occupying the site, lay facedown
with a companion just 2 miles from the shaft. "We were lifted,
we guess, 6 or 8 inches in the air," he said. 

The explosion produced dozens of damage claims, mostly for 				
				 					 					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 lost
chimney bricks and cracked foundations. It also succeeded in
cracking the sandstone formation below, but the natural gas it
released proved too radioactive to sell. For years afterward,
the gas flared and burned into the air of western Colorado
instead. Then the shaft was plugged. 

Testing for radioactivity 

The Rulison test left a hole about 150 feet wide, rock fissures
extending hundreds of feet from the cavern and about 50
radioactive isotopes. Some have half-lives measured in seconds
or days and quickly dissipate their toxicity. Others would
remain highly radioactive 37 years later. One troubling element,
from a drilling standpoint, is tritium, or radioactive hydrogen,
which can travel in gas or water. 

The Department of Energy, which inherited the Rulison site,
forbids any activity below 6,000 feet in the 40 acres
surrounding it and requires notice of any drilling within 3
miles. 

The agency believes the blast encased many of the long-lived
radioactive elements in a layer of melted sand. But it expects
to have a clearer picture when a geologic study of the site is
completed, possibly in late 2008. 

"Keep in mind, it's kind of a dynamic system. It cracks. Other
rocks fall into it. It's not a nice, smooth glass," said Peter
Sanders, the agency's project manager. 

The federal study aims to gauge whether radioactive byproducts
have migrated from the blast site, and if so, how far. Secondly,
it will inquire whether "some man-made new influence" could
affect their subterranean movement, Sanders said. 

One Garfield County commissioner, Tresi Houpt, argues that
Presco's drilling plans should be postponed in the meantime. "As
long as there's a need to conduct the study, I think it's
beneficial to see what the results are," she said. "I think it's
irresponsible to do otherwise." 

At Presco, Bennetts disagrees. 

First, "there's no guarantee that they'll finish it," he said. 
Secondly, "we'll provide modeling by independent engineers that 
will be superior to anything the DOE can do." 

Wesley Kent knew the Rulison site was nearby when he bought 15
acres on a wooded hillside above Battlement Mesa. But he loved
the area - he had led hunting trips for deer, elk and bear on
this land - and water tests showed no signs of the radioactive
elements below. 

He spent two years building a cabin by hand below the Rulison
plaque. Though he lives in Rifle, it became his vacation
retreat, the place his family celebrated Thanksgiving and
Christmas and, he hoped, a retirement home. 

"You'll never have anything to worry about up here," he said the
testers assured him, "unless they drill or something." 				 				
				 			   		 		 		
All contents Copyright 2006 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
 82 La Canada Valley Sun: Agreement on JPL Water Treatment Finalized 

The City of Pasadena and Caltech, as the contractor that manages 
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory finalized an agreement this week 
to provide NASA funding of a major new water treatment plant in 
Pasadena.

"This agreement is a win-win situation for everyone," 
said Steve Slaten, NASA's Remedial Project Manager at JPL.

Volatile organic compounds and perchlorate that 
originated from waste disposa l practices on the JPL site many 
decades ago have been found in the groundwater beneath JPL.

When detected levels of perchlorate in the nearby Pasadena wells 
rose above California's action level for perchlorate, the city 
closed them, and they have remained closed since. 






Copyright 2006 La Canada Valley Sun

*****************************************************************
 83 Cape Cod Online: Watered down 

January 28, 2006

 By AMANDA LEHMERT STAFF WRITER

The federal Environmental Protection Agency has released
guidelines for perchlorate that would allow several plumes of
the chemical in groundwater under the Massachusetts Military
Reservation to go uninvestigated.

The guidelines, which were issued in tandem with a similar
advisory from the Defense Department, advised local
environmental officials to use 24.5 parts per billion as a
''preliminary cleanup goal'' for perchlorate in groundwater.

 In the absence of federal or state drinking water standards for
perchlorate - which would legally force polluters to clean up
contamination - the new guidelines will be used by environmental
regulators as a basis for what level of contamination must be
investigated.

 Several of the plumes in the aquifer under the military
reservation fall below the new EPA guideline. If the 24.5 parts
per billion guideline were to become the legal drinking water
standard, several of the Upper Cape military base perchlorate
plumes would not require cleanup.

 The EPA guideline is more than 20 times above the level
suggested by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection - which has advocated for a 1 part per billion
standard. DEP officials have said sensitive populations - such
as infants and pregnant women - should not ingest perchlorate
over 1 part per billion.

 If the state approves the 1 part per billion standard, that
would supersede the federal guideline.

 Perchlorate, found in fireworks and munitions, can disrupt the
function of the thyroid gland, which regulates growth and
development in children.

 There are at least seven plumes of perchlorate in the aquifer
under the military reservation, which provides the Upper Cape
with drinking water. The plumes were caused by contractor
disposal activity, military training and fireworks.

 The EPA originally asked states to plan cleanups at the 1 part
per billion level, but the agency was pressured by military
leaders who argue that perchlorate is safe to ingest at much
higher levels. The EPA worked with the Defense Department to set
the 24.5 parts per billion guideline.

 For the Defense Department, a major perchlorate consumer,
setting a higher allowance for perchlorate contamination means
less money spent cleaning up ranges across the country where
perchlorate has been detected.

 Nationally, the new EPA guideline means fewer Superfund sites
will have to investigate perchlorate contamination. Of about 45
Superfund sites with perchlorate in water, 27 have perchlorate
at levels that exceed 24.5 parts per billion, according to EPA
spokeswoman Kerry Humphrey.

 Hap Gonser, manager for the Army's Groundwater Study Program at
Camp Edwards, said based on the 24.5 guideline, several of the
base plumes would no longer be a concern for the Army.

 ''(The northwest corner) plume wouldn't even be on the map the
way the 24 parts per billion goes,'' Gonser said. ''And neither
would the central impact-area plume.''

 The northwest corner plume, which tainted one private home's
well in Bourne, has concentrations of the chemical no higher
than 19 parts per billion. In the central impact area,
perchlorate has been found at less than 10 parts per billion.

 A groundwater treatment program has already started cleaning
the base's worst perchlorate plumes at the so-called Demolition
Area One and the J-Ranges, where the Army is also cleaning up
explosives. Perchlorate is found in some spots above 100 parts
per billion.

 ''We were pretty confident that, no matter how things figured
out, we would have to address those plumes,'' Gonser said.

Peter Schlesinger, a member of a citizen group that advises the
EPA about Camp Edwards, called on the state to set a strict
standard, which it may do in the next few weeks.

 ''The state needs to stand up to the federal government,''
Schlesinger said. ''This is probably another case of the federal
government mangling the effectiveness of science.''

 Amanda Lehmert can be reached at alehmert@capecodonline.com.

 

(Published: January 28, 2006)           


Copyright © 2006 Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 84 Brattleboro Reformer: Final review of dry cask begins

Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
Article Published: Saturday, January 28, 2006 -
                                
By KRISTI CECCAROSSI Reformer Staff

BRATTLEBORO -- A final round of review begins next week on a
plan to put dry cask storage on the grounds of Vermont Yankee.

 The proposal, like any that involves the power plant, has drawn
a storm of criticism from nuclear watchdog groups, and has
raised concerns from state officials.

 Despite the noise, no one is debating if dry cask storage
containers should be built. Everyone agrees the casks are
necessary to keep the plant running until 2012, when its federal
license and power contract with the state expire.

 However, during hearings next week before the state's Public
Service Board, there will be serious questions asked about the
safety of the casks and about what limits the state should set
on their construction. 

On a basic level, what's at stake in the dry cask proposal is
the continued operation of Vermont Yankee for the next six
years. But right now Entergy Nuclear, Mississippi-based owners
of Vermont Yankee, are seeking a 20-year extension to the
plant's license; they're also on the verge of winning federal
approval to boost the plant's power by 20 percent.

 And with no guarantees the plant's used fuel will be removed by
the federal government, as it's supposed to be, what could be at
stake with the dry cask proposal is a permanent -- or at least
long-term -- nuclear storage site in Windham County.

 Background on dry casks

 Thirty plants around the country have dry cask and six of those
plants are using the same model of storage, the Holtec Hi-Storm
100 system, which Vermont Yankee officials plan to use.

 Plant owners point to that as proof that dry casks are
reliable, and in fact, a safer way to store spent fuel. Right
now at Vermont Yankee, 33 years worth of used fuel is kept in an
indoor pool. The pool will be filled to capacity by 2007;
without dry casks, plant operations would be, at that point, at
a standstill, according to plant spokesman, Robert Williams.

 Members of nuclear watchdog groups New England Coalition and
Citizens Awareness Network agree the casks are necessary. They
even agree the casks are a safer alternative to the fuel pool,
but they argue the casks are not yet proven technology.

 They point to problems with dry cask storage elsewhere, like in
Michigan's Palisades nuclear power plant, where a cask wasn't
properly welded shut. Some charged unsafe levels of radiation
were leaked into the environment.

 "That's just one problem," said Scott Ainslie, a member of the
New England Coalition's board of directors. "Sure it's safe, but
that's when everything works perfectly. We can't count on that
happening."

 Another major concern nuclear groups have about dry casks is
that they could be used as a terrorist target. Federal
regulators say the casks have been tested to withstand extreme
fire and pressure, but Deb Katz, of the Citizens Awareness
Network, doesn't put much faith in that.

 The casks will be 20 feet high, and visible from the air.

 "They might as well have a sign on them that says 'hit me,'"
she said.

 The request

 Entergy's request for dry cask storage includes construction of
a reinforced concrete pad, 76-by-132-feet, that would sit about
200 feet from the Connecticut River, and just north of the
plant's turbine.

 The pad would have room for up to 36 containers, but right now
plant officials are only seeking permission to build six
containers. Six could hold waste produced through 2011.

 Each container would weigh 190 tons and stand about 11 feet
across. Two and one-half feet of steel and concrete would
protect the fuel assemblies inside them.

 Plant officials insist the bins would be temporary -- a stopgap
until the federal Department of Energy takes the waste to a
permanent site, as it's required by law to do.

 But plans for that permanent waste site, Yucca Mountain in
Nevada, have been stalled in Congress for decades. Many
politicians and industry experts are skeptical that it will ever
become a reality.

 And that's precisely why nuclear watchdog groups are concerned.
They fear, in the absence of a federal plan for nuclear waste,
the banks of the Connecticut River will become the final resting
spot for Vermont Yankee's spent fuel.

 That being the case, groups are urging state officials to
approve enough storage to get Vermont Yankee through its license
and ratepayer contract in 2012 -- but that's it.

 "Bring the storage out of the fuel pool," Katz said. "But not
so that we can create more. ... The state could put such
egregious conditions on [plant owners] to make them want to shut
Vermont Yankee down."

 The waste problem

 When state officials approved the construction of a nuclear
power plant in the late 1960s, the question of where to store
waste was not a pressing one. Back then, the federal government
allowed for reprocessing, or reuse, of spent nuclear fuel.

 In 1978, President Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing; the
argument was it produced large amounts of plutonium, which could
be used to make nuclear weapons.

 In 1982, the government began charging nuclear power ratepayers
an extra monthly fee. The money would be used to subsidize a
national storage site.

 Almost 25 years later, $17 billion have been raised and,
although several millions of dollars have been invested in the
Yucca Mountain proposal, there is still no certainty that plan,
or any other, will fly.

 Still, the country's 103 nuclear reactors have continued to
produce high-level waste. In the meantime, it's been up to state
officials to start finding ways to deal with it.

 Dry cask storage requires no stringent federal review. The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission will review dry cask proposals,
but basically grants approval if power plants use existing
models for storage sites.

 In the state of Vermont, however, there is a stringent review:
from the Legislature and from the Public Service Board, a
quasi-judicial panel that must OK all projects related to
utilities.

 Last year the Legislature passed a controversial bill allowing
for dry cask storage, but requiring plant owners to pay $2.5
million per year into the state's renewable energy fund. The
payment was considered a sort of tax on the casks.

 The bill followed months of intense negotiations between plant
owners and lawmakers; its final version drew criticism from
local residents who felt it didn't go far enough to protect the
state.

 That leaves the last round of review to the Public Service
Board. Board members will host two weeks of hearings in
Montpelier, starting Monday. The hearings will include technical
testimony and cross examination of witnesses by the state's
Department of Public Service, nuclear watchdog groups and the
Windham Regional Commission. The board's decision will be based
on those hearings and from public comment collected from
residents at a meeting held in Brattleboro last fall.

 It could be months before a final decision is issued. If it's
approved, Vermont Yankee engineers would begin construction
immediately and, with hope, have the first batches of spent fuel
moved out of the plant within a year.

Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., 
*****************************************************************
 85 Las Vegas SUN: AP Exclusive: BLM returned $700,000 in Nevada mine cleanup funds 

Today: January 29, 2006 at 14:42:30 PST 

By SCOTT SONNER ASSOCIATED PRESS 

AP Exclusive: BLM returned $700,000 in Nevada mine cleanup funds 

RENO, Nev. (AP) - While state and federal regulators were
scrambling to find money to start cleaning up one of Nevada's
most contaminated mines, the Bureau of Land Management returned
$700,000 that had been earmarked for the job that may end up
costing more than $100 million, documents show. 

BLM officials in Nevada told agency budget officers in November
2004 the $700,000 wasn't needed because one of the responsible
parties, Atlantic Richfield Co., had agreed to do additional
monitoring of air and water pollution at the former Anconda
copper mine on the edge of Yerington, according to documents
obtained by The Associated Press. 

Since then, however, Atlantic Richfield has come under fire from
local residents for failing to adequately address the
contamination, which includes numerous heavy metals and
radioactive waste apparently produced as a byproduct of the
copper processing decades ago. 

Critics say the new disclosure raises questions about BLM's
claims it lacks the funds needed to put up new fences and boost
security at the 6-square-mile mine. They say the lost money
means further delay in the cleanup already expected to take more
than a decade, with projected costs ranging anywhere from $100
million to $1 billion. 

"It really makes me angry," said Peggy Pauly, who lives next to
the mine and has organized a group of concerned citizens. 

"This site really needs to be investigated and studied to
document the extent of the contamination and a lot of that could
already have been done with this money," she said. 

AP obtained the documents from lawyers for the Washington-based
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. They
represent the BLM's former manager of the mine site, Earle
Dixon, in a whistleblower lawsuit claiming he was fired because
he was speaking out publicly about the seriousness of health and
safety risks at the mine. 

"Because of political pressure, BLM punted away timely,
guaranteed protections for Nevadans," said Richard Condit,
PEER's general counsel. 

"BLM gave away a bird in the hand for a promise by an oil
company that it would finally take some responsibility for the
site," he said. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assumed lead control of
the site last year in an agreement with the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection, which previously controlled the mine
and long had opposed EPA's desire to declare it a Superfund
site. 

EPA currently is negotiating with Atlantic Richfield the terms
of work plans and a feasibility study to assess the
contamination and determine if the mine is responsible for
contaminants that have been found in domestic wells off site. 

That was some of the work that originally was to have been
covered by the $700,000 in hazardous materials funds the BLM had
requested in 2003 and 2004. 

BLM officials said Dixon was dismissed in October 2004 because
lead oversight of the cleanup was shifting from its Carson City
field office, where Dixon was based, to state headquarters in
Reno where the state BLM director could be more directly
involved. 

But Dixon claims in his lawsuit it was because BLM was under
pressure from the mining industry and local politicians who
feared Dixon's warnings could lead to a Superfund listing that
would harm neighboring land values. 

Dixon specifically had been involved in trying to find ways to
secure additional money for BLM to expedite assessments of the
site, where tests show high levels of radiation in soil samples
and high concentrations of uranium in groundwater wells on site
- up to 200 times the U.S. drinking water standard. 

At Dixon's urging, BLM asked for $500,000 in the form of its
budget request for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, 2004 and
previously had received $205,000 as a supplemental appropriation
for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, 2003. 

BLM said in an agency budget memo in August 2004 the mine site
is "of great concern, as evidence of the potential risk to human
health and the environment from identified contaminants of
concern found at the site is mounting." 

But Robert Kelso, the lead for BLM's hazardous materials program
in Nevada, said in an e-mail to Kris Doebbler in BLM's regional
office in Denver on Nov. 29, 2004 that Atlantic Richfield had
agreed to do additional monitoring of groundwater and provide
air monitoring at six locations as early as 2005. He said the
company also had proposed additional work to cap areas of
blowing dust on the site. 

"With ARC's willingness to perform this additional work, we do
not expect to need the $500K projected for FY05 - nor $205K from
(a) supplemental authorization for FY04, a `cost avoidance' in
excess of $700K," Kelso wrote. 

BLM spokeswoman Jo Simpson said she could not comment directly
on the critics' claims because the matter is in litigation. She
said that the documents were "part of an ongoing deliberation
over funding" at the mine, where BLM owns about half the land. 

"Whether or not it represents the final decisions, I can't
comment on," Simpson said. "Funding in the federal government is
an ongoing process and situations change over time." 

Officials for BP America, Atlantic Richfield's parent company,
did not immediately return calls seeking comment. 

Mick Harrison, one of Dixon's lawyers, said Dixon and others at
BLM were "working as hard as they could" to obtain emergency
funding for the cleanup. 

"They managed against all odds to get several hundred thousand
dollars on short notice from the federal government to clean up
this emergency, then Earle gets fired, everybody in the field
office is taken off the project... and the money is given back,"
Harrison said. 

"They apparently were concerned about the real consequences of
documenting the contamination," he said. 

Bob Boyce, tribal manager of the Yerington Paiute Tribe, said
the mine's impact on the local community is "much too
significant for BLM to so casually let $700,000 in funding go so
easily back to Washington." 

"When those of us involved are fighting tooth and nail for every
dime we can get to investigate and remediate this site, it's a
sad situation." 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 86 London Times: BNG sale is held up by chiefs’ bitter row - 

Sunday Times -

January 29, 2006

Tracey Boles

THE proposed œ1 billion sale of British Nuclear Group, the 
clean-up arm of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), has been put on 
hold due to a rift at the top of the Nuclear Decommissioning 
Authority, the organisation in charge of Britain's nuclear 
legacy.

The government's energy review, unveiled last week, has also 
caused ministers to postpone the sale. The results of the review 
are expected within three months.

BNFL's board decided to sell BNG last year. Last week it agreed 
to sell Westinghouse, another of its subsidiaries, to Toshiba of 
Japan for nearly $5 billion (œ2.8 billion). Westinghouse makes 
nuclear reactors, while BNG manages some of Britain's most toxic 
nuclear waste sites.

A final decision on the BNG sale rests with the government. But 
the planned sell-off has been disrupted by a row at the NDA, the 
government agency created last year to oversee a clean-up of 
Britain's nuclear sites.

The NDA's chairman, Sir Anthony Cleaver, opposes a quick sale of 
BNG in the belief that its value will rise if it wins some of 
Britain's nuclear decommissioning contracts. The first of œ56 
billion of contracts may be awarded this year.

His chief executive, Ian Roxburgh, disagrees. He thinks BNG will 
stand a greater chance of winning contracts if it is part of a 
larger group and should be sold sooner rather than later. By 
2008, the NDA must put half the clean-up contracts out to tender, 
which means BNG could find itself pitted against industrial 
giants such as Bechtel and Amec.

Relations between the two men have soured so badly that earlier 
this month they were called into a meeting with energy minister 
Malcolm Wicks and told to patch up their differences.

Cleaver and Roxburgh are also divided on whether private 
companies should be brought in to work on the decommissioning 
contracts, with Cleaver supporting their involvement. One of the 
NDA's roles is to promote competition in nuclear decommissioning.

Cleaver's stance on BNG's future has also placed him on a 
collision course with the Treasury, which favours a speedy sale 
of the group. BNG could fetch between œ500m and œ1 billion.

The NDA, which now owns the Sellafield site in Cumbria, was not 
available for comment.

It had been hoped that Alan Johnson, the trade and industry 
secretary, would make a decision on BNG early this year. 



Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.

*****************************************************************
 87 newsobserver.com: Fueling up

Editorials
 
January 29, 2006

The United States has many reasons to reconsider reprocessing of
spent nuclear fuel, safety and savings among them 

As a young man, President Carter was an officer on a nuclear
submarine. His expertise in the field of atomic energy no doubt
was a factor in his 1979 decision canceling U.S. programs to
reprocess spent fuel from nuclear power plants.

Carter's premise was that reprocessing -- that is, extracting
usable uranium and plutonium from spent fuel rods -- should be
shunned because it generates material that can be used to make
nuclear weapons. The concern was that the technology, if it
spread, would enable more nations to join the nuclear weapons
club. These days, one can add the threat of terrorists who could
use purchased or stolen reprocessed material to make dirty bombs
that could render a U.S. city unlivable.

Yet a reversal of Carter's reprocessing decision is properly
being considered. Research into reprocessing has advanced over
the decades. In addition, splitting atoms to make electricity
has turned out to be safer than expected and has become an
increasingly attractive means of power generation. Other
methods, particularly coal- and natural gas-fired power plants,
are major sources of pollution linked to global warming.

That brings us to the Bush administration's push for research
into reprocessing. It is a logical extension of President Bush's
energy policy, which calls for building new-generation nuclear
power plants. But new plants would add to the 50,000 tons of
highly radioactive wastes already stored at power plants around
the country, an arrangement that is far from ideal from a human
safety perspective.

An additional 2,000 tons of the waste are produced each year.
Progress Energy's Shearon Harris plant in southwestern Wake
County holds one of the largest stockpiles, stored in deep
cooling pools. The federal government is years late in opening a
promised repository for high-level waste. Meanwhile, reflecting
the renewed interest in nuclear power, Progress last week
announced its intention to seek a federal license to build up to
two new reactors at the Harris site.

At the administration's urging, Congress last year added
millions to the budget for research into reprocessing. Now, Bush
reportedly plans to announce a $250 million reprocessing
initiative in Tuesday's State of the Union address.

Encouragingly, it would involve a new approach that would
recycle a high percentage of the original spent fuel, so
significantly less waste would need to be stored. And the waste
product would be less suitable for bomb-making. Those would be
great advances, for power generation but also for global safety.

Further, since Europe, Russia and Japan depend more heavily than
the United States on nuclear for electric power -- and since
they already use reprocessing -- a big leap in the technology
would benefit them.

The United States sees its demand for electricity grow daily.

Conservation and development of alternative energy sources
should be a part of the picture in meeting that demand, but an
increased reliance on nuclear may prove to be both desirable and
necessary as well. A reprocessing program that recycled waste
without raising security concerns could be what it takes finally
to make nuclear power a common-sense solution to the energy
puzzle. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not
be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner.
   
 	   	 	  
 © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 88 reviewjournal.com: Cut Miss Nevada a break on Yucca     

Opinion - SHERMAN FREDERICK:             

  Jan. 29, 2006
 										Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 
Miss Nevada, Crystal Wosik
 	   
I think none the less of Nevada's representative in the Miss
America contest for expressing her view on nuclear waste storage
at Yucca Mountain. While she could have been more articulate,
the thought she expressed was simple: In times of national need,
Nevada will sacrifice for the good of the country. While she
will no doubt get a hearty Bronx cheer from some, I find her
ideas well within the range of intelligent political discourse. 

In fact, it is worth remembering that virtually all of Nevada's
political giants a generation ago expressed the same thought
about testing above-ground nuclear bombs at the Nevada Test
Site. They defended, they enabled and they encouraged the
program by pointing out that America was in the middle of a Cold
War and exploding atomic weapons within sight of Las Vegas was
important for Nevada to "do its part." 

So let's award Crystal Wosik one point for courage when, in the
Miss America pageant, she took the pro-Yucca viewpoint. When
asked by a judge about Yucca, she defended the project saying,
"It has to go someplace," and that it was "the best-built
facility in the country." A judge pressed: And what happens if
people die? "We just have to take one for the team," Miss Nevada
said. 

That is definitely not the standard "world peace" Miss America
answer. Good for Miss Nevada. By venturing down the road less
traveled in this super-charged issue, she if nothing else
justified hope that our state's youth have the capacity for
critical thinking. 

Yucca is a difficult, far-reaching question. Little meaningful
discussion of Yucca goes on in Nevada today. I for one am glad
to hear someone -- anyone -- say something interesting on the
topic. 

Although you hear doomsday arguments from most of Nevada's
current politicians, the rhetoric is unjustified and unwise
given that we are a city dependent upon tourism. The unvarnished
truth is that if Yucca is built and used, Las Vegans will not
all die in some sort of inevitable nuclear catastrophe. It is a
dead-end argument to suggest that Yucca can't be engineered and
operated with a high degree of safety. 

What gives me heartburn about Yucca: First, it was forced onto
us not because we were the best option, but because we were a
politically weak state. As a Nevadan, that just makes me mad.
Second, and more importantly, Yucca Mountain doesn't cure what
ails the nuclear power industry. 

Storing nuclear waste in the ground until the dinosaurs come
home isn't the answer. It's a political convenience and an
avoidance of the real issue, which is not safe storage, but
effective reprocessing of nuclear waste. 

Short of getting out of the nuclear power business, reprocessing
is the only answer that makes sense. 

If this nation were serious about reprocessing and were willing
to plant the necessary scientists and facilities at Yucca
Mountain to make it so, then the short-term storage of a limited
amount of waste a Yucca might -- might -- make some sense. Until
then, it's best to just keep it parked at the reactors that
created it. It's no safer here than it is there. 


Sherman Frederick is publisher of the Review-Journal. Send
e-mail to sfrederick@reviewjourna.com. 	 

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 89 Green Left Weekly: Uranium exports to China too risky

Jim Green 

An SBS-commissioned Newspoll of 1200 Australians last September
found that 53% were opposed to uranium exports to China, with
just 31% in favour. Nevertheless, on January 17 the federal
government began negotiating a bilateral uranium export
agreement with a Chinese delegation in Canberra and the
negotiations will continue in the coming months. 

What would happen to a whistleblower raising concerns about the
diversion of materials from China’s nuclear power program to its
weapons of mass destruction program? Most likely the same fate
as befell Sun Xiaodi, who was concerned about environmental
contamination at a uranium mine in north-west China. The
non-government organisation Human Rights in China reports that
Sun Xiaodi was sacked and harassed, and in April 2005,
immediately after speaking to a foreign journalist, he was
abducted by state authorities and has not been heard from since. 

Beijing’s record of media censorship is equally deplorable.
According to Reporters Without Borders, at least 27 journalists
were being held in prison at the start of last year, making
China the world’s largest prison for journalists. 

Uranium sales to China would set a poor precedent. Will we now
sell uranium to all repressive, secretive, military states, or
just some, or just China? 
IAEA ‘safeguards’
 

For information about any diversion of Australian uranium for
nuclear weapons production we would be completely reliant on the
inspection system of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and the provisions of the bilateral export agreement. 

As a nuclear weapons state, China is not subject to full-scope
IAEA safeguards. Facilities using Australian uranium would be
subject to inspections, but “our” uranium would be mixed with,
and indistinguishable from, uranium sourced elsewhere. Further,
because the IAEA’s inspection program is chronically
under-resourced, inspections would not be sufficiently frequent
and rigorous to provide confidence - let alone certainty - that
Australian uranium was not being diverted. 

As for the bilateral agreement currently being negotiated, PM
John Howard said on January 13 that the conditions for these
agreements were laid down at the time of the Fraser government.
But the conditions spelt out by Malcolm Fraser in May 1977 were
being weakened literally within weeks of their creation. 

Taken alone, none of the numerous “adjustments” to bilateral
agreement provisions since May 1977 amount to a fundamental
departure, but overall there has been a clear downgrading of
safeguards. Reflecting these concerns, West Australian Acting
Premier Eric Ripper recently said that there should be no
exports of uranium to China or any other country because of the
limitations of the safeguards. 

Key provisions in bilateral agreements have never been invoked.
It is commendable that Australian consent is required before
uranium is enriched beyond 20% uranium-235 (highly enriched
uranium can be used in nuclear weapons), but no customer country
has ever sought consent to enrich beyond 20%. More importantly,
numerous requests to reprocess spent nuclear fuel produced from
Australian uranium have been received, but they have never once
been rejected, even when this leads to the stockpiling of
plutonium. 

Given that bilateral agreement provisions have been repeatedly
watered down, and some key remaining provisions have never been
invoked, it cannot truthfully be claimed that Australia’s
uranium export safeguards are better than any in the world. 
Weakening export scrutiny
 

Freedom of Information documents released last year reveal that
Beijing wants to further weaken provisions contained in
bilateral agreements, though the detail remains unclear. Does
China want a free hand to enrich uranium or to separate
plutonium from spent fuel without seeking Australian consent? 

Currently, China claims that it is not producing fissile
material for its weapons program, but there is no independent
verification of the claim. It is generally believed that China
has sufficient fissile material for a modest upgrade of its
nuclear arsenal, but would need to produce more fissile material
for a significant upgrade. 

The most likely driving force for a significant upgrade is
China’s concern about the United States’ missile defence
program. By supporting the US program, Australia may be
encouraging China to expand its nuclear arsenal, and through
uranium exports we may provide the raw materials. 

Certainly the US regards China’s nuclear program with concern.
The US Nuclear Posture Review, leaked in 2002, refers to China’s
“ongoing modernisation of its nuclear and non-nuclear forces”
and envisages nuclear attacks on China in the event of a
confrontation over Taiwan. China has not ratified the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 

It is not difficult to envisage a scenario whereby the IAEA
inspection regime and the bilateral agreement would count for
nothing - the most obvious being escalating tension over Taiwan.
Beijing promises military action in the event that Taipei
declares independence, and Washington promises a military
reaction in which Australia could become embroiled. The
bilateral agreement would not be worth the paper it’s written
on. 

There are other serious concerns in addition to the potential
use of Australian uranium in Chinese nuclear weapons. Wang Yi, a
nuclear energy expert at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in
Beijing, told the New York Times in January last year: “We don’t
have a very good plan for dealing with spent fuel, and we don’t
have very good emergency plans for dealing with catastrophe.” 

The argument that China will simply source uranium from
elsewhere if we do not supply it is morally bankrupt. By the
same logic, we might just as well export illegal and dangerous
drugs. 

The nuclear lobby wants to have it both ways. On the one hand
they argue we have a moral responsibility to export our uranium
because it is a “clean” energy source and/or because Australian
safeguards are stronger than other uranium exporting countries
(no matter that both claims are false). On the other hand they
argue that it won’t make the slightest bit of difference if
Australia doesn’t export uranium. 
Other customers
 

The potential use of Australian uranium in weapons of mass
destruction is clearly of public concern. Last year, an IAEA
survey of 1020 Australians found that 56% of respondents
considered the IAEA’s “safeguards” inspection system to be
ineffective. A Morgan poll last year found that 70% of
Australians oppose an expansion of the Australian uranium mining
industry. 

According to John Carlson, head of the federal government’s
so-called Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office,
Australia sells uranium only to countries with an “impeccable”
record on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. 

While uranium sales to China would set a new low, few if any of
Australia’s uranium customer countries have an impeccable
record. 

The US, France and the UK are uranium customers, but also
nuclear weapons states that evidently have no intention of
complying with their disarmament obligations under the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty. 

Japan, a major customer of Australian uranium, has developed a
nuclear “threshold” or “breakout” capability - it could produce
nuclear weapons within months of a decision to do so, relying
heavily on facilities, materials and expertise from its civil
nuclear program. 

An obvious source of fissile material for a weapons program in
Japan would be its stockpile of plutonium - including plutonium
produced using Australian uranium. In April 2002, the then
leader of Japan’s Liberal Party, Ichiro Ozawa, said Japan should
consider building nuclear weapons to counter China and suggested
a source of fissile material: “It would be so easy for us to
produce nuclear warheads; we have plutonium at nuclear power
plants in Japan, enough to make several thousand such warheads.” 

South Korea is another major customer of Australian uranium with
less than impeccable credentials. In 2004, South Korea disclosed
information about a range of activities that violated its
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments - uranium
enrichment from 1979-81, the separation of small quantities of
plutonium in 1982, uranium enrichment experiments in 2000 and
the production of depleted uranium munitions from 1983-87. 

Australia has supplied South Korea with uranium since 1986. It
is not known, and may never be known, whether Australian-sourced
nuclear materials were used in any of the illicit research.
South Korea has acknowledged using both indigenous and imported
nuclear materials in the tests, but denies that any Australian
uranium was used. 

[Jim Green is an anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the
Earth.] 

From Green Left Weekly, February 1, 2006. 
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW   	 
*****************************************************************
 90 WorldNetDaily: To MOX or not to MOX
	       	   		 		 	
 [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] 
 
Posted: January 28, 2006

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com 

After four years of intense debate, President Bush has
apparently decided to override President Carter and Greenpeace
and "close the fuel cycle." 

Carter had essentially prohibited the "recycling" of "spent"
nuclear fuel and required all U.S. electric utilities operating
nuclear power plants to charge their customers a monthly fee
that was to be handed over to the federal government so the
government could dig a really deep grave somewhere out west (in
a state with only one or two electoral votes). 

Once a deep enough grave had been dug, the owners and operators
of the nuclear power plants had to bury all their "spent" fuel
elements – which, from the viewpoint of generating electricity,
were still worth nearly as much when "spent" as they had been
when they were brand new – and pay the federal government to
stand guard over the grave for the next 10,000 years. 

There are several rationales for President Bush to reverse this
Carter nuclear power "no-recycling" decision: 

Global warming: One rationale is that there may turn out – after
all – to be something to this global-warming brouhaha. And if it
is somehow connected to the production of carbon dioxide,
perhaps we ought to shut down our coal-fired, oil-fired and
gas-fired electricity generating plants and build thousands of
nuclear power plants to replace them. 

Since we desperately need the electricity, and since nuclear
power plants don't make "greenhouse" gases, we can no longer
afford to treat fuel elements that are far from "spent" as
liabilities rather than as assets. 

Stifling Yucca Mountain: A second rationale is that if "spent"
fuel is recycled, the highly radioactive "dirty daughters" –
with "short half-lives" – can be chemically separated from the
weakly radioactive – long half-lived – "unburned" fuel. Only the
short-lived "dirty daughters" would need to be shipped to Yucca
Mountain, and the feds would only have to stand guard over a
given shipment for decades, as opposed to 10,000 years for
un-separated "spent" fuel. 

Loose nukes: A third rationale is that the Russians are getting
rid of their excess weapons-useable plutonium – enough to make
about 30,000 nukes – by making plutonium-uranium mixed-oxide
(MOX) fuel and generating electricity with all those excess
nukes. 

The rest of the world was not affected by Jimmy Carter's decree
not to recycle spent fuel, so there is already an established –
but barely cost effective since there is not yet a shortage of
cheap uranium – MOX fuel infrastructure, wherein "spent" fuel
elements of other nations have been converted into MOX and used
to generate electricity in Europe, Russia, Japan and elsewhere. 

The effect of the Russians getting rid of all their "loose
nukes" as MOX – which we have pledged to help them do,
financially and technically – will be to vastly increase the
size – and cost-effectiveness – of this international MOX fuel
infrastructure. 

Five years ago, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici
called for the secretary of energy to develop a "National Spent
Nuclear Fuel Strategy." 

Domenici said that Congress urgently needed that strategy to
determine "whether the spent fuel should be treated as waste,
subject to permanent burial" (a la Jimmy Carter), or whether it
"should be considered to be an energy resource that is needed to
meet future energy requirements." 

Five years later, it appears that strategy has been developed. 

But, if the Bush-Cheney administration decides to essentially
establish a barely cost-effective U.S. MOX program in
competition with the Russians, the motive may be essentially
un-related to addressing the global warming or Yucca Mountain
hysteria. 

It may be that Bush-Cheney have realized that a solution to the
current Iranian uranium-enrichment "crisis" would be for the
Russian nuclear power plants at Bushehr to be fueled from the
get-go with MOX fuel. 

Because of radiation safety concerns at the facilities, the MOX
fuel cycle is essentially run as a "just-in-time" operation. The
time interval between the un-burned plutonium and uranium still
being in a highly radioactive spent-fuel element in storage and
its being loaded – as weakly radioactive MOX – into another
reactor needs to be held to a few months. That is, spent fuel is
not "recycled" until it is actually needed to make MOX fuel for
a date-specific refueling of a specific reactor. 

Hence, with Russian MOX fueled reactors, the need or even
desirability of Iran having a uranium-enrichment capability
would be obviated. 

Bummer! 

So much for the gravest threat we have faced since the end of
the Cold War. 

Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy
implementing official for national security-related technical
matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and
Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr.
Prather also served as legislative assistant for national
security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate
Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had
earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National
Laboratory in New Mexico. 

        All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.                  
*****************************************************************
 91 Salt Lake Tribune: Ashamed of lawmakers

Opinion 

Article Last Updated: 01/28/2006 04:12:39 PM                              
                   
  Since 1990, Utah has had an approval process for the opening
and expansion of radioactive and toxic waste dumps. This law has
served Utah well because it requires regulatory, legislative and
gubernatorial approval. 

   Although Envirocare was involved with the discussions that
created the laws, it seems now that Sen. Howard Stephenson and
Envirocare want to change the rules by removing the governor
from the equation. For the long-term safety of Utah residents,
it is appropriate that when dealing with an issue as serious as
radioactive waste storage, where Utahns will suffer the
consequences for thousands of years, that we have a true
consensus from our executive and legislative bodies. 

   After attending a recent Senate Agricultural, Natural 
Resources and Environment Committee meeting, I must say I was 
ashamed of the committee members who scolded the public as they 
voted for SB70. Dozens of private citizens attended the meeting 
and every one of them who spoke was against this bill. 

   It seems clear to me that these legislators have forgotten
just whom they represent. Let's keep integrity in the process
and preserve the checks and balances that protect the rights and
health of Utahns. 
    
   Lisa Smith 
   Salt Lake City 
      
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 92 Beaumont Enterprise: Patch of land in Winnie awaits cleanup of a contaminant that 
lasts for ages

News - 01/29/2006 - 

By: Beth Gallaspy, The Enterprise    01/29/2006  

Dave Ryan/ The Enterprise
Elzey Bourque talks about the oil well remnants that still stand
on a site on his land that was contaminated years ago. 				      

WINNIE - Surrounded by cattle, barbed wire and scrubby grass sits 
a half-acre of pasture land with a $3 million problem.
 
More than a decade ago, a radioactive element called americium
being used in an oil well spilled from the capsule that
contained it and contaminated the soil and equipment on the
surface of this field about two miles north of Interstate 10.
 
Early on, state officials wrapped the equipment in plastic. They
had workers on site trade their clothing for jumpsuits and
sealed the possibly contaminated garments in metal barrels,
recalled Elzey Bourque, who owned an oilfield services company
working there at the time and whose mother owns the property.
 
Now, the plastic has blown away. Rust has eaten holes into the
equipment and the barrels once used to contain some of the
contaminated materials.
 
Bourque, who has handled most of the fallout with the state for
his mother, said the whole process has been "just aggravating."
 
"If it's really bad, let's do something about it," Bourque said.
"If it's not bad, let's take the fence down."
 
As the property sits now, animals that might turn up on
someone's table, such as birds and rabbits, still have access,
and pet dogs from houses about a quarter mile from the site have
sometimes shown up, Bourque said. If the land is that dangerous,
he questions the wisdom of leaving it so open for so long.
 
Personally, he does not worry about the risks.
 
"I've been all around that place, and I've still got all three
hands and seven fingers," he joked.
 
The concentration of radioactive material that spilled on site
in September 1995 is very low, according to Bob Free, manager
for the environmental monitoring group of the Texas Department
of State Health Services. Still, it could pose a danger,
especially if someone used the land for an edible crop by either
gardening or farming, Free said in a telephone interview.
 
Americium can bind to bones if inhaled or ingested and increase
a person's risk of cancer, Free said. And it will not go away on
its own, at least not in the lifetime of anyone reading this.
 
Americium has a half-life of 458 years, which is the time needed
for half of the material to disintegrate. To degrade to a safe
level, americium would need seven half-lives, or 3,206 years,
Free said.
 
Because state authorities do not know how the property might be
used that far into the future, cleanup and disposal of the
contaminated materials is necessary, Free said. The operation
has an estimated $3 million price tag.
 
"We've been trying to pursue this operator to try to get them to
take responsibility," Ramona Nye, Texas Railroad Commission
spokeswoman, said by telephone of the state's efforts.
 
D Operating Co., which was running the well, has gone out of
business, though, and state authorities have given up on getting
money from the defunct firm.
 
Instead, the state oilfield cleanup fund will be used to cover
the cost, Nye said. The fund comes from fees paid by oilfield
operators across the state and generates about $20 million a
year, Nye said. The Winnie cleanup likely would be phased in
over several years, with the first phase possibly starting this
fiscal year, which runs through August, she said.
 
Free said the health department's radiation perpetual-care fund
also could contribute to the cost. Those funds come from fines
and fees related to licensed uses of radioactive materials.
 
The largest cost of the cleanup would come from disposal of
materials. All equipment on the surface and the top foot of soil
need to be removed and disposed of at a site authorized to
handle low-level radioactive waste, Free said. Only three exist
in the country, in South Carolina, Utah and Washington state.
 
"It's already buried here, but it's not contained, monitored and
stabilized," Free said.
 
The clay soil at the Winnie site has contained the material to
some extent. Free said the nearest water well is about a quarter
mile away, and state testing has not shown the americium to have
migrated anywhere near that far.
 
Free said he could recall no testing showing americium in grass
available to nearby grazing animals, but he did not believe
comprehensive testing of that kind had been done.
 
(409) 833-3311, ext. 425 

©The Beaumont Enterprise 2006                                     
*****************************************************************
 93 Japan Times: U.S. Democrats urge Japan to halt nuclear fuel plan

  Saturday, January 28, 2006   
  
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) Six U.S. Democrats have urged Japan to
suspend its plan to begin a test operation to extract plutonium
at a nuclear-waste reprocessing facility in Rokkasho, Aomori
Prefecture, Democratic congressional sources said Thursday.

 "We firmly believe that the continued extraction of
weapons-usable plutonium poses significant and unnecessary
threats to international security and nonproliferation," the six
lawmakers said in a letter sent to Japanese Ambassador to the
U.S. Ryozo Kato.

 "To that end, we are writing to encourage you to suspend plans
to conduct active testing of Rokkasho in 2006 as part of a
broader agreement to postpone operation of the Rokkasho
reprocessing plant," says the letter, obtained by Kyodo News.

 The six lawmakers include Edward Markey from Massachusetts, who
has expertise in energy policy and nuclear nonproliferation, and
Donald Payne from New Jersey.

 While pointing out that Japan already has a plutonium stockpile
of more than 40 tons, one of the sources said the test operation
at Rokkasho goes against the trend of strengthening the global
nonproliferation regimes and would have a negative impact on
Iran's nuclear designs.

 The lawmakers said they made the request to Japan "as part of a
global initiative to reduce worldwide stockpiles of
weapons-usable fissile materials -- highly enriched uranium and
separated plutonium."

 They also said the suspension "would promote nuclear
disarmament and nonproliferation, and help prevent terrorists
from acquiring nuclear weapons."

 Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., which runs the reprocessing plant in
the village, plans to start a test operation to extract
plutonium by March so plutonium can be produced as early as
spring.

 The Japan Times: Jan. 28, 2006
(C) All rights reserved 

*****************************************************************
 94 Newsweek: International: The Waste Problem - 

- MSNBC.com

Where will we all be in 100,000 years?
  
Newsweek International

Feb. 6, 2006 issue - Because nuclear plants emit no carbon,
nuclear power is emerging as a way of saving the earth from
global warming. But the twin specters of nuclear waste and
proliferation-nuclear material getting into the wrong hands-cast
doubt on whether nuclear power can fulfill this promise.

When the uranium fuel of a nuclear power plant is "spent,"
what's left is a mixture of radioactive substances, of which 1
percent is plutonium-a highly toxic material used to make
nuclear weapons. Because plutonium stays radioactive for tens of
thousands of years, it must be kept in a facility that lasts a
long time. Building such facilities is politically fraught. The
proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada is a legal and
technical mess after decades of research and $9 billion in
expenditures. France's repository program is also in deep
trouble, and Germany's ground to a halt in the 1990s.

Meanwhile, nuclear waste keeps piling up-and the odds of its
falling into the wrong hands increases. The world's spent
nuclear fuel already contains enough plutonium to make about
200,000 nuclear bombs. To mitigate the waste problem, the
nuclear establishment is advocating "reprocessing"-in which
plutonium is separated out and recycled as nuclear fuel.
Ninety-nine percent of what remains might be easier to dispose
of, but the 1 percent that remains is pure (bomb-grade)
plutonium.

The proliferation risk was enough for the United States to
discourage reprocessing after the 1974 Indian nuclear test. The
Bush administration is reversing that policy. This is a mistake.
Reprocessing is already the cause of much trouble. North Korea
got its plutonium from a supposedly commercial reprocessing
program. Rising tensions between Japan and China over oil and
gas rights have led Japan to consider its own nuclear weapons.
With stocks of plutonium reprocessed in France, Japan could make
its own weapons in six months. The world's most powerful
countries should be careful of heading down a path that could
lead to a nightmare.

Arjun Makhijani is president of the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Maryland.© 2006 Newsweek,
Inc.

MSNBC.com  
*****************************************************************
 95 ContraCostaTimes.com: Pension plan angers lab workers

| 01/28/2006 | 

 By Heather Clark ASSOCIATED PRESS 

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - New Mexico's senators urged the Department
of Energy to reject a plan to create a separate pension fund for
Los Alamos National Laboratory employees and retirees. 

The University of California Board of Regents last week voted to
create the separate fund for the nuclear weapons lab -- called
the UCRP-LANL Plan -- and remove it from the overall UC pension
fund. The DOE must approve the change. 

The decision has outraged lab employees and retirees, who fear
the smaller retirement fund would put their pensions at greater
risk. 

The UCRP-LANL Plan would have had a market value of $4.3 billion
had it existed last June, compared with UC's total pension fund
worth $41.8 billion at the time. 

Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., sent a
letter Friday to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman asking him to
reject UC's plan. 

"There are too many unanswered questions at this point for the
Department of Energy to proceed with such an irreversible
action," they wrote. 

Domenici and Bingaman -- chairman and ranking member of the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee respectively --
said the UCRP-LANL Plan is underfunded. 

A Dec. 1 report by an outside consulting firm showed the Los
Alamos lab portion of the UC pension fund was underfunded by $54
million last July. 

The senators said they are concerned that the DOE may be
required to contribute additional funds to the lab's pension
plan, "which may draw further on science investment we make at
the lab." 

UC President Robert Dynes, who recommended the change, has said
the lab's fund is a "cloned" plan that would provide the same
monthly benefit formulas as the regular UC retirement plan. 

UC officials have described the lab's pension fund as extremely
healthy. 

The change in pension funds comes weeks after the DOE awarded a
lab management contract to Los Alamos National Security, LLC,
which is headed by UC and Bechtel Corp. Previously, UC had been
the sole manager of the lab during its 63-year-history. 

"It is the University of California's intent to comply fully
with the requirements of the Department of Energy and to ensure
that we honor the commitment made by the UC Board of Regents to
Los Alamos National Laboratory employees and retirees with
respect to their benefits, including their retirement," UC
spokesman Chris Harrington said Friday. 

While university officials have yet to see the senators' letter,
Harrington said UC will work with New Mexico's congressional
delegation and the DOE during the management transition.

*****************************************************************
 96 Courier News: Fermilab hopes deep down to win project

  [SuburbanChicagoNews.com]   

By Staff Writer 

BATAVIA  For just about everyone, the particle physics
experiments conducted at Fermilab are over their heads. But for
some Batavians, those experiments may one day be under their
feet.

 A major new accelerator project in Europe is threatening to
make Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory obsolete, leaving the
lab on Batavia's east side with some hard choices.

 Fermilab Director Pier Oddone is pinning his hopes on a new
project, one that will result in the construction of a
20-mile-long particle accelerator, 300 feet underground,
stretching out into the Fox Valley. If everything goes Oddone's
way, this new device will be located on or near the Fermilab
campus in Batavia.

 The proposed international linear collider is the product of a
meeting of scientific minds from all over the globe. 

It has been under discussion for years, and the design and
planning phase is expected to continue through roughly 2010,
with an online date of 2017, although everything is still
tentative at this stage.

 Those projected dates may seem like a long way off, but they
make more sense considering the magnitude of the project. It
eventually will cost about $8 billion, to be funded by countries
in Asia, Europe and the Americas. More than 600 scientists have
had input so far into the technological makeup of the collider,
with the goal being a global consensus on what it will look
like, how it will work and where it will be.

Dimensions, dark matter

The group in charge of organizing that consensus is called the
Global Design Effort, headed by Barry Barish, a professor at the
California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

 The GDE has a small office on Fermilab's grounds, but Barish
says most of his time is spent in the air, flying from country
to country to discuss aspects of the collider with interested
scientists.

 "There's not much precedent for what we're doing," he said.
"Each day is a new learning experience."

 The question of what, exactly, the linear collider will do is
not easily answered. The simplest explanation is that it hurls
beams of particles at one another at phenomenal speeds, and
scientists hope to use the resulting data to answer questions
about other dimensions and the dark matter of space.

 "We're at a place where we are stumped," Oddone said.
"Basically, our questions have evolved, and the machines we need
to answer them have become bigger  so big that no one region can
build them."

 Barish said that Fermilab is one of four sites under
consideration to host the international linear collider  two
others are in Europe and one in Japan. 

According to Barish, however, the GDE is approaching the site
selection with equality in mind, essentially setting up criteria
for the safety and operation of the collider before trying to
find a site that matches those criteria.

 "This process is not to see who is better, but to see how we
would handle things that would be factors when you build a
machine like this underground," Barish said. "We want to come up
with a design that would work anywhere before we decide where to
build it."

Uncertain future
 
Oddone, of course, believes Fermilab is an ideal location for
the collider, citing the existing infrastructure and support
technology that would have to be built from scratch if the
collider were constructed elsewhere in the United States. 

He says the U.S. Department of Energy agrees with him. It is
funding much of the U.S. portion of the project and has stated
that it would like the collider to be built on or near Fermilab.

 The stakes are high for Fermilab. The European Organization for
Nuclear Research facility, CERN, located just west of Geneva,
Switzerland, plans to bring its new device, the large hadron
collider, online in 2007.

 According to Oddone, that means Fermilab's particle accelerator
equipment may become obsolete in the near future, as physicists
from around the world would bring their experiments to CERN
instead of to the Fox Valley.

 Barish says the local project would consider the interests of
area residents. Since the collider likely would stretch for 20
miles, building it near Fermilab could necessitate digging
underneath private property.

 But the design is at such an early stage, no details exist, and
few Batavians are even aware of the proposal.

 Oddone agreed said that the construction of the collider will
occur deep underground, with little surface upset. The
accelerators at CERN are a similar distance below ground, Oddone
said, and there have been no radiation issues in the lab's
decades of particle physics experiments.

 "So far, the community has been very supportive," Oddone said.
"There is a lot of excitement to keep Fermilab as a world-class
and vital place."01/29/06 

      SuburbanChicagoNews.com — ©  Digital Chicago & Sun-Times
*****************************************************************
 97 Tri-Valley Herald: Lab tapped employees calls

Article Last Updated: 01/28/2006 03:14:59 AM  

Los Alamos is second facility found recording workers

  By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER  

  Investigators for the U.S. Department of Energy reported
Friday that a second nuclear-weapons lab — University of
California-operated Los Alamos lab in New Mexico — has been
regularly recording conversations on its security phone lines
without notification to workers. 

Last year, the Energy Departments in 

spector general found the same thing at Sandia National
Laboratories in New Mexico.Both labs had disabled a notification
feature on their phone recording systems so that workers never
heard beeps to signal they were being recorded. 

Federal regulations and laws in many states require mutual
consent for the recording of phone conversation, and Energy
Department regulations say the beeping notification is part of
that consent. 

Both labs now have restored the notification. 

In a report released Friday, the Energy Departments inspector
general said Los Alamos security managers have been archiving
the recorded conversations. In some cases, managers received
transcripts of those conversations and Sandia had used them in
disciplinary proceedings, said the inspector general. 

Los Alamos officials said the disabling of the beeping
notification was an inadvertent technical glitch. 

Lab spokesman Jim Fallon said a worker was upgrading the 
recording system and unknowingly deleted the notification tone 
for certain telephone lines. Those lines included the labs 
Central Alarm Station but also the desk phones for security-force 
shift captains and scheduling supervisors, said the inspector 
general. 

There was, said Fallon, no nefarious intent, and clearly we
respect the privacy of our staff and also the need to meet DOE
emergency response orders. 

The inspector generals report quoted a Los Alamos official as
saying the notification was disabled because portions of
conversations were being overwhelmed by the beeping, sometimes
interfering with the receipt of critical information. 

Officials at Lawrence Livermore and Sandia labs in California
said they always keep parties on their security phones notified
that they are being recorded. 

© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers 
*****************************************************************
 98 DenverPost.com: CH2M Hill finds opportunity in disasters, war

Article Launched: 01/29/2006 01:00:00 AM                                                        
		
  By Tom McGhee Denver Post Staff Writer   

Bud Ahearn, chairman of CH2M Hill, stands outside the company s 
Englewood campus. Natural disasters and war have provided the 
engineering and consulting firm with lucrative contracts for 
reconstruction. (Post / Craig F. Walker)       
    
War, natural disaster, toxic cleanup and rapidly developing
international economies. 

For the right kind of company, they're good for business. And
Douglas County-based CH2M Hill is the right kind of company. 

For decades, the engineering and consulting company has quietly
built expertise in nuclear cleanup, infrastructure building and
restoration. 

When the December 2004 tsunami washed away communities
throughout Southeast Asia, when Hurricane Katrina swamped New
Orleans and when the U.S. promised reconstruction of war-torn
Iraq, CH2M Hill was poised to snag lucrative contracts. 

As a result, its revenue has doubled over the past five years,
and it is predicted to keep growing. This month alone, CH2M Hill
announced a contract to build a power plant in Nevada, another
to oversee the reconstruction of wastewater systems in Sri Lanka
and the chance to bid on the cleanup of a nuclear plant in Great
Britain. 

The company also has contracts in Singapore, Sri Lanka, the
United Kingdom and a host of other countries. And in the United
States, it is a major contractor for the Department of Energy,
other federal agencies and local governments. 

Sandy Springs, Ga., a city outside Atlanta with a population of
90,000, has outsourced the operation of its administration,
human resources, public works and parks and recreation services
to CH2M Hill, a contract worth $29.7 million the first year and
$24.7 million the second. 

Few companies are as well-positioned as CH2M Hill to take on
such massive, diverse and sometimes dirty jobs, 				 				 					
					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 said Paul Zofnass,
president of financial consulting firm EFCG, which provides
business advice to the engineering industry. 

Consider the cleanup of Rocky Flats, a former nuclear- weapons
facility west of Denver that once was considered the country's
most toxic site. CH2M Hill subsidiary Kaiser-Hill accomplished
the task and earned a $355 million bonus for ending work on the
$7 billion project one year ahead of schedule. 

Yet with 200 offices around the world, about 15,000 employees
and $3 billion in revenues in 2004, CH2M Hill is far from a
household word. 

"They're not well-known if you are not in the industry, but if
you are, they are gold," Zofnass said. 

Diverse range of services 

CH2M HILL was founded in January 1946 in Corvallis, Ore., as
CH2M - a name derived from the initials of the company's four
founders, all engineers: Fred Merryfield, Holly Cornell, James
Howland, and T. Burke Hayes. Some 25 years later, the company
merged with Clair A. Hill and Associates to form CH2M Hill. 

The company has successfully added to its roster of services
through a series of seemingly unrelated acquisitions. 

The 2003 purchase of Lockwood Greene, an engineering company
that specializes in pharmaceutical, chemical and power projects,
contributed $359 million in revenues to CH2M Hill in 2004. 

In October 2004, CH2M Hill paid $4.5 million for Micro Source
Inc., which provides services for data networks. The move is
expected to help CH2M Hill obtain long-term network operations
and maintenance contracts. 

The 				 				 					 					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				
company's diverse range of services and the speed at which it
can mobilize have made CH2M Hill a go-to company when disaster
strikes. 

When the Department of Defense opened a spigot of spending after
the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, for example, CH2M Hill
was among the prime beneficiaries. The company won Department of
Defense contracts worth $1.5 billion between 2002 and the first
half of 2004. It ranked No. 11 on a list of top defense
contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan compiled by the
Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group. 

When the tsunami rolled across the Indian Ocean, CH2M Hill
donated its services by setting up and running a mobile
water-treatment plant in the Indonesian city of Banda Aceh. 

More recently, the United States Agency for International
Development awarded CH2M Hill a $33 million contract to lead a
major infrastructure redevelopment effort in parts of Sri Lanka
damaged by the tsunami. As with most of CH2M Hill's projects,
much of the work will be done by local subcontractors. 

When New Orleans flooded, CH2M Hill was among a handful of
companies to receive no-bid contracts from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency worth up to $100 million each. 

The contracts call for CH2M Hill to oversee the provision of
trailers and other temporary housing along the Gulf Coast. 

The company's revenues have doubled every five years. In 1999,
revenues were $1.6 billion; last year, they topped $3 billion. 

It doesn't hurt that CH2M Hill has ex-government and military
personnel in important positions who know the needs of the 
bureaucracies that are frequent clients of the company. 

Robert Card, head of the company's international group, has
spent most of his career at CH2M Hill and its affiliate,
Kaiser-Hill. But Card also served as undersecretary of the
Department of Energy from 2001 until 2004. 

John "Bud" Ahearn, who has been with the company since 1992,
served 34 years in the U.S. Air Force and, as a major-general,
directed the development and operations of all U.S. air bases
around the world. He once headed the Air Force Civil Engineer
Support Agency, an Air Force procurement agency that recently
awarded CH2M Hill part of a $10 billion contract. 

And while government or military service can provide insight
into what the Air Force or federal agencies need, connections
have little to do with CH2M Hill's success, Ahearn said. Federal
employees frequently move to different positions, and those
connections grow stale, Ahearn said. 

"Any time you have a professional endeavor, you build
relationships and you cherish them and you nourish them," he
said. "But they're used discreetly. Air Force procurement teams
are not interested in relationships with folks like myself." 

Gives to campaigns 

Knowledge of how government entities work is invaluable, said
Charles Tiefer, professor of government contracting at the
University of Baltimore law school and author of "Government
Contract Law." 

"It has great value both for shaping the company's proposal to
suit the government and pricing the proposal as 				 				 					
					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 close as possible to
what the government wants to pay," Tiefer said. 

CH2M Hill also has earned a reputation for excellence and
innovative thinking that has won it respect throughout the
industry, Zofnass said. 

But being one of the best doesn't mean CH2M Hill ignores
politics and its influence on business. The company's political
action committee and employees contributed $517,050 to political
campaigns during the 2004 election, ranking sixth among
contributors in the construction industry, according to the
Center for Responsive Politics. 

Competition is keen for the type of work done by CH2M Hill, said
Zofnass. More than 2,000 U.S. consulting and engineering-design
firms offer at least some services similar to CH2M Hill's. Most
are small, with revenues less than $100 million. Others, like
Broomfield-based MWH Global, which had $950 million in revenues
in 2004, are equipped to handle larger jobs, Zofnass said. 

And then there are giant competitors like the Bechtel Group,
which had $17 billion in revenues in 2004. 

"Bechtel and Fluor (Corp.) and similar gigantic companies offer
the government one-stop shopping for very large tasks," Tiefer
said. 

Frequently, CH2M Hill forms partnerships with rivals such as
Bechtel to get pieces of large projects. The Department of
Energy recently selected CH2M Hill and the Washington Group to
lead the $2.9 billion environmental cleanup of the Idaho
National Laboratory, for example. 

CH2M Hill will probably continue to diversify to stay
competitive in an evolving industry, Zofnass 				 				 					
					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 said. Growth is
essential to engineering companies that want to bid on the type
of projects CH2M Hill specializes in, said Debbie Rubin, an
editor and reporter with Engineering News Record. 

"The jobs are getting bigger," she said. "The jobs are getting
more global, and it takes size to do them. The clients in the
industry want firms that can do everything." 

Staff writer Tom McGhee can be reached at 303-820-1671 or . 				
				 				 			   		 		 		
  All contents Copyright 2006 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
 99 Paducah Sun: Federal Role: Energy agency should help recovery
 
Paducah, Kentucky 

Saturday, January 28, 2006 

Local officials need help from the federal government in turning
the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant site into an economic asset
for the region. 

The plant was the linchpin of the local economy for more than 50
years, but it´s rapidly approaching a projected closing date in
2010. When USEC Inc., the plant´s operator, consolidates its
operations in Portsmouth, Ohio, hundreds of workers will lose
their jobs and McCracken County will be left with an idled
federal installation occupying several thousand acres along the
Ohio River. 

With that in mind, Judge-Executive Danny Orazine and other local
leaders are pressing the Department of Energy to give the
community more options for offsetting the effects of the plant
shutdown on the area´s economy. The federal agency has done
little to help the community prepare for the job losses, other
than temporarily funding a local organization that was set up to
deal with the economic problems caused by the downsizing of
uranium enrichment operations. 

During a hearing held recently in Paducah by First District
Congressman Ed Whitfield, McCracken County officials pointed out
that the county has never received fee-in-lieu of property tax
payments from USEC. Twenty other DOE facilities have fee-in-lieu
arrangements with local governments, county Administrator Steve
Doolittle said. 

Fee-in-lieu payments would provide a small funding boost for
county services — a purpose that certainly appears consistent
with DOE´s pledge to help communities affected by
nuclear-related job losses. 

In other areas, the energy department can do a great deal more
to ease the post-USEC transition. Orazine said that DOE has
continued to fund industrial redevelopment in Oak Ridge, Tenn.,
long after a gaseous diffusion plant there closed. Based on that
precedent, city and county officials have legitimate
expectations that the agency will take an active role in finding
new uses for the property in western McCracken County. 

With one edict, DOE could give this area an opportunity to turn
an environmental liability into a significant economic
development asset. 

Thousands of tons of scrap metal at the site could be recycled
for commercial use, but DOE has imposed a ban on recycling at
nuclear installations. The ban supposedly was prompted by health
concerns about using the recycled metal in consumer products.
However, the recycling process would reduce radiation in the
metal to below background levels. 

Several companies have expressed interest in removing low-level
radiation from about 9,700 tons of nickel at the Paducah plant
and then selling the valuable metal to industrial users. A
nickel recycling facility would aid the plant cleanup and create
about 50 jobs. 

Displaced USEC employees could find work at a recycling plant.

Recycling also would have broader benefits, if some of the
profits from the sale of the nickel were channeled into economic
development programs. Local officials have estimated that the
recycling project could generate up to $12 million for the
community. 

Noting that proceeds from the recycling would jump-start local
initiatives designed to offset USEC job losses, Orazine,
Whitfield and Paducah Mayor Bill Paxton are pushing the
slow-moving DOE bureaucracy to lift the six-year-old ban. The
lifting of the ban would be a critical step in the community´s
recovery from job losses at the uranium enrichment plant. 

Looking ahead, the federal government should play a substantial
role in redeveloping the plant site. But DOE officials can
render an immediate service to the community simply by getting
out of the way of the private sector and allowing the recycling
project to move forward. 
  
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************