*****************************************************************
02/26/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.48
*****************************************************************
   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  Iranian Advisor: We'll Strike Dimona In Response To U.S. Attack 
2 IRNA: Iran-Russia nuclear talks to continue until March 6 
3 IRNA: Iran has not resumed uranium enrichment yet - Asefi 
4 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, Iran Agree to Enrichment Venture
5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Still Foresees Iran Nuke Resolution
6 Guardian Unlimited: Russia: IAEA Can Still Solve Iran Dispute
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, Russia Agree on Enrichment Deal
8 Guardian Unlimited: Chinese Envoy in Iran for Nuke Talks
9 Guardian Unlimited: Report: Iran Nuke Proposal Still on Table
10 IRNA: Think-tank says int'l community should accept Iran's right to 
11 IRNA: Iranian researchers in Japan stress Iran's right to nuclear te
12 IRNA: FM spokesman: Russian nuclear overture on table
13 IRNA: Moscow: Russian atomic cooperation proposal remains in force -
14 AFP: US says differences remain with India on landmark nuclear deal 
15 AFP: Iran warns IAEA ahead of crunch meeting -
16 AFP: Tensions as Iran, Russia say nuclear diplomacy continues -
17 AFP: Launch of Iran's first nuclear power station delayed again -
18 AFP: Russia seeks solution to Iran nuclear crisis 
19 AFP: Russia to maintain 'contacts' with Iran over nuclear crisis -
20 IRNA: Iran expects IAEA not to act politically - Asefi 
21 IRNA: Iranian, foreign correspondents inspect Iran's nuclear facilit
22 IRNA: Kiriyenko: Russia will do its best to resolve dispute on Iran 
23 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] U.S.-North Korea talks   
24 Korea Herald: Fate of nuke talks in N. Korean hands - Seoul aide   
25 Daily Yomiuri: Radioactive rhetoric on North Korea 
26 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., India Fail to Reach Nuclear Deal
27 US: SF New Mexican: Domenici urges freedom from foreign oil    
28 PTI: US Congressman raises doubt over Indo-US nuclear pact
29 US: San Francisco Chronicle: It's just yet another blurry line
30 SF Chron: Nuclear power dilemma for Bush in India / U.S. weighs bene
31 US: JS Online: Searching for alternatives 
32 AFP Bush's visit to India should not be judged by nuclear deal - Whi
33 AFP: Nuclear, terrorism issues to dominate Bush's first South Asia t
34 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Seeking Nuclear Deal With India
35 TheStar.com: It's time Canada gets serious about energy
36 Japan Times: Nuclear carrier unwelcome 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
37 US: ajc.com: Nuclear energy an attractive option | 
38 IRNA: Tender documents for establishment of two nuclear power plants
39 US: Arizona Daily Star: Ratepayers may feel vibration problem at Ari
40 JAMAICAOBSERVER.COM: Behind the nuclear power revival - 
41 Rediff: N-Deal: A word of caution from the RSS
42 Rediff: India offers to put 14 nuclear reactors on civilan
43 BBC: Labour conference backs nuclear
44 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear power industry recharged 
45 TheStar.com: Nuclear power dirty and harmful
46 US: nbc30.com: Millstone 2 Plant Shuts Down 
47 US: Clarion-Ledger: We must begin building nuclear power plants imme
48 Indian Express: 'N-Deal will help launch thorium reactors'
49 US: The Advocate: Millstone 2 shut down because of air system proble
50 US: The Advocate: Millstone Two nuclear power plant reopens after re
51 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine to diversify fuel supplies for its nuclear power 
52 US: KVOA: Engineers find Palo Verde plant fix elusive
53 US: PittsburghLIVE.com: Westinghouse legacy survives - 
54 US: MetroWestDailyNews.com: No easy answer to questions on nuclear p
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
55 AFP: Nuclear, terrorism issues to hog Bush's first South Asia trip -
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
56 IRNA: Iran almost self-sufficient in nuclear medicine 
57 US: AP Wire: Livermore lab faulted in workers' plutonium exposure
58 US: SF Chronicle: BAY AREA / Screening, stockpiles anti-terror prior
59 Independent: Don't mention the war: BBC plan for surviving nuclear a
60 US: Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction: VBDR Board Meet
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
61 US: [DU-WATCH] Leetso, or "yellow monster."
62 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast report facing delay
63 US: Deseret News: Law isn't needed, Hatch tells legislators
64 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear sleight of hand 
65 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Hatch takes on Utah Legislature 
66 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Well cleanup sought 
67 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmakers know best
68 US: Salt Lake Tribune: N-dump seeks hike in pollution permit 
69 Xinhua: Ukraine won't be engaged in uranium enrichment activities - 
70 US: RGJ.com: Plan to store mercury in state draws ire-Military wants
71 US: Boston Globe: Nuclear waste is a federal problem - 
72 US: PE.com: Lawmakers press for cleaner groundwater
73 US: The Signal: Officials Asking for $50M to Clean Up
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
74 Guardian Unlimited: Problem Halts Tenn. Uranium Tank Project
75 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / Lab faulted in plutonium accidents / 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1  Iranian Advisor: We'll Strike Dimona In Response To U.S. Attack 
 
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:54:00 -0500


  Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html


  Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:22:49 EST
From: Magnu96196@aol.com
Subject: Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in
response to U.S. attack

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/687022.html


24/02/2006


Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in response
to U.S. attack

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

If the United States launches an attack on Iran,
the Islamic republic will
retaliate with a military strike on Israel's main
nuclear facility.

Dr. Abasi, an advisor to Iran's Revolutionary
Guard, said Tehran would
respond to an American attack with strikes on the
Dimona nuclear reactor and other
strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of
Haifa and the Zakhariya area.

Haifa is also home to a large concentration of
chemical factories and oil
refineries.

Zakhariya, located in the Jerusalem hills is -
according to foreign reports -
home to Israel's Jericho missile base. Both
Israeli and international media
have published commercial satellite images of the
Zakhariya and Dimona sites.

Abasi, a senior lecturer at Tehran University, was
quoted in the Roz internet
news site, identified with reform circles in Iran.

Iranian affairs experts believe Abasi's statements
are part of propaganda
battle being wages by all sides - including Israel
and Iran - in the lead up to
next months United Nations Security Council debate
on Iran's nuclear program.

At this stage, the possibility that sanctions will
be leveled at Iran are
extremely low.

*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Iran-Russia nuclear talks to continue until March 6 

, Feb 26, IRNA                                                                                                           

-- 
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Sunday said that
Iran-Russia talks on the former's nuclear program and the
proposal of Russian officials will continue until March 6, 2006,
when the UN nuclear watchdog Board of Governors is scheduled to
meet on the issue.

 Speaking to the media, he noted that Russia will continue its
efforts to attract Iran's agreement for establishment of a joint
uranium enrichment center in Russian territory.

 Turning to the talks currently underway between the Head of
Russia's Atomic Energy Organization Sergei Kiriyenko and the
Iranian officials in Tehran, he said, "During the talks, various
issues concerning economic, trade and technical-military
cooperation between the two sides have been discussed."
 Head of Russian Atomic Energy Organization, has been in Tehran
since February 24 to discuss the trend of construction of the
nuclear power plant project in Bushehr with Iranian officials.

 Kiriyenko along with his Iranian counterpart Gholamreza
Aqazadeh inspected Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant on Sunday
afternoon.

 Lavrov added that Russia's proposal to Iran on enrichment of
uranium in its territory is also on the agenda of the ongoing
talks.

 Meanwhile, the spokesman for the Russian Atomic Energy Agency,
Mikhail Kamenin, declared on Saturday that his country's
proposal to Iran on conducting the enrichment process in the
Russian territory is still valid and open to discussion.

 Stressing its right to peaceful nuclear activities in its
territory, Iran has announced that it will examine Russia's
proposal.


*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: Iran has not resumed uranium enrichment yet - Asefi 

(Recast to add more quotes) - Irna
 
Tehran, Feb 26, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-Nuclear-Asefi 

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said here Sunday Iran 
has not resumed uranium enrichment yet.

 Asefi made the remark while talking to domestic and foreign 
reporters at his weekly press conference.

 "The question of using some centrifuges is different from 
enrichment. The issue is the research activities Iran has 
resumed.

 This is different from uranium enrichment.

 "Iran will continue its research work and will not suspend it in 
the face of pressures," he said.

 Asked about the "Green Salt Project", he voiced Iran's readiness 
to hold talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
to remove ambiguities, if any.

 It is not a very sensitive and important issue, he said.

 "If there is any ambiguity in this respect, Iran is ready to 
remove it within the framework of its cooperation with the IAEA." 
Asefi pointed to the upcoming visit to Iran of deputy chief of 
the IAEA and said Tehran is ready to cooperate with the agency 
and answer its experts' questions.

 Turning to Iran's cooperation with the agency in the past and at 
present, he said, "The Islamic Republic of Iran gives priority to 
cooperation with the IAEA.

 The spokesman added, "What Iran carries out at its nuclear 
facilities is not concealed from the IAEA and the agency is aware 
of Iran's activities."

*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Russia, Iran Agree to Enrichment Venture
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday February 26, 2006 12:46 PM

MOSCOW (AP) - Iran's nuclear chief said Sunday that Moscow and
Tehran had agreed in principle to set up a joint uranium
enrichment venture, Russian news reports said. 

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who heads Iran's Atomic Energy
Organization of Iran, said the two nations had agreed in
principle on Moscow's proposal to enrich Iranian uranium in
Russia, the ITAR-Tass and Interfax news agencies reported. 

Previous talks on the Moscow offer, backed by the United States
and the European Union, brought no visible breakthrough. 

Russian nuclear chief Sergei Kiriyenko, who met with Aghazadeh
in Iran on Sunday, said Moscow would insist on resolving the
Iranian nuclear dispute within the U.N.'s International Atomic
Energy Agency, RIA Novosti news agency reported. 

Kiriyenko said Russia would stress its position at a March 6
meeting of the IAEA. The meeting could start a process leading
to punishment by the U.N. Security Council. The council has the
authority to impose sanctions on Iran. 

Moscow has been struggling to persuade Tehran to return to a
moratorium on uranium enrichment and agree to shift its
enrichment program to Russian territory to ease world concerns
it could divert enriched uranium to a weapons program. 

Such steps would ease pressure on the Security Council - whose
veto-wielding members are the United States, Russia, China,
Britain and France - to punish Tehran and could foster further
diplomacy. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Still Foresees Iran Nuke Resolution
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday February 25, 2006 4:01 PM

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Russia's top nuclear official expressed
confidence Saturday that the U.N. atomic watchdog agency still
could resolve the international standoff over Iran's program,
Russian news agencies reported. 

Resolution before the International Atomic Energy Agency could
avert U.N. Security Council sanctions or the use of force
against the Islamic republic. 

During a visit to Iran, Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko said
resolving the persistent questions about the intent of Iran's
nuclear program ``within the framework of the IAEA is absolutely
realistic,'' according to Russian news agencies. 

An Iranian official said Tehran can handle sanctions but
believes they will not be imposed, the reports said. 

Kiriyenko, who met Saturday with Atomic Energy Organization of
Iran chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh, stressed that Iran has the
right to a peaceful nuclear program but suggested Tehran must
act to assure the world it is not seeking to develop nuclear
weapons. 

``The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is
unacceptable and the international community must be certain
that it does not occur under any circumstances,'' ITAR-Tass
quoted Kiriyenko as saying. 

``It is no doubt possible to satisfy these two demands.'' 

Kiriyenko made the comments at a news conference with Iranian
Economy Minister Davoud Danesh Jafari, who said Tehran is ready
for sanctions but doubts they will be imposed, according to
Russian news agencies. 

``Our country has faced such problems in the past, and I don't
think the international community will decide to place such
pressure on Iran, as everything we are doing is based on
international agreements and everything we are doing is
lawful,'' ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying. 

The U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose
economic and political sanctions, will take up the issue of
Iran's nuclear program after the IAEA holds a crucial meeting on
the issue on March 6. 

Moscow is struggling to persuade Tehran to return to a
moratorium on uranium enrichment and agree to shift its
enrichment program to Russian territory to ease world concerns
it could divert enriched uranium to a weapons program. 

Such steps would ease pressure on the Security Council - whose
veto-wielding members are the United States, Russia, China,
Britain and France - to punish Tehran and could foster further
diplomacy. 

Iran has insisted on its right to maintain domestic enrichment,
a process that can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile
material for an atomic bomb. 

There was no visible progress on the proposal Saturday. Speaking
on Iranian state television, Aghazadeh said only that the issue
was discussed. Russian officials said the offer remained on the
negotiating table. 

On Friday, China's deputy foreign minister, Lu Guozheng, arrived
in Tehran, Iranian state television reported. In Beijing, the
Foreign Ministry said Lu would discuss ``how to take measures to
avoid further escalating this issue, and how to resolve this
issue properly through dialogue and negotiation.'' 

On Sunday, Kiriyenko will visit the nuclear power plant Russia
is building for Iran in the Persian Gulf city of Bushehr. A
Russian official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of
the sensitivity of the subject, said expert-level talks on the
uranium enrichment proposal were being held between the two
nations Saturday and would continue Sunday. 

Talks in Moscow earlier in the week brought no Iranian agreement
to the proposal. The lack of visible progress has raised
concerns that Tehran was using the offer to stall for more time. 

Russia strongly opposes sanctions against Iran and is eager to
avoid an escalation of the dispute pitting Western nations
against a country where it has substantial economic and
geopolitical interests. 

--- 

Associated Press reporter Steve Gutterman in Moscow contributed
to this report.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: Russia: IAEA Can Still Solve Iran Dispute
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday February 25, 2006 9:31 PM

AP Photo MOSB811 

By NASSER KARIMI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Russia's top nuclear official expressed
confidence Saturday that the U.N. atomic watchdog agency still
could resolve the international standoff over Iran's program,
Russian news agencies reported. 

Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the state atomic energy agency, said
resolving the persistent questions about the intent of Iran's
nuclear program ``within the framework of the IAEA is absolutely
realistic,'' Russian news agencies reported. 

A resolution involving the International Atomic Energy Agency
could avert U.N. Security Council sanctions against the Islamic
republic. 

Still, Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, insisted
his country could endure international sanctions for the sake of
their nuclear program. 

``The Iranian people have chosen their own way and they can
withstand problems and secure their own interests,'' he was
quoted by Iranian state television as saying after talks with
China's deputy foreign minister, Lu Guozheng, over the nuclear
issue. 

The U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose
economic and political sanctions, will take up the issue of
Iran's nuclear program after the IAEA holds a crucial meeting on
the issue on March 6. 

Moscow is struggling to persuade Tehran to return to a
moratorium on uranium enrichment and agree to shift its
enrichment program to Russian territory to ease world concerns
it could divert enriched uranium to a weapons program. 

Such steps would ease pressure on the Security Council - whose
veto-wielding members are the United States, Russia, China,
Britain and France - to punish Tehran and could foster further
diplomacy. 

Kiriyenko, who met Saturday with Atomic Energy Organization of
Iran chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh, suggested Tehran must act to
assure the world it is not seeking nuclear weapons. 

He stressed that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear
program but also said that ``the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction is unacceptable and the international community
must be certain that it does not occur under any
circumstances,'' ITAR-Tass reported. 

``It is no doubt possible to satisfy these two demands,'' it
quoted him as saying. 

Kiriyenko made the comments at a news conference with Iranian
Economy Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari. Iranian media did not
carry his comments. 

Danesh-Jafari said Tehran is ready for sanctions but doubted
they will be imposed. 

``Iran's economic capacity is large enough not to fall into
problems in a critical situation,'' he said, according to state
television. 

``Our country has faced such problems in the past, and I don't
think the international community will decide to place such
pressure on Iran, as everything we are doing is based on
international agreements and everything we are doing is
lawful,'' ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying. 

Iran has insisted on its right to maintain domestic enrichment,
a process that can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile
material for an atomic bomb. 

There was no visible progress on the Russian proposal Saturday.
Speaking on Iranian state television, Aghazadeh said only that
the issue was discussed. Russian officials said the offer
remained on the negotiating table. 

A commentary by Iranian television said that ``if Russia and
China adopt a realistic and independent attitudes, then current
negotiations could lead to a positive conclusion.'' It did not
elaborate. 

On Sunday, Kiriyenko will visit the nuclear power plant Russia
is building for Iran in the Persian Gulf city of Bushehr. A
Russian official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of
the sensitivity of the subject, said expert-level talks on the
uranium enrichment proposal were being held between the two
nations Saturday and would continue Sunday. 

Talks in Moscow earlier in the week brought no Iranian agreement
to the proposal. The lack of visible progress has raised
concerns that Tehran was using the offer to stall for time. 

Russia strongly opposes sanctions against Iran and is eager to
avoid an escalation of the dispute pitting Western nations
against a country where it has substantial economic and
geopolitical interests. 

--- 

Associated Press reporter Steve Gutterman in Moscow contributed
to this report. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, Russia Agree on Enrichment Deal
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday February 26, 2006 8:46 PM

AP Photo VAH118 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

BUSHEHR, Iran (AP) - Iran and Russia agreed in principle Sunday
to establish a joint uranium enrichment venture, a breakthrough
in talks on a U.S.-backed Kremlin proposal aimed at easing
concerns that Tehran wants to build nuclear weapons. 

But further negotiations on the details lay ahead, and it was
not known whether Iran will entirely give up enrichment at home,
a top demand of the West. 

The deal - announced by the two countries' top nuclear chiefs
after a visit to a Russian-built nuclear plant in southern Iran
- could deflect any move by the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency at
its March 6 meeting to recommend the Security Council consider
action on Iran. 

Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammad Saeedi, warned that the
deal would be off if the International Atomic Energy Agency
refers Iran to the Security Council, a step that could lead to
economic or political sanctions. 

``If talk of referral is raised, then all ways will be
blocked,'' Saeedi said. 

Russian participation in the project is aimed at ensuring that
no enriched material is secretly diverted to a weapons program. 

The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear
weapons but has backed the proposal if it means enrichment would
take place entirely in Russia. Iran denies any intention to
build weapons, saying it aims only to produce nuclear energy. 

U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was cautious about
the deal. 

``It's too soon to say,'' he said on CNN's ``Late Edition.''
``In any of these arrangements, the devil is in the details.
We'll just have to see what emerges. 

It appeared that the issue of Iran's domestic enrichment was
still unresolved between Tehran and Moscow. 

The head of Iran's nuclear agency, Vice President Gholamreza
Aghazadeh, and his Russian counterpart Sergei Kiriyenko avoided
addressing the issue in a short news conference announcing the
agreement Sunday. The two spoke in Bushehr, the site of Iran's
first reactor, built with Russian aid and due to be inaugurated
this year. 

Russia, a top ally of Iran, has been pressing Tehran to have all
its uranium enrichment take place on Russian soil - and had made
the deal contingent on Iran's formally calling off its domestic
enrichment program, based in the central city of Natanz. 

But Iran rejected that linkage, insisting on its right to carry
out enrichment. 

Enrichment is a key process that can determine the direction of
a nuclear program. Uranium enriched to a low level produces fuel
for a nuclear reactor, while higher enrichment produces the
material needed for a warhead. 

In tough negotiations over past weeks, Iran has said the
location of enrichment and the degree of each side's role in the
joint venture had to be worked out. 

``We reached a basic agreement on the creation of a joint
venture. How this is going to be created needs a lot of
discussion, and talks will continue in Moscow in the next few
days,'' Aghazadeh said. 

Kiriyenko said the Russian-proposed joint venture, if
successful, would help achieve a peaceful solution to the
standoff over Iran's nuclear program. 

``Russia has made its proposal to Iran for a joint uranium
enrichment venture on Russian territory. If this proposal is
carried out, a good opportunity will be created. Negotiations
about the creation of this venture are continuing actively,'' he
said. 

He suggested Russia would prevent any move by the IAEA at its
March 6 session to put Iran before the Security Council. 

``There is a possibility that Iran's nuclear activities can be
resolved within the IAEA,'' he said. ``Since there is such a
possibility, we have to take all necessary measures to achieve
this.'' 

Earlier this month, the IAEA board of governors - including
Russia - voted to report Iran to the Security Council. But it
did not ask the council to take any immediate action, putting
off any possible move for sanctions. 

Saeedi, Aghazadeh's deputy, said European countries and China
could become involved in the joint venture, with Russia playing
a leading role. 

Meanwhile, Aghazadeh said the Bushehr nuclear power plant was
``90 percent complete'' and that Iran will build two more
1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants at the site. 

Iran will issue tenders for the construction within a month, he
said, suggesting Russia would be a favorite to build the plants. 

More than three years of IAEA probing have failed to produce
concrete evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program. But
the agency discovered suspicious activity, including plutonium
experiments and long-secret efforts to develop enriched uranium. 

An IAEA team was in Tehran on Sunday, and Iranian foreign
ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iranian officials would
discuss with the team a secret nuclear project that U.S.
intelligence has claimed was linked to warhead design. 

--- 

Associated Press reporter Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow
contributed to this report.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Chinese Envoy in Iran for Nuke Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday February 25, 2006 4:31 AM

By NASSER KARIMI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP)- A top Chinese official joined Russia Friday
in a bid to persuade Iran to accept a compromise deal to avert
an escalating confrontation over its nuclear program. 

The deal centers around a Russian proposal that uranium
enrichment for Iran's nuclear program take place on Russian soil
to assure that no material is diverted for producing weapons. 

Iran, which denies seeking nuclear weapons, has insisted on its
right to carry out enrichement, but under intense pressure has
been negotiating over the deal with Russian officials the past
week. Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia's atomic energy
agency, has been in Iran since Thursday for further talks. 

China's deputy foreign minister Lu Guozheng arrived on Friday,
Iranian state television reported. 

Iranian officials want Moscow to ``amend'' the proposal to give
Iran greater participation in the enrichment process, state-run
Tehran radio reported Friday. 

``Changing the amount of Iran's share and the place of the
enrichment would pave the way for progress in the
negotiations,'' it said, without elaborating. 

In Beijing, the Foreign Ministry said Guozheng was going to Iran
to discuss the nuclear issue and ``how to take measures to avoid
further escalating this issue, and how to resolve this issue
properly through dialogue and negotiation.'' 

China and Russia, both allies of Iran, are trying to reach a
deal that would avert a confrontation with the United Nations. 

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy
Agency, has referred Iran to the Security Council over concerns
that its enrichment of uranium would be used to build a nuclear
weapon. Iran says it plans to enrich uranium only to the level
required to produce fuel for nuclear reactors. 

If the deal falls through, it would boost the U.S.-led push to
impose Security Council sanctions against Iran. The U.N.
Security Council is expected to consider Iran's nuclear file
next month after receiving a report from the International
Atomic Energy Agency. 

State media have not mentioned any plans for a combined meeting
of Russian, Chinese and Iranian nuclear officials. 

Also Friday, the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization
of Iran, Mohammad Saeedi, said that Iran's first nuclear plant
at Bushehr was ``91 percent'' completed and that the country
hoped to finish it in the coming months. The plant was built
with Russian assistance. 

Iran says it has to be able to enrich uranium to control the
fuel supply for Bushehr and other reactors it plans to build. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Report: Iran Nuke Proposal Still on Table
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday February 25, 2006 10:16 AM

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's nuclear energy chief said after talks
with his Iranian counterpart in Tehran on Saturday that Moscow's
proposal to ease the standoff with Tehran over its nuclear
program ``remains on the negotiations table,'' Russian news
agencies reported. 

The comment from Sergei Kiriyenko, which came after talks with
Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Atomic Energy Organization of
Iran, suggested there was no breakthrough on the proposal to
move Iran's uranium enrichment activity to Russia - but he also
said talks were continuing. 

The Interfax news agency, meanwhile, cited an unidentified
official in the Russian delegation as saying that Kiriyenko's
talks with Aghazadeh did not even touch on the enrichment
proposal. Officials in the delegation could not immediately be
reached for comment. 

``The negotiations have only begun, but I am satisfied with the
way they are going,'' the ITAR-Tass news agency quoted Kiriyenko
as saying. He said he and Aghazadeh agreed that discussions
would continue on the expert level all day and would touch on
``all aspects of cooperation.'' 

According to the RIA-Novosti news agency, Kiriyenko said the
experts' talks would include the enrichment proposal, which is
backed by the United States and European Union and is aimed at
easing concerns that Iran could use its atomic energy program to
develop nuclear weapons. Talks in Moscow earlier in the week
brought no Iranian agreement to the proposal. 

The Russian offer could be the last chance for Tehran to avoid
punishment by the international community over its nuclear
program. A March 6 meeting of the U.N. nuclear agency, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, could set in motion a
process leading to further pressure on Iran, possibly including
sanctions.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: Think-tank says int'l community should accept Iran's right to enrichment - 

Brussels, Feb 25, IRNA                                                                                                           

ICG-Iran-Report 

The only realistic diplomatic alternative to resolve Iran's
nuclear issues is the "delayed limited enrichment" plan,
according to a latest report of the Brussels-based
 International Crisis Group (ICG).

 The international community would take a deep breath and accept
Iran's "right to enrich" domestically; in return, Iran would
have to agree to delay its program several years, limit its
initial size and scope and accept highly intrusive, continuous
inspections, proposes the ICG.

 There would be an initial IAEA assessment phase (2-3 years)
with enrichment activity suspended; a further
confidence-building phase (3-4 years) with only laboratory
enrichment; and thereafter normal production, preferably with a
multinational operation, but with other limits on Iran's nuclear
program and continued close monitoring, it opines.

 The report "Iran: Is There a Way Out of the Nuclear Impasse?"
underlines that use of military force "would be both dangerous
and unproductive."
 The report finds more attractive a "zero enrichment" option,
building on Russia's proposal, under which Iran would
indefinitely give up its right to enrich uranium in return for
guaranteed offshore nuclear fuel supply.

*****************************************************************
 11 IRNA: Iranian researchers in Japan stress Iran's right to nuclear tech
      
Tokyo, Feb 25, IRNA                                                                                                              

Iran-Nuclear-Japan 

A number of Iranian researchers and students residing in Japan
on Saturday underlined the nation's right for access to nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes.

 On the sidelines of the meeting of Iran's Scientific Society in
Japan, the secretary of the society, Habib Hassan-nejad, told
IRNA that the Iranian people are entitled to peaceful use of
nuclear technology.

 He stressed that the principles of justice, indiscrimination
and international laws should be taken into view in the nuclear
sector.

 Turning to application of the technology in various domains
including medicine, the secretary pointed out that all world
countries have the right to access it for peaceful purposes.

 The first meeting of the Iran's Scientific Society in Japan was
attended by a number of Iranian researchers and students.

 As members of Japanese scientific and research centers, over
160 Iranian students, researchers and university graduates are
currently working in these centers.

*****************************************************************
 12 IRNA: FM spokesman: Russian nuclear overture on table

Tehran, Feb 26, IRNA                                                                                                             

Iran-Russia-Nuclear-Asefi 

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said here Sunday the
Russian nuclear overture for Iran is on the negotiations table.

 "The legal, technical, scientific and financial aspects of the
offer should be reviewed and the dimensions of the joint venture
and shares of each side determined," Asefi told reporters at his
weekly press conference.

 "Review of the the proposal depends on appropriate conditions.

 If it is examined in an appropriate atmosphere, it will be
efficient and solve problems but if the atmosphere changes, the
conditions will change, too."
 Asefi added Iran will make use of all its potentials until the
impending session of the Board of Governors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and at the same time will continue
talks with different states.

 "We are not after wining or losing and/or bargaining. We are
after our own right and cannot renounce it."
 Asked about negotiations with the United States, he said,
"Talks with the US is not on the agenda.

 On continuation of talks with Europe, he said, "These talks are
not on the agenda, either."


*****************************************************************
 13 IRNA: Moscow: Russian atomic cooperation proposal remains in force -
                              
, Feb 26, IRNA                                                                                                           

-- 

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said Russian
proposal to establish a joint uranium enrichment center with
Iran remains in force.

 He told Ria-Novosti News Agency here Saturday that among the
issues which is being discussed in Tehran negotiation is the
creation of a joint uranium enrichment center .

 He added Russian proposal is on the table and we should wait
for the outcome of consultations.

 Head of Russian Atomic Energy Agency Sergei Kirienko at the
head of a Russian delegation arrived in Tehran on Friday morning
for a 3-day visit.

 Kirienko, who is also the chairman of joint economic
cooperation commission of Iran-Russia, has met with Iran's
Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance Davoud Danesh-Jafari
and Iran's Head of Atomic Energy Organization Gholam-Reza
Aqazadeh.

 After meeting with Aqazadeh, Kirienko said, "Russian proposal
remain on the table and we have enough experts in the Russian
delegation to answer all questions concerning the proposal."
1391/1771


*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: US says differences remain with India on landmark nuclear deal -
                           
 Sat Feb 25, 2:34 PM ET                          

NEW DELHI (AFP) - The United States said differences remained on
a landmark nuclear deal to supply India with crucial technology
as a top US official left New Delhi after talks aimed at
breaking the logjam. 


 US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns departed early
Saturday after talks in the capital with Indian officials ended
without a breakthrough on the deal to provide India with
advanced civilian nuclear technology. 

"There are differences remaining," US embassy spokesman David
Kennedy said. "But the US hopes they can close them (the
differences) before President Bush" /> President Bushvisits
India" next Wednesday, he added. 

New Delhi and Washington have been seeking to seal the nuclear
deal before George W. Bush's three-day visit. 

Bush also said there was work to be done to hammer out the
agreement in an interview released late Friday. 

"I understood the politics were going to be difficult and
there's still work to be done," Bush told India's state-run
broadcaster Doordarshan. 

"We've just got to continue to come up with an agreement that
both of us can live with." 

The pact had been billed as the highlight of Bush's three-day
trip to India, starting March 1. But the two nations have been
at odds over how to ensure that India's military facilities do
not benefit from nuclear technology transfers. 

"It's also very important for India to understand our concerns
about making sure that ... a civilian program is separate from
the military," Bush said. 

India said progress had been made in talks in New Delhi. 

"The two sides had detailed and productive discussions. There
was greater clarity on the issues under discussion. Progress has
been made in the talks," the Indian foreign ministry said in a
statement late Friday. 

Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reached
preliminary agreement on the deal in July 2005. 

Under the accord, fuel-starved India would get access to
civilian nuclear technology to develop its energy sector it has
been denied since conducting nuclear tests and refusing to sign
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Even if US and Indian negotiators iron out their differences,
the agreement still needs the approval of the US Congress and
the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers Group. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: Iran warns IAEA ahead of crunch meeting -

 Sunday February 26, 09:34 AM 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has warned that diplomatic efforts
surrounding its disputed nuclear drive would be scuppered if the
Islamic republic is targetted for more tough action from the
UN's atomic watchdog.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also
repeated the regime's refusal to return to a full freeze of
sensitive nuclear fuel work that lies at the heart of fears the
country could acquire a nuclear arsenal.

"We expect the next session not to be politicised," Asefi said
of (Advertisement)
[ src=]  the March 6 meeting of the International Atomic Energy
Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation board, a session that could preclude
action by the UN Security Council.

"If the session is harsh and the atmosphere tense, it will not
be to the benefit of the IAEA or countries who are following
such policies. The Islamic Republic of Iran is more resistant
when under more pressure," he said Sunday.

Russia's atomic energy head Sergei Kiriyenko is in Iran as part
of an eleventh hour effort to push for a compromise where Russia
would enrich Iran's uranium on its soil.

This would keep sensitive enrichment work -- which can be
extended to make the fissile core of a weapon -- outside Iran
yet at the same time guarantee its access to reactor fuel needed
to generate electricity.

"We are discussing the legal, scientific, financial and joint
investment aspects of the Russian proposal," Asefi said.

"Of course all of this depends on a desirable and appropriate
atmosphere to solve this issue. If the atmosphere changes and
another scenario arises, the circumstances will change," he
warned.

"What we are saying is that our nuclear issue should be kept
within the framework of the IAEA," he said, referring to Iran's
determination to prevent the matter from being referred to the
Security Council.

But while Iran has asserted it is ready to negotiate on
large-scale enrichment, Asefi repeated that research work would
continue despite international demands that the country return
to a freeze on fuel cycle work.

"We will continue our research and will not suspend it," Asefi
told reporters. "We will not give up our right." 
                                
    Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: Tensions as Iran, Russia say nuclear diplomacy continues -
     
 Sun Feb 26, 3:03 PM ET 		 	 

BUSHEHR, Iran (AFP) - Iran" /> and Russia said that negotiations
aimed at easing fears the Islamic republic could acquire nuclear
weapons would go on, but the two sides appeared at odds in the
talks and over the construction of Iran's first reactor. 

 Putting a positive spin on the tough diplomacy -- seen as a
last chance for Iran to avoid UN Security Council action -- a
senior Iranian official insisted "progress" was being made on
Moscow's offer to enrich Iran's uranium on Russian soil. 

"We have reached an agreement in principle for the creation of a
joint company," vice president Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said in a
joint news conference with Russia's visiting atomic energy chief
Sergei Kiriyenko. 

Moscow's compromise plan would keep sensitive enrichment work --
which can be extended to make the fissile core of a weapon --
outside Iran, yet at the same time guarantee its access to
reactor fuel needed to generate electricity. 

"We have made progress... We think we can get an outcome which
will be satisfying for the March 6 meeting," he added, referring
to the next session of the 35-nation board of the International
Atomic Energy Agency" /> -- which could call for Security
Council action. 

But Kiriyenko, who did not appear so upbeat, emphasized the
proposal was "complex" and that "more work needs to be done". 

"The negotiations will continue in Moscow in the coming days,"
said Kiriyenko, in Bushehr for talks on the ongoing construction
of Iran's first nuclear power plant which is being built with
Russian assistance. 

Iran insists it only wants to make electricity, and is meanwhile
also sticking by its insistence on enriching uranium on its own
soil -- something that the West deems unacceptable. 

The current crisis was prompted after Iran resumed enrichment
research in January, and the foreign ministry repeated earlier
Sunday that this would not be suspended again. 

Quoted by Russia's Interfax news agency, a source in Kiriyenko's
delegation signalled that Iran's refusal to return to a full
suspension could scupper the compromise plan. 

The source was quoted as saying that the Russian proposal was
only viable as part of a "package of measures", notably
including Iran's "return to a moratorium" on fuel work. 

Failure for Russia's plan would pave the way for punitive action
by the Security Council after the IAEA meeting. The UN's nuclear
watchdog has already reported Iran to New York, and has demanded
the country end fuel cycle work. 

Iranian officials meanwhile complained the Russians were
dragging their feet over the Bushehr project and revealed the
plant had been hit by yet another delay. 

Russia has faced stiff opposition to its involvement in the
800-million-dollar contract, especially from the United States
and Israel" /> , although Kiriyenko insisted that the delays
were "not political but technical". 

However, an official from Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, who
asked not to be named, complained that "the Russians are not
delivering the equipment and technology necessary for the start
of the reactor". 

"The delay is only political -- if it was just a technical
question it could be solved in a matter of months," he charged.
"We hope the reactor can start before the end of 2006, we hope
there will not be further delay". 

Aghazadeh, who also heads Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation,
said a "follow-up committee" would be established "to accelerate
the work in 2006 and to finish it in 2006". 

The project was first launched by the former shah of Iran,
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in the 1970s. The German firm
Kraftwerk-Union, a joint venture of Siemens and AEG-Telefunken,
was commissioned to build the facility, but pulled out in the
midst of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. 

In the early 1990s, Iran began to search for help to revive the
project, and in 1995 found help from Russia -- desperately in
need of cash to keep its own nuclear power industry afloat. 	 		
			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: Launch of Iran's first nuclear power station delayed again -
     
 Sunday February 26, 01:44 PM 

TEHRAN (AFP) - The launch of Iran's first nuclear power station,
which is being built near the southern city of Bushehr with
Russian help, has been delayed again, an Iranian official told
AFP.

The head of Iran's nuclear power station development programme,
Assadollah Sabouri, told AFP Sunday that "the start-up will be
delayed a bit" -- but did not give any new date for the
scheduled firing up of the facility.

He was speaking during a visit to the plant by Russia's atomic
energy head Sergei [ src=] Kiriyenko. Russia is engaged in an
800- million- dollar project to develop the facility, which has
already been hit by a string of delays.

Kiriyenko did not tell reporters when the plant would begin
operating. He insisted that the delays were "not political but
technical". Russia has faced stiff opposition -- especially from
the United States and Israel -- to its dealings with Iran.

However, an official from Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, who
asked not to be named, complained that "the Russians are not
delivering the equipment and technology necessary for the start
of the reactor".

"The delay is only political: if it was just a technical
question it could be solved in a matter of months," he alleged.
"We hope the reactor can start before the end of 2006, we hope
there will not be further delay".

Iran is accused of using its atomic energy drive as a cover for
weapons development, a charge it denies.

"We have decided to establish a follow-up committee so that the
plant will be ready in a minimum amount of time and so that the
rest of the equipment be shipped, and to create a commitee to
accelerate the work in 2006 and to finish it in 2006," said the
head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh.

Kiriyenko said there was no plan to stall the shipping of fuel
to the plant.

"We see no problem with the delivery of fuel, it will not slow
down the completion of the plant," Kiriyenko told reporters.
"The fuel will be delivered in due time to start the plant."

The project was first launched by the former shah of Iran,
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in the 1970s. The German firm
Kraftwerk-Union, a joint venture of Siemens and AEG-Telefunken,
was commissioned to build the facility, but pulled out in the
midst of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

The plant was frequently targetted by Iraqi jets during the
1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

In the early 1990's, Iran began to search for help to revive the
project, and in 1995 found help from Russia -- desperately in
need of cash to keep its own nuclear power industry afloat. 
                                
    Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
                               - - 
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: Russia seeks solution to Iran nuclear crisis 

 Saturday February 25, 08:33 PM 

TEHRAN (AFP) - A Russian envoy made an 11th-hour bid to broker a
compromise between Iran and the West over its nuclear program,
as a top UN inspector was to hold a last round of talks in
Tehran before the release of a report that could spark Security
Council action.

Russia's atomic energy head Sergei Kiriyenko said after talks
with Iranian counterpart Gholamreza Aghazadeh that Moscow's
offer to enrich uranium on Russian soil was "still on the
table," the ITAR-TASS agency reported.

A first (Advertisement)
 [ src=] round of Iran-Russia nuclear talks in Moscow was
wrapped up on Tuesday with Iranian officials saying they were
hopeful a Russian compromise to end the crisis over the Islamic
republic's nuclear program would bear fruit.

Russia, as a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council
with traditionally close ties to Iran, has been trying to
mediate in the long-running dispute. Moscow's offer is seen as
Tehran's last chance to stave off international sanctions.

Kiriyenko repeated Moscow's view that problems over Iran's
nuclear program could be solved "within the framework of the
IAEA," ITAR-TASS said.

"The spread of weapons of mass destruction is inadmissible and
the world community must be assured that this will not happen
whatever the situation," he was quoted as saying.

"Our discussions have only just started. The experts' work is
underway. I think their task is to work very intensively for two
days," he said of the plan to set up a joint company to enrich
uranium in Russia.

However, ITAR-TASS quoted an unidentified member of the Russian
delegation as saying it was "highly unlikely" that an agreement
would be reached before the end of Kiriyenko's three-day visit.

The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Gholamreza
Aghazadeh, said that talks with Russia had focussed on
finalising the Russian-built nuclear power station at Bushehr in
southern Iran, the country's first.

"The main issue discussed was examining the latest situation of
the Bushehr plant," Aghazadeh said on state television after
meeting Kiriyenko.

"We also talked about Russia's willingness for future
cooperation in developing peaceful nuclear activities," he added.

After talks with Kiriyenko on progress at Bushehr, Iran's
Economy Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari said that Russian
companies would be given priority for contracts to build further
nuclear plants, the Interfax agency reported.

While the Russians are offering to enrich uranium outside of
Iran, the Islamic republic insists it will not give up its right
to the process and has already started very low-level
enrichment, ending a voluntary suspension.

The West is equally adamant that Iran should not master uranium
enrichment as it can create both fuel for civilian reactors and,
taken one step further, the explosive core of an atomic bomb.
Iran denies it wants the bomb.

Kiriyenko, due to visit Bushehr on Sunday, said there was a
"basis for cooperating in the domains of (nuclear) fuel and the
construction of power stations."

Lu Guozheng, the deputy foreign minister of China -- another
permanent member of the Security Council -- was also in Tehran
Saturday although there were no reports of a combined
Russian-Chinese meeting with Iranian officials.

Senior UN nuclear inspector Olli Heinonen was also due in
Tehran, just days ahead of the planned release Monday to
International Atomic Energy Agency governors of a report on
Iran's nuclear program by agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Diplomats in Vienna, where the IAEA is based, said that Iran had
promised to answer US accusations that it was doing atomic
weapons work, including designing missile warheads.

Under pressure from Western countries, the IAEA board reported
Iran to the UN Security Council on February 4 over fears its
nuclear program may be a cover for atomic weapons development.

However any action by the Security Council, which could include
sanctions, has been suspended until the board reviews the report
at a March 6 meeting in Vienna.

"Iran is ready for Security Council sanctions but hope there
will be none," ITAR-TASS quoted Danesh-Jafari as saying.

"I don't think that the international community wants to exert
such pressure on Iran because everything we do is founded on
international agreements and what we are doing is legal," he
said. 
                                
    Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: Russia to maintain 'contacts' with Iran over nuclear crisis -
 
MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia will maintain "contacts" with Iran over
the Islamic republic's nuclear plans ahead of a March 6 meeting
of the board of governors of the UN's nuclear watchdog, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said.

"Contacts on this subject will continue until the meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on March 6 in Vienna,"
Lavrov told journalists.

Russia, as a veto-wielding member of the Security Council with
close ties to Iran, is seeking to mediate in the dispute over
Iran's atomic energy programme, which the West suspects is a
cover for developing nuclear weapons.

The March 6 IAEA meeting is expected to help determine what, if
any, action the UN Security Council takes on Iran.

Russia has promoted a plan by which Tehran and Moscow would set
up a joint venture to enrich uranium on Russian territory for
Iran -- a plan seen by the West as a possible way out of the
current crisis.

However Tehran has shown little sign that it will accept a
compromise capable of allaying Western concerns.

Lavrov was speaking Sunday after a visit to Iran by the head of
Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom, Sergei Kiriyenko, who
said Saturday that the Russian proposal remained on the table. 

    Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 20 IRNA: Iran expects IAEA not to act politically - Asefi 

, Feb 26, IRNA                                                                                                           

-- 
Iran on Sunday said it expects the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) not to act politically, like what it did during
its last session.

 Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi made the remark
while talking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly
press conference.

 "Politicization of the session will not help settle the case.

 The IAEA should think of its professional identity and of not
being affected by pressures," he said.

 He added measures adopted by the United States and certain
European countries at the IAEA Board of Governors would destroy
its professional identity, saying, "In case a political
atmosphere prevails in the next session, neither the agency nor
the states intending to exert pressure on the Board of Governors
will gain anything."
 He said Iran received no official proposal from the IAEA chief
Mohamed ElBaradei on small-scale uranium enrichment, adding, "If
the offer is officially presented and its details are made
known, it can be discussed."
 In response to a question whether Iran and Russia discussed
Moscow nuclear proposal during a visit by a Russian delegation
to Iran, the spokesman said, "The Russian delegation is still in
Iran. Both sides held talks in this regard and will continue
negotiations on Monday." "Russia's offer is on the table," Asefi
said but he refused to make any judgment about outcomes of talks.

 Asked about Iran's stance on continuation or suspension of
nuclear talks with the European Unions big trio (Germany, France
and Britain), he said, "Currently, talks with the three European
states is not on the agenda."
 He pointed to recent speech by Iran's Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki at the European Parliament in Brussels and
his meeting with the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana as
well as his Belgian counterpart and stressed, "Iran will make
use of all its potentials to hold talks with different states
until the next session of the IAEA Board of Governors."
 Asked about a 100-billion-dollar contract with China and its
link with nuclear case, Asefi said, "There is no link between
 such issues.

 "China believes Iran's nuclear case should be settled within
frameworks of the IAEA."
 He noted Tehran and Beijing enjoy a very high level of trade
and economic exchanges.

*****************************************************************
 21 IRNA: Iranian, foreign correspondents inspect Iran's nuclear facilities - 

Bushehr, Feb 26, IRNA                                                                                                            

Iran-Nuclear-Correspondents 

A group of Iranian and foreign reporters on Sunday inspected the
turbine hall and some other sections of Bushehr Nuclear Power
Plant.

 The reporters were on a visit to this southern Iranian province
to cover the joint press conference of the head of Iran's Atomic
Energy Organization (IAEO) and Russia's Atomic Energy Agency
head Sergei Kiriyenko.

 An Iranian expert at the power plant told the reporters on the
sidelines of their inspection visit that 90 percent of the
project has thus far been completed.

 Iran and Russia are to reach an agreement on an eventual
timetable for completion and modernization of Bushehr Nuclear
Power Plant.

 The second round of talks on Russia's contribution to Iran's
enrichment project was held in Moscow last week.

*****************************************************************
 22 IRNA: Kiriyenko: Russia will do its best to resolve dispute on Iran nuclear program - 

, Feb 26, IRNA                                                                                                           
-- 

Head of Russian Atomic Energy Organization Sergei Kiriyekno said
on Sunday that Russia would do its best to find a diplomatic
solution to Iranian nuclear program in the context of
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 He told reporters after visiting Bushehr power plant in
presence of his Iranian counterpart Gholamreza Aqazadeh that
Russia believes that the dispute on Iranian nuclear program
should be resolved in the context of UN nuclear agency.

 "We should take all necessary steps to choose such a process,
because, there is possibility to resolve the crisis through
specialized agency," Kiriyenko said.

 "Russia believes that Iran has legitimate right to use nuclear
energy. Of course, Iran is also ready to provide the
international community with 'objective guarantee' to ensure
that Iranian nuclear program will not be diverted to produce
weapons," the Russian official said.

 Kiriyenko said that negotiations with his Iranian counterpart
in Tehran Saturday and Sunday led to signing of an agreement
which envisaged cooperation in different fields.

 He said that the agreement included cooperation in the field of
energy, development of North-South Corridor, Russian Gazprom's
cooperation with Iran in developing Iranian gas fields, setting
up of gas reservoirs, export of cars to Russia and purchase of
Russian airplanes.

 Asked about completion of Bushehr power plant, he said that in
light of an accord on the return of the spent fuel to Russia,
there is no obstacle to completion of the power plant.

*****************************************************************
 23 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] U.S.-North Korea talks   

2006.02.27
        
The agreement between North Korea and the United States to meet
in New York next week to discuss the North's alleged
counterfeiting of U.S. dollars raises hope for a possible
breakthrough in the deadlocked negotiations on Pyongyang's
nuclear program. 

Although U.S. officials said the meeting will be a "briefing" by
"technical experts" and that it should not be linked to the
disarmament talks, it certainly represents a positive
development in their standoff. 

One should note that both sides seem to have taken a step back
from confrontation in order to set up their first official
contact on the issue that has been blocking the six-party talks
since last November. At that time, the North demanded separate
bilateral talks on the counterfeiting issue, which Washington
dismissed, saying that illegal financial activities are not a
matter to be negotiated and that it should be separated from the
nuclear talks. The North then rejected a U.S. proposal to give
it a one-sided "briefing." 

Despite subsequent efforts by South Korea and China to mediate
between the two, neither side had budged an inch. The United
States demanded an immediate halt to the North's counterfeiting
operations and its pledge to renounce it for ever, while
Pyongyang insisted that Washington should first lift financial
sanctions it had imposed. 

Considering the wide gap between the two sides, it has yet to be
seen whether they will be able to reach a compromise. What's
encouraging, however, is that the North's decision to go to New
York came on the heels of other seemingly reconciliatory
gestures. A vivid example was a Feb. 9 statement in which the
North said it opposes all sorts of illegal financial acts and
vowed to join international efforts against them. The statement
also said the North has perfect legal and institutional
mechanisms in hand to combat illegal acts such as counterfeiting
and money laundering and severely punish anyone engaged in such
activity.

 In addition, the North's recent avoidance of verbal attacks on
Washington seems to indicate its willingness to resolve the
issue. Any negotiation with the North can be tricky and
unpredictable and one single round of talks rarely leads to an
agreement. But it is hoped that Washington seizes the
opportunity to talk the North into giving up its illicit
financial activities and returning to the six-party talks.

 It would be unwise for the United States to try and push the
North into a corner and not allow it to save face. A recent
demand by the U.S. ambassador to Seoul, Alexander Vershbow, that
the North hand over plates and other equipment allegedly used to
counterfeit U.S. notes may be understandable. But it is too
excessive a demand to make at this stage. Demands like that
won't help the North drop its defiance and keep it from
resorting to a new round of brinkmanship. 

We hope commentators who hold the view that Washington is using
the counterfeit row to counter the North's demand that it get
light-water nuclear reactor before giving up its nuclear
development programs are wrong. Nor do we want to believe that
Washington's recent pressure on Pyongyang is part of its shift
to a hardline policy toward the communist country. A greater
hope, of course, is that the North comes clean about the
allegations and renounce any illegal financial activities before
it is too late.

*****************************************************************
 24 Korea Herald: Fate of nuke talks in N. Korean hands - Seoul aide   
        
From news reports

 The fate of talks on North Korea's nuclear program depends on
whether Pyongyang takes action on illicit activities that
prompted a U.S. crackdown, a South Korean official said in
Washington Saturday.

 North Korea knows what it is expected to do on charges raised
by Washington that it is behind the counterfeiting of U.S.
currency and money laundering, said Song Min soon, the chief
national security adviser to South Korea's president.

 "The six party talks can go forward only if the North takes the
necessary action on currency counterfeiting," Song told Korean
correspondents in Washington.

 Song was previously South Korea's lead negotiator to the talks
aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear programs, which also involve
North Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China. The
talks have been stalled since November.

 Song was in Washington to meet White House national security
advisers and State Department officials.

 Song played down a planned meeting by North Korean diplomats
and U.S. officials in New York on the financial crackdown,
saying such a meeting would probably not automatically yield a
breakthrough.

 But all the countries involved in the talks, including North
Korea, believe the next round of the talks should be held in the
first half of April, he said.

 He warned against premature hopes for concrete results from a
trip to Washington by Ri Gun, a senior North Korean Foreign
Ministry official, to get a U.S. briefing on the communist
country's alleged involvement in currency counterfeiting.

 "It could be useful, since the two sides can find a solution
when they talk face to face rather than indirectly," Song said.
"But it would be premature to expect that they will find a
concrete solution."

 North Korea has said it would be unreasonable to continue the
talks until Washington ends a crackdown on firms suspected of
being involved in the North's illicit financial activities.

 It also said in a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan
that U.S. efforts to draw South Korea into a campaign against
the spread of weapons of mass destruction - called the
Proliferation Security Initiative - would create new obstacles
to the talks.

 

"South Korea joins the international community in its concerns
about the illegal activities that North Korea has been linked
to," Song said.

 "It is very clear what that means," he was quoted as saying in
the same meeting with South Korean reporters.

 "North Korea needs to see what that means, and we don't need to
play the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the judge for all
the world to see," he said, in an apparent reference to
criticism that South Korea has not more to directly confront the
North.

 Meanwhile, South Korea's intelligence chief visited Washington
in January to discuss North Korea's alleged involvement in
currency counterfeiting, a South Korean government official said.

 During the trip, Kim Seung gyu, director of the National
Intelligence Service, met with his U.S. counterpart, CIA
director Porter Goss, and "exchanged information related to the
counterfeiting," the official said, speaking on condition of
anonymity.

 "It was a usual exchange of information between two countries,
which did not involve any discussion on resolving the issue," he
said.

 Quoting an unidentified diplomat source, the local newspaper
Chosun Ilbo reported earlier in the day that in his meeting with
Goss, Kim promised that South Korea will cooperate with the U.S.
investigation into North Korea's alleged illegal activities.

 In a parliamentary testimony in January, Kim said that his
agency had no clear evidence that North Korea has been engaged
in currency counterfeiting after 1998, indicating that the
communist country was involved in making fake dollars before
that.

 A report in Hong Kong said yesterday U.S. authorities are
preparing to seize more than $2.67 million from Hong Kong bank
accounts linked to trade in North Korean counterfeit U.S. bank
notes.

 The money is frozen in three accounts belonging to an
unemployed mainland Chinese woman, Kwok Hiu Ha, with Chiyu
Banking, a subsidiary of Bank of China Hong Kong, the Sunday
Morning Post reported, citing U.S. court documents.

 The funds are believed to be the first known link between Hong
Kong's banking system and an underground trade in "supernotes,"
or high quality 100 dollar U.S. bills, the newspaper said.

 FBI officials last week met Hong Kong police investigators and
warned them the existence of the fake bills was considered a
matter of urgent national security, with the trade seen posing a
significant economic threat to the United States, the Post said.

 U.S. government sources told the newspaper that the Department
of Justice would soon be proceeding with legal action to seize
the funds.

 Kwok, a registered money remitter in Hong Kong according to
court documents, had told investigators she had recently arrived
in Hong Kong from mainland China, the Post said.

 The Department of Justice had the money frozen a year ago
following undercover work by a private investigator probing a
counterfeit cigarette operation, it said, quoting U.S. court
documents.

2006.02.27
*****************************************************************
 25 Daily Yomiuri: Radioactive rhetoric on North Korea 

Book Review : Features :
 
By Gordon G. Chang 

Random House, 327 pp, 25.95 dollars 

With North Korea's game of atomic chicken with the United States
showing no sign of letting up, minds on both sides of the
Pacific Ocean have been exercising themselves about what the end
result will be. 

While most commentators are unsure about the ultimate outcome,
Gordon G. Chang is adamantly certain. If current policies are
maintained, he says, Tokyo will be turned into "plutonium pate." 

Welcome to the sensational world of sound-bite political
analysis, where North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is compared to
Cher, hyperbole beats fact and former U.S. President Jimmy
Carter is one minute a "dictator groupie" and the next a "global
human rights activist." 

Chang is a lawyer with 20 years of experience working in Asia
and another tome, The Coming Collapse of China, to his name.
Apparently, this was enough to convince Random House to publish
Nuclear Showdown. It has all the ingredients for well-researched
insight into Northeast Asia's most pressing political issue but,
like movies featuring Madonna, it is best consigned to the
bargain bin. 

Hey, using obtuse metaphors is catching. 

It's a shame, because Chang obviously knows the background. He
refers to a wealth of academic texts on North Korea's
proliferation plans, and interviews experts from Washington
think tanks, businesspeople with ties to Pyongyang and aid
workers who have worked in the country. 

There are many good arguments put forward in this book, not
least that China is using Pyongyang to keep Japan on the back
foot as part of a greater struggle for supremacy in Northeast
Asia. His criticism of the 1994 Framework Agreement and its
subsequent misapplication is well put: Washington "was friendly
enough to strengthen Kim Jong Il's economy, hostile enough to
increase the dictator's standing at home among his people, and
not threatening enough to actually endanger his regime." 

He also rightfully chastises the Japanese government for its
effective hushing up of North Korean abductions of Japanese
citizens until its hand was forced, and Seoul's refusal to raise
the question of either the approximately 540 prisoners of war
held by Pyongyang or the "at least 486 South Koreans kidnapped
by North Korean agents." 

But these bursts of coherent thought are short-lived, and often
followed by misjudged attempts to link them to different strands
of conflicting arguments that leave the reader with a nasty case
of motion sickness. 

At one point, Chang asserts that "the Kim government will fail
in the near future," while a mere 18 pages later he lambastes
"cocky" South Koreans for overflowing with confidence that they
have won the struggle for the peninsula. 

Irritating truisms, such as "When there's not much to go on, the
simplest explanation is often the best" are followed by a "but"
phrase: "Yet the simplest explanation is not always the most
prudent one to make." 

The tactic is used time and again. A scaremongering assertion is
followed by retraction, qualification and finally contradiction.
Instead of qualifying the assertion at the start, or even
attributing it to someone else, Chang goes all out to bludgeon
the reader with rhetorical flourishes and unfollowable
arguments. The first chapter is titled "Ku Klux Korea"--why? Kim
Jong Il is the "Pygmalion of Pyongyang"--why? 

Using pop-culture hooks regardless of their relevance is a
hallmark of the Chang style--he quotes David Letterman's
"hilarious" reference to Kim Jong Il and "his father, Men Ta Lee
Il"--as are unfootnoted quotations of Kim as the "radioactive
lunatic" and "the little madman with a passion for plutonium." 

Although Chang fails to really explain the current U.S.
administration's inconsistency on the issue, he does cover a lot
of ground in 225 pages of main text. But more often than not,
our own Clouseau of Counterproliferation--hey, this alliteration
thing's easy--misses the point, and Nuclear Showdown is a
sensationalized, contradictory, jumbled, half-baked mess of a
book. (Feb. 26, 2006) 


 
 © The Yomiuri Shimbun.   



*****************************************************************
 26 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., India Fail to Reach Nuclear Deal
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Saturday February 25, 2006 2:16 AM

By TERENCE HUNT 

AP White House Correspondent 

WASHINGTON (AP) - After two days of intense negotiations, the
United States said Friday it had failed to reach agreement with
India on the separation of its civilian and military nuclear
programs. 

The White House is still hoping for an accord before President
Bush visits New Delhi next week but said the success or failure
of the trip does not hang on the nuclear agreement. 

``We would like to get it before the trip,'' national security
adviser Stephen Hadley said. ``If we can, great. If we can't,
we'll continue to negotiate it after the trip.'' 

Bush leaves for India on Tuesday and his official schedule there
begins on Thursday. The president also will visit Pakistan
before beginning the long flight home on Saturday. 

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns spent two days in
difficult talks in New Delhi and returned home Friday to report
on the negotiations. 

``We're making progress, but we're not yet there,'' Hadley said
at a briefing on Bush's trip. ``The Indians, hopefully, will
have an opportunity from their end to see where we are, and we
would expect those negotiations will continue by phone, document
and the like, probably up to the president's visit.'' 

Both sides want an agreement, Hadley said, but ``it's important
to have a good agreement that works for the Indians, works for
the United States, will be acceptable to our Congress and to the
Nuclear Suppliers Group'' of nations that export nuclear
material. 

The nuclear cooperation agreement has been billed as the
cornerstone of a warming U.S.-India alliance. 

``I knew it was going to be a hard issue, because we have to
convince - both of us have to convince our respective people
it's in the interest to have a civilian nuclear program
supported by the United States and India, as well as a civilian
nuclear program that's separate from a military program in
India,'' Bush said Friday in an interview with Doordarshan, an
Indian television network. 

``And I understood the politics was going to be difficult, and
there's still work to be done. We've just got to continue to
come up with an agreement that both of us can live with. But the
relationship is broader than just the civilian nuclear issue.'' 

There is opposition in India to opening the country's secretive
nuclear industry. In the United States, critics argue that the
administration is rewarding bad behavior since India has refused
to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and defied the
world by openly conducting nuclear weapons tests in 1998. Any
agreement faces stiff opposition in Congress. 

Asked what was blocking an agreement, Hadley said: ``It's just
getting some clarification from the Indian side about what's in
the civil side and what's on the military side. Not only in
terms of what exists now, at this time, but what are going to be
the ground rules going forward. There's a lot of technical
aspects to it.'' 

On another issue, Bush told Doordarshan that when he visits
Islamabad, he plans to talk to Pakistani President Gen. Pervez
Musharraf about the need to dismantle terrorist activities. 

``On my trip to Pakistan, I will, of course, talk about the
terrorist activities, the need to dismantle terrorist training
camps, and to protect innocent life, because one of the real
dangers of the terrorist movement is that they'll kill innocent
people to achieve an objective,'' Bush told Doordarshan. 

Bush didn't specifically mention Kashmir, but his reply was to a
question about terrorist training camps and training
infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir that have not been
totally dismantled. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 27 SF New Mexican: Domenici urges freedom from foreign oil    

Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:53 pm                                                                                                       

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican             

Senator supports increased domestic drilling, alternative
fuels..

ALBUQUERQUE  The United States should aim to rid itself of
foreign oil imports within a generation, New Mexicos senior
senator and chairman of the Senate Energy Committee says.

U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has harshly criticized relying
on oil from unstable parts of the world in his new book, A
Brighter Tomorrow. He took those concerns a step further
Thursday.

Im thinking of a package that would say, Lets build a road map
to get rid of all of our dependence upon oil from foreign
countries in a generation,  Domenici said shortly before giving
a speech in Albuquerque.

Domenici said the proposal is doable, although he cautioned that
a big energy bill probably wont get through Congress this year.
It isnt a session calculated to achieve much, and Ive been
working very hard to see if we can do anything, he said.
When asked if the country had the political will to do this, he
said: I have come to the conclusion that we had better look at
such a road map.

About 54 percent of the countrys oil was imported in 2002,
Domenici wrote in his book. Imports are projected to jump to 70
percent of the countrys demand in 2025.
The current price of oil makes drilling for shale oil more
feasible, he said, which would increase the countrys oil
reserves. He also supports several ideas recently promoted by
President Bush that include developing better hydrogen-fuel
cells and ethanol fuels to power the countrys roughly 210
million automobiles.

Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
increased oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida and more
nuclear power are other things Domenici supports, spokeswoman
Marnie Funk said.

Bush, a former West Texas oilman, surprised many when he said in
his State of the Union address that America is addicted to oil,
which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

Democrats seem encouraged by these public statements but have
pushed the Bush administration for answers.

Well obviously its a worthy goal, U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman,
D-N.M., said Friday. But I think whats needed desperately is
some reasonable plan to get from here to there. And thats whats
lacking in the national debate today.

Bingaman is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee.
On Tuesday, he and 27 other Senate Democrats wrote to Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman asking for a specific strategy to reduce
the countrys imports of oil from the Middle East.

Bingaman said Friday that projections from the Energy
Information Administration show that shale oil, hydrogen and
ethanol wont displace substantial amounts of oil. They dont
think the economics are there to cause that to happen, Bingaman
said.
Bingaman said increased fuel efficiency for cars and trucks,
more hybrid vehicles and switching to nonpetroleum based fuels
would help.

Unless we can improve vehicle-fuel efficiency, we clearly cant
begin to get off of an addiction to foreign oil, Bingaman said.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which Domenici and Bingaman
wrote, included many incentives for renewable energy like wind,
solar and ethanol. But it did not include mandates for better
car-fuel efficiency.

Domenicis book, A Brighter Tomorrow, promotes nuclear energy as
one way to solve the worlds energy problems. The Persian Gulf
War and the expensive lunacy of American energy and nuclear
power policy are among the reasons he wrote it.

As we have predicted for decades, stupid public policy has
allowed our economy and our troops to be held hostage to our
dependence on oil  not just foreign oil, but oil from our land,
Domenici wrote. Tragically, almost no one in political power
seems to have a heart to fight for change.

Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or
alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.		 	   	 	 	 			
 		   			 		   	 		 						
By      Joel Keller                      (Submitted:    02/26/2006 1:28 pm                              )
		   	 	
Our company is working on closing an active pipeline
of business in several waste-oriented sectors, including dairy
farms, beef feedlots, trash and garbage collection, sewage
treatment plants, scrap tires and other business sectors in New
Mexico. We will convert these wastes to electricity via a
process known as "two stage, updraft gasification and
oxidation." It works like this: 

The waste material is partially dried and then batch fed into
the gasification chamber where it is heated to about 800 degrees
F in a low oxygen environment. There is no flame in this part of
the process. The carbon containing portion (about 80% to 85% of
the total volume) dissociates as a "syngas" and is carried away
to the next step in the process. The remaining, inorganic
material is collected from the bottom of the first chamber as
"ash," which contains recyclable materials like phosphates and
nitrates and is completely sterile. It may be sold as a soil
amendment or used in a variety of industrial or manufacturing
processes. The initial heat energy to start the process is
recouped quickly as the gasification chemical reaction is highly
exothermic or "heat producing." 

In the meantime, the syngas is oxidized (burnt) in the second
stage and the resulting heat is used to make steam which can be
used by industry for heating or cooling or to produce
electricity. Much of the waste heat produced during the
gasification and oxidation processes is captured and recycled or
used in the system for maximum efficiency. 

This process eliminates the waste material, as opposed to other
methods such as anaerobic digestion and incineration where some
of the energy potential may be captured, but leaving large
amounts of raw material and lots of dirty, smelly water or
creating air pollution. 

Our vendor partner has over 300 of identical projects in
operation world-wide. I've attached a couple of documents that
further describe our system. In addition to using manures, this
process may also use processed wood waste, forest waste, crop
waste, sewage sludge, coal fines, auto fluff, scrap tires and
sorted municipal solid waste, as well as any other organic
feedstock of sufficiently high heat (or BTU) content. Also, the
system's environmental impact is well within current and
potential future EPA air emission standards and produces no
water pollution at all ! 

Our computer model shows profitability of this system with
kilowatt hour pricing as low as $0.0375. We can economically
replace natural gas with these systems in increments of as small
as 5 Megawatts using local wastes as feedstocks, so we clean up
the environment at the same time we lower the cost of
electricity to the end user consumer or industry. In addition,
we have investors ready to finance 100% of the cost these
projects under the right circumstances. 

Imagine if trash collections ended up lighting or heating our
homes instead of occupying space in a landfill. It's the
ultimate form of recycling!! 

If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to give
me a call at 505/404-0586. I'm generally in the office between
8:30 AM and 5:30 PM, Eastern Time. 

By      Ted Hobbes                       (Submitted:    02/26/2006 8:25 am                              )
		   	 	
Domestic oil is, according to Fortune magazine, higher cost than 
foreign oil from unstable parts of the world. Since oil is a 
commodity, buyers of oil such as refineries will always go with 
the low-cost supplier first. 

Domenici's strategy of trying to replace foreign oil with
domestic is going to have a very difficult time succeeding if it
costs more, and he ought to know it.

We have to replace oil with other energy sources, but they too
will have to cost less per unit of usable energy than oil to
gain mass acceptance. 

Cellulosic ethanol has potential, but it delivers less energy
per gallon and currently the ethanol blended fuels still cost
about the same as gasoline. Who's going to pay the same to get
less miles from a tank full? 

As oil continues to rise in price as it become more scarce, this
problem will probably solve itself.

But domestic oil will only make up the difference between what
lower-cost foreign oil can supply and our demand so long as it's
more expensive.

Finally, we need to stop the insanity of burning natural gas in
power plants. This premium fuel which can be delivered to homes
is replacing other fuels, such as coal and uranium, which are
only practical to use in power plants. The ones who pay dearly
for this stupidity are the home owners who now pay a fortune to
heat their homes as the demand, and price, of gas has been
driven up by its use in power stations.
			 		   	 		
By      Eric Scott                       (Submitted:    02/26/2006 6:11 am                              )
		   	 	
As Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Domenici continues
to be part of the problem. He needs to be replaced as he has
wasted too much time. Now the above news article represents the
wasted time, his inefficient leadership, and total disregard for
reality. Pete, sorry guy, your a mess and your bs spin jive has
your lips glued to Bush's arse. And we can all see that quite
clearly. 

Go away. 

Impeach Bush and his lackies. 

God Save the United States			 		   	 			

©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 28 PTI: US Congressman raises doubt over Indo-US nuclear pact

New Delhi, Feb 26 (PTI) A US Congressman has raised serious
doubt over the Indo-US nuclear agreement saying a special
concession to India could trigger similar demands from other
countries.
 "The Pakistani government has now said if India receives this
deal, then Pakistan wants the very same deal for themselves,"
Congressman Edward Markey told NDTV.
 
"I believe these are very serious security questions not just
for the United States, not just for the United Nations, but for
India itself," he said.
 
"If this deal goes through given the difficulty the US is going
through, then there might be very same package for Pakistanis
and for others," he said. PTI 



  © Copyright PTI 2003-2004
 Developed by <font size="1" color="#FFFFFF"
face="Verdana">Sansui Software Pvt. Ltd.</font>


*****************************************************************
 29 San Francisco Chronicle: It's just yet another blurry line

David Lazarus
 				 
Sunday, February 26, 2006
 				
Say what you will about the propriety -- and national- security
implications -- of having a government-owned Middle Eastern
company manage major U.S. ports. 

What's even more remarkable is that once again President Bush is
forced to defend a controversial deal involving a corporate
entity linked to a senior member of his administration. 

To date, the gold-medal winner in potential corporate-political
logrolling has been Vice President Dick Cheney, whose former
employer, Halliburton, has received millions of dollars in
government contracts in Iraq and elsewhere. 

Now we have as silver medalist Treasury Secretary John Snow, who
previously served as head of transportation giant CSX Corp. The
company sold its global port assets to Dubai Ports World for
$1.15 billion a year after Snow left for the White House. 

Snow's Treasury Department was the government agency that
subsequently vetted and approved the $6.8 billion sale of a
British company to state-run Dubai Ports World. The Dubai
conglomerate in turn will take over the British firm's
management of six U.S. ports. 

The Treasury Department says Snow played no role in CSX's
dealings with Dubai Ports World. 

"If people do look into it, they'll see in fact there's
absolutely no personal interest or relationship on the part of
Secretary Snow with business activities at CSX Corp.," Tony
Fratto, a Treasury spokesman, told reporters last week. 

But the situation once again highlights how blurry the line
separating political and corporate interests has become. This is
the danger of having former CEOs running the country, especially
when they come from powerful industries like oil and
transportation. 

"The potential for conflict of interest is greater today than
it's ever been," said Kirk Hanson, executive director of the
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. 

The concern, he said, lies not just in an official's affiliation
with a former employer but also in the fact that the official
typically maintains relationships with executives who remain
with the company. 

Snow may have had nothing to do with CSX selling its ports
division to the Dubai company, Hanson observed. But it's likely
that Snow knows high-level people who now work for the Mideast
firm. 

Dubai Ports World's general counsel, George Dalton, and its head
of business development, Matt Leech, came to the company from
CSX. 

"As more Republican and Democratic officials move into
private-sector jobs and then move back into the public sector,
you'll see more and more cases like this," Hanson said. 

Some critics of the deal, not unreasonably, have noted that two
of the 19 hijackers behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon were from the United Arab
Emirates. 

Moreover, 11 of the hijackers -- all Saudis -- flew to the
United States from Dubai. And U.S. officials say that Dubai
played a central role in Osama bin Laden's financial network
prior to the attack. 

Last but not least, Dubai was also used by the man called the
father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, to
quietly provide nuclear technology to Iran and Libya. 

On the other hand, Dubai serves as a base for U.S. military
activities in the region and is credited by the Bush
administration with being an ally in efforts to combat
terrorism. 

Bush, who has staked his presidency on national-security issues,
told reporters last week that he's comfortable with Dubai Ports
World overseeing commercial aspects of some of the largest ports
in the United States. 

"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize
the security of the United States, it would not go forward," he
insisted. 

"This is a company that has played by the rules, that has been
cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in
the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to
friends and allies not to let this transaction go through." 

What kind of signal does it send, though, to have yet another
top administration official linked to yet another controversial
corporation entrusted with vital (and profitable) aspects of the
nation's defense? 

Snow pocketed $33.2 million when he divested his CSX holdings
before joining Treasury in 2003. 

He got an additional $8 million in deferred compensation a year
later and will receive annual pension payments of $79,129. 

Snow parlayed a stint as head of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration in 1976-77 to become a lobbyist for the
Chessie System railway, which merged with the Seaboard Coast
Line in 1980 to form CSX. 

He was named president of the company in 1988, chief executive a
year later and chairman in 1991. He remained with CSX until Bush
tapped him for the Treasury post. 

Snow sold CSX's shipping division, CSX Lines, to none other than
the Carlyle Group in 2002 for $300 million. 

Carlyle is a prominent Washington investment firm that in past
years has counted among its associates the likes of former
President George H.W. Bush, former Secretary of State James
Baker and the bin Laden family (spawning a raft of conspiracy
theories). 

In 2004, Carlyle turned around and sold off CSX Lines (now
called Horizon Lines) to another investment firm, Castle Harlan,
for $650 million. Castle Harlan was co-founded by John Castle, a
prominent Republican donor. 

A few months later, CSX said it was selling its international
terminal business to Dubai Ports World, making the Mideast
company one of the leading operators of maritime facilities. 

And now Dubai Ports World is set to assume management of docks
in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and
Philadelphia -- with the blessing of Snow's Treasury Department. 

Daryl Koehn, executive director of the Center for Business
Ethics at Houston's University of St. Thomas, said that even if
Snow played no role in any of these events, citizens are right
to be concerned. 

"There's a smell test that has to be passed in these cases," she
said. "The appearance of a conflict can be just as bad as a real
conflict when it comes to the trust people place in government." 
David Lazarus' column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays.
Send tips or feedback to dlazarus@sfchronicle.com. 				

Page D - 1
 			
The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 30 SF Chron: Nuclear power dilemma for Bush in India / U.S. weighs benefit of
Indian alliance against arms fears
 
[San Francisco Chronicle] 
				 
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 26, 2006

President Bush goes to India this week on a mission to forge an
ever closer alliance with the burgeoning South Asian power, but
some members of Congress and experts say the price of building
the relationship may prove too high. 

Perhaps the most important -- and controversial -- part of the
president's trip is an effort to conclude a groundbreaking
agreement that would, for the first time, permit U.S. companies
to sell civilian nuclear power reactors and technology to India,
whose booming economy is starved for energy. 

Such sales have been regarded as a virtual taboo because of
India's refusal in the past to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place its reactors under
international monitoring. 

There is considerable uncertainty that Congress will agree to
such an arrangement, and there are already signs that the deal
may be in trouble in Washington because of concerns it might
weaken controls on trade in technology that could be used to
develop nuclear weapons. 

There is also considerable resistance among some Indian
politicians and officials to some of the conditions being
imposed as part of the deal. 

Despite two days of intense negotiations last week, the United
States and India failed to agree on the all-important issue of
separating India's civilian and military nuclear programs. Any
deal is premised on India accepting the international monitoring
of its civilian nuclear facilities, while its military sites
would be exempt. But if India does not allow a sufficient number
of its facilities to be opened to inspection -- a way of
guaranteeing that it is not engaging in illicit trade or rapidly
expanding its weapons stockpile -- Congress is likely to resist. 

"It's important to have a good agreement that works for the
Indians, works for the United States, will be acceptable to our
Congress and to the Nuclear Suppliers Group" of nations that
export nuclear material, national security adviser Stephen
Hadley told reporters in Washington on Friday. 

The talks are part of what could prove a major shift in
U.S.-India relations, which have long been wary. 

Last March, during a visit to New Delhi, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said it was U.S. policy to assist India in
becoming a "world power." A nuclear deal would not only give
India access to sources of clean energy that it needs to sustain
its economic expansion, it would also allow American companies,
and companies from other Western countries, to market highly
lucrative commercial power reactors and other technology to
India. 

The problem is that India has never signed the NPT, the key
international tool for preventing the spread of weapons
technology. 

In the grand bargain enshrined in the 1970 treaty, signatory
countries, including Iran, are allowed to have access to
civilian nuclear technology, but they must permit international
monitoring of their facilities and swear off nuclear weapons
programs. India developed a nuclear stockpile through a covert
program, and refuses to give up its estimated 40 to 50 warheads,
so it has remained outside the system. 

Under the treaty, signatory countries are forbidden from selling
nuclear technology to non-signatory countries such as India,
Pakistan and Israel, which built and maintain stockpiles of
nuclear bombs. 

India, which has long insisted it is a responsible nuclear
power, wants the United States to make an exception in its case. 

For that to happen, Congress would have to change the law, but
some lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed
concern about weakening the nonproliferation system, and they
want to prevent any possibility that India might use the deal to
expand its weapons arsenal. 

"Everybody would love to be supportive of India for a number of
reasons," said a congressional staffer who has followed the
issue. "This could be a real breakthrough in our relationship.
But the unprecedented change in the nonproliferation system has
brought everybody up short. They feel it's a high price to pay." 

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, has promised close scrutiny of the deal
when it comes before his committee. 

Some in Congress have insisted that the Bush administration not
only pressure India to place as many of its nuclear facilities
as possible under international safeguards, but have demanded
that India also agree to ban any further nuclear testing and to
stop producing weapons-grade fuel. 

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, the senior Democrat on the House
International Relations Committee, expressed qualified support
for the India deal, but insisted that it should "not undermine
our nonproliferation policy." 

"Congress will carefully examine the final agreement to assure
ourselves and our international partners that this initiative
supports our shared political and security objectives," he said. 

Administration officials have said the overall shift in
America's relationship with India would bring so many benefits
that altering nonproliferation restrictions on India would be
well worth it. In addition to the benefits of an alliance with
the booming South Asian democracy, officials have said the deal
would help make India a regional counterbalance to China, and it
would also ensure Indian support for Western efforts to prevent
Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 

In addition, the arrangement would permit an acceleration of the
business and economic ties between India and the United States,
and firm up Indian support in the war against terrorism. 

Spelling out the economic and strategic rationales last year,
Ashley Tellis, an India expert at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace and an adviser to the Bush administration on
the nuclear negotiations, called the idea of granting an
exception for India "long overdue." 

He wrote in a Yale University online publication, YaleGlobal,
that India should become a tool for checking Chinese power in
Asia, a form of what he called "polite containment." 

"The U.S. might need partnerships with other Asian states to
counter growing Chinese capabilities, which even today directly
threaten the United States and its allies," Tellis wrote. 

One benefit for Washington was evident in India's support for
the U.S. position earlier this month when it successfully urged
the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer
Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear activities. 

Few argue with the benefits of a closer relationship with India,
whose economic growth rate rivals China. But what worries many
experts and lawmakers is whether this will encourage other
countries, particularly Pakistan, and possibly Iran, to seek
similar exceptions, and thus weaken efforts to limit trade in
nuclear equipment and technology. 

"The fear is that this sends the message that if you buck the
system and stick it out long enough, you can join the club,"
said Jon Wolfsthal, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington and a former U.S. nuclear
inspector in North Korea. "There are a lot of nervous people
when it comes to this agreement because it crosses what had been
a forbidden line." 

David Albright, a respected nuclear analyst and president of the
Institute for Science and International Security in Washington,
said India should agree not to produce any more weapons-grade
fuel and to open the vast majority of its nuclear facilities to
inspections, a way of ensuring that India does not use the
opening to expand its weapons stockpile. 

"Exceptions can be made, they're made all the time," said
Albright. "But India's acting sort of petulant and arrogant,
saying it can build as many weapons as it likes." 

Within India, some opponents of the prime minister have
complained that he is giving away too much to win U.S. nuclear
cooperation, and a coalition of leftist parties in the Indian
Parliament have threatened to paralyze the body if India opens
too many of its nuclear facilities to outside inspectors. 

Leonard Specter, deputy director of the Monterey Institute of
International Studies' Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said
India has been a responsible nuclear power, but that it has to
allow inspectors into its nuclear facilities for an agreement to
work. "The deal has to ultimately be a deal for
nonproliferation. We have to get something back for making an
exception" for India, he said. 

The critical issue now is how many nuclear facilities India is
willing to open to inspectors, and which ones will be declared
military sites and thus off-limits. The more sites kept closed,
experts warn, the easier it will be for India to build more
warheads. 

"The question is how much freedom will India have in the future
to expand its weapons stockpile," said Wolfsthal. "This is
realistically where the tension comes from." 

E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com. 				
Page A - 15 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 

*****************************************************************
 31 JS Online: Searching for alternatives 

The drive for energy efficiency gains momentum in Madison,

Washington

By THOMAS CONTENT 

Posted: Feb. 24, 2006

More wind turbines and new nuclear reactors are high on the
agenda in Washington and Madison, as politicians grapple with
how to tell voters that they're responding to high energy prices.
 
  [66258] Hybrid Cars   
  
Photo/Rick Wood
 
President Bush (left) talks with Mike Andrew of Johnson Controls
about the advantages of an improved battery for hybrid cars. 

The rising price of coal and natural gas, on the heels of
skyrocketing crude oil and gasoline prices, has spawned a search
for alternative ways of generating electricity.
 
Last week, President Bush stumped in Wisconsin for more funding
for wind and solar power, as well as a big commitment to new
nuclear reactors and clean coal plants. A giant photo of wind
turbines was used as a backdrop for his speech.
 
A day later, in a bipartisan and nearly unanimous vote, the
state Senate passed a bill that would result in 10% of
Wisconsin's electricity being supplied by renewable power,
mostly from wind turbines, by 2015. 

During his talk at Johnson Controls in Milwaukee, President Bush
reiterated his State of the Union pronouncement that America is
addicted to oil, and that alternatives need to be pursued to
help make America less vulnerable to spikes in the prices of oil
and natural gas.
 
That's the same rationale Gov. Jim Doyle and lawmakers in
Madison are using as they promote the bill that would prompt the
state to increase its reliance on wind turbines and other
renewable sources. 

If the state measure becomes law, energy experts expect an
infusion of investment in new wind power projects in Wisconsin.
 
Milwaukee-based We Energies will file an application soon to
build a 160-megawatt wind power project in the towns of Calumet
and Marshfield in Fond du Lac County. It would be the
second-largest wind project in the state, topped only by the
Forward Wind Energy Center in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties.
 
High prices and better renewable technologies have created a
consensus, said Rep. Phil Montgomery (R-Ashwaubenon).
 
"We've hit the economic critical point that, as the price of
natural gas and coal rise, the cost-benefit ratio for renewables
and those alternative energy technologies are coming much more
in line with the ability of ratepayers to take them on," he said.
 
Nuclear still controversial

The most controversial element in today's energy debate concerns
nuclear power.
 
At the national level, Bush is banking on nuclear power, putting
hundreds of millions of dollars in his budget for new nuclear
reactors, the first of which could start construction by 2010,
he said.
 
"If we're trying to become less dependent on foreign sources of
oil or energy like natural gas, we want to free up our natural
gas to keep our manufacturing base intact, we need to move
forward when it comes to alternative sources like nuclear
power," Bush said. "And there's some encouraging results and the
mind-set is beginning to change. After all, the mind-set needed
to change. We haven't built a plant since the 1970s."
 
Last year's federal energy bill provides incentives for new
nuclear plants and, while in Milwaukee, Bush said nine companies
have expressed an interest in building as many as 19 nuclear
power plants.
 
"We'll start building nuclear power plants again by the end of
this decade," Bush said.
 
In Wisconsin, where nuclear power supplies one-fifth of the
state's electricity, no new plants have been discussed. But
Republican legislators, led by Rep. Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem),
want to overturn the state's ban on new nuclear plants.
 
"I am fully convinced that nuclear is the next way to go," said
Montgomery, whose energy committee will hold a hearing Wednesday
on ending the nuclear moratorium.
 
Energy observers say the Kewaunee nuclear plant east of Green
Bay is the most suitable site in Wisconsin for a new reactor,
since Kewaunee was designed to hold two reactors when it was
built in the early 1970s.
 
Doyle opposes nuclear

Opponents of nuclear power, including several state
environmental groups, say it is too costly, given the immense
costs associated with building a new reactor.
 
In addition, a new generation of reactors will add to the
nation's problem of having to store radioactive spent nuclear
fuel at a time that the federal government continues to move
slowly on building a national repository for radioactive waste
at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
 
However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week gave a
private company a license to build an interim disposal site on
an Indian reservation in Utah for some of the nuclear waste now
being stored at nuclear plants around the country. 

Gov. Jim Doyle said focusing attention on nuclear power at a
time when so many other energy alternatives are available
doesn't make sense.
 
"The governor has said we've not had a nuclear plant built
anywhere in the country for three decades, and Wisconsin is not
going to be the state that breaks that streak," Doyle spokesman
Dan Leistikow said.
 
Doyle, who supported construction of coal-fired power plants
opposed by environmental groups, won back the support of those
groups with an aggressive push for legislation expanding
Wisconsin's use of green power and energy efficiency.
 
The state bill, proposed by Montgomery and state Sen. Rob Cowles
(R-Green Bay), will be considered by a state Assembly committee
this week, and is expected to be taken up by the full Assembly
on March 7.
 
The bill has been cheered by supporters of energy efficiency,
which is identified by industries and residents as a way to cut
demand for energy during a period of rising prices.
 


Under the legislation, spending on energy efficiency would be
expected to reach $85 million in the fiscal year that begins
July 2007. That's up from about $40 million in the current
fiscal year.
 
The bill bars the Legislature from tapping energy efficiency
dollars collected on customers' monthly bills and using it for
other purposes, said Janet Brandt, of the non-profit Wisconsin
Energy Conservation Corp., which runs the Focus on Energy
program.
 
"This really does turn the corner," she said.
 
At the same time, critics say the president's budget hamstrings
programs like energy efficiency and weatherization of old
buildings, which can help save on natural gas and bring down
prices.
 
The president's budget cuts energy efficiency spending by $100
million, according to the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy. 

From the Feb. 26, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel 
*****************************************************************
 32 AFP Bush's visit to India should not be judged by nuclear deal - White House - 

 Fri Feb 24, 11:56 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - An elusive nuclear deal between the United
States and India should not be used as a benchmark to gauge the
outcome of President George W. Bush" /> 's visit to India, the
White House said. 

 Bush had said on Friday that his top priority was to get the
nuclear agreement sealed with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
during the trip next week, but negotiators have failed to reach
consensus so far. 

Asked whether the success or failure of Bush's first trip to
India beginning Tuesday hinged on sewing up the nuclear deal,
his national security adviser Stephen Hadley" /> said:
"certainly not." 

An agreement had not been reached even after last minute talks
between US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns and Indian
Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran in New Delhi this week. 

"We're making progress, but we're not yet there," Hadley said. 

"We'd like to get it before the trip. If we can, great. If we
can't, we'll continue to negotiate it after the trip." 

Hadley said there was "a long list" of areas involving bilateral
cooperation that would be announced during the trip "that will
demonstrate the breadth and intensity" of the relationship
between the two huge democracies. 

The nuclear talks have been mired over Washington's demand that
India put more reactors on a list of civilian nuclear facilities
to be put under international scrutiny. 

India reportedly wants to exclude its "fast breeder" reactors --
which could be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons --
from international safeguards backed by the UN watchdog
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> (IAEA). 

Bush and Singh agreed on the broad outline of the nuclear deal
in July 2005, but the two nations have been at odds over how to
ensure that India's military facilities do not benefit from
nuclear technology transfers. 

Under the proposal, energy-starved India would be given access
to civilian nuclear technology it has been denied for conducting
nuclear tests and refusing to sign on to the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

The deal still needs the approval of the US Congress and the
44-member Nuclear Suppliers Group. 

Hadley explained that technical details over separation of
civilian and military nuclear facilities were holding up a final
agreement. 

"It's just getting some clarification from the Indian side about
what's in the civil side and what's on the military side -- not
only in terms of what exists now, at this time, but what are
going to be the ground rules going forward. 

	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 33 AFP: Nuclear, terrorism issues to dominate Bush's first South Asia trip - 

 Monday February 27, 06:51 AM 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush leaves on a
maiden visit to South Asia this week determined to clinch a
landmark nuclear deal with India and prod Pakistan to move more
rapidly against Al-Qaeda leaders believed to be hiding in the
country. 

"In this vital region, the stakes are high and the opportunities
are unprecedented," Bush said ahead of Tuesday's departure to
what is home to the world's most bitter nuclear rivals, the most
dreaded terrorists, the largest democracy and a rapidly growing
region and vast market. 

In India, Bush wants to seal an elusive agreement for the United
States to share civilian nuclear technology as part of a
strategic partnership initiative launched with Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh last summer. 

In an editorial Sunday, the Washington Post wrote that the
agreement is an important deterrent against further
weaponization of South Asia. 

"A good nuclear deal with India could reduce the likelihood that
Pakistan and others will scramble to build extra bombs," the
daily wrote, adding that "the details of the deal matter -- to
America's security and India's." 

But it may be an irony that the United States, which saw India
as an ally of the Soviet Union and imposed many sanctions on New
Delhi after its defiant 1974 nuclear tests, now wants to embrace
the Asian giant. 

"The nuclear agreement attempts to cut through this past
history, and offer to India a tailor-made 'regime' outside of
the NPT," said Stephen Cohen, a South Asian expert at the
Brookings Institution in Washington. 

Although still outside the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), India has become vital to the United States. It is the
world's largest democracy, set to surpass China as the most
populous nation and fastest growing economy, and a vibrant
market. 

The atomic pact will acknowledge India's military nuclear status
and allow the energy-starved nation to accept help for its
civilian nuclear program. 

Key to the agreement is a requirement for New Delhi to separate
its civil and military programs to ensure that India's military
facilities do not benefit from nuclear technology transfers. 

But India is reluctant to be fully transparent because it is
worried Bush may not be able to influence the powerful US
Congress to give mandatory approval to the plan, said former US
Defense Secretary William Cohen. 

"This Gordian knot must have to be cut, cut very soon because if
the civilian nuclear agreement unravels, it is going to have a
major impact on the relationship," Cohen said, suggesting that
both parties make major compromises. 

While the nuclear deal seems to be the focus of Bush's three-day
visit to India, his tightly-guarded day-long trip to Pakistan is
expected to be dominated by talks on the "war on terror." 

The US leader is expected to nudge Pakistani leader Pervez
Musharraf, a key ally in Bush's anti-terror campaign, to commit
more resources to capturing Al-Qaeda kingpin Osama bin laden and
his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, reportedly hiding in Pakistan's
northwest frontier province on Afghanistan's border. 

Zawahiri reportedly escaped missile strikes by US drones in a
tribal village in Pakistan in January. 

At a time when Musharraf is in political difficulty at home
partly because of his close identification with American policy,
Bush is expected to use quiet diplomacy to push the anti-terror
agenda and for democratic reforms. 

He will tell the Pakistani military strongman "perhaps a little
more quietly, but 'I wish you could do more on the borders,'"
said Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department analyst for
Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

"He might very well bring up in the same vein: 'And we'd like to
see you crack down a little harder on your jihadists, help out
Afghanistan in that regard by going after the Taliban,'"
Weinbaum said. 

Pakistan has of late been accused by Kabul of harbouring radical
Taliban leaders directing a four-year-old insurgency in
Afghanistan. 

Seven out of eight Americans believe that it is important to
capture or kill bin Laden, while 75 percent believe he is
planning a significant attack on the United States, according to
recent polls by the USA Today newspaper. 

"These numbers suggest that bringing bin Laden to justice would
be a key psychological victory in the war on terrorism," Peter
Bergen, a fellow of the think tank New America Foundation, wrote
in the Washington Post. 

Bush said he would encourage Musharraf and Singh to resolve the
Kashmir dispute -- the cause of two of the three wars between
India and Pakistan. 

The US leader's visit to the region comes at a sensitive time
amid Muslim rage over the Danish publication of controversial
cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. 

Hindu-majority India has about 150 million Muslims while
Pakistan is home to 162 million Muslims. 

   Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 34 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Seeking Nuclear Deal With India
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday February 25, 2006 7:46 PM

AP Photo BPL101 

By DEB RIECHMANN 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush will try to seal an elusive
nuclear deal when he visits India this week but also will seek
new footing with a burgeoning economic power feared by some
Americans and embraced by others. 

With a stop in Pakistan, Bush joins Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon
and Clinton as the only U.S. chief executives to visit both
countries. 

India, with more than 1 billion people, is the world's largest
democracy and has the second largest population of Muslims,
after Indonesia. U.S. businesses are eyeing India's fast-growing
economy. Some estimates put its middle class at 300 million; the
entire U.S. population is just over 298 million. 

Some in the U.S. perceive India as a threat to their jobs and
are wary of the country's cheap labor markets. The Bush
administration says U.S. jobs will be created if American
companies stay competitive in the global economy. 

Last year, U.S. exports to India grew by more than 30 percent.
While India's growth has not touched lower-income groups,
India's middle class is buying air conditioners, kitchen
appliances and washing machines - many of them from U.S.
companies such as GE, Whirlpool and Westinghouse. 

India could be a counterweight to the rising power of China,
which the U.S. views as a potential rival. India, however,
professes little interest in playing that role. 

``There is no way better to empty a drawing room in Delhi of
Indian strategists than to start talking about this idea,'' said
Robert Blackwill, a former U.S. ambassador to India. 

Bush's stop in neighboring Pakistan follows recent
demonstrations against cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that
were first printed in a Danish newspaper. The protests have
turned into platforms for criticism of the United States, the
Pakistani government of Pervez Musharraf and the war in Iraq. 

Bush is not expected to stray far from the gated presidential
palace in Islamabad, though he plans to participate in a cricket
event. 

Bush's daylong visit to Islamabad, Pakistan's capital, is a
chance to reverse anti-American sentiment and nurture relations
with Musharraf, an ally in the fight against terrorism. 

Some Americans think Musharraf can do more to combat terrorism,
but Pakistan claims it has arrested about 700 al-Qaida suspects
in the past four years, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the
mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Talks about the nuclear agreement with India probably will
overshadow discussions on terrorism and economic relations. A
framework for an agreement was announced by Bush and Indian
Prime Minister Manmoham Singh at the White House in July. 

``We're making progress, but we're not yet there,'' the
president's national security adviser, Steve Hadley, said
Friday. 

Supporters of the deal say it would allow the U.S. to provide
the technology and nuclear fuel India needs to meet its growing
needs for energy and ease demand for oil. 

In exchange, India is pledging to separate its nuclear energy
work from its nuclear weapons activity and give inspectors from
the International Atomic Energy Agency access to its civilian
program. 

The deal faces opposition in Washington and New Delhi. 

In India, opponents claim the U.S. wants too many of India's
civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards and suspect
that is America's way of trying to weaken the nuclear weapons
program. 

U.S. foes of the pact say it would make India an exception to
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which India will not sign. 

These opponents say the deal, which requires congressional
approval, would undermine the treaty and lead to the further
spread of nuclear weapons. The only way to avoid that, they say,
is to force India to put its civilian and military weapons
facilities under IAEA oversight. 

``I don't care what kind of deal the Bush administration works
out with the Indians on safeguards,'' said Rep. Edward Markey,
D-Mass., co-chairman of the House Nuclear Nonproliferation Task
Force. ``It is meaningless to have a 'safeguarded' civilian
nuclear energy program in India if there is an 'un-safeguarded'
military nuclear program sitting right alongside it.'' 

Presidential trips to the region are not common. Jimmy Carter
visited India during his administration, and Lyndon Johnson
visited Pakistan as president. 
		 	 	   

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 35 TheStar.com: It's time Canada gets serious about energy
 
Sun. Feb. 26, 2006. | Updated at 02:51 AM 

MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR                         

Brian Gold of Nulight Ltd. of Toronto shows a compact fluorescent 
light bulb his firm has developed that uses just 15 watts of 
electricity to produce the same light as a traditional 100-watt 
bulb.                   
  
10 ways to saveEASY: 

1. Change incandescent to compact fluorescent lights. The
latest, from Nulight Ltd. of Toronto, cut electricity
consumption 85 per cent and are small enough to fit existing
fixtures. The average Ontario home has 30 bulbs. Switching just
three in each would save power to supply 130,000 houses.

2. Turn off lights when you leave a room and TVs and computers
that aren't in use.

3. Wash clothes in cold water  that cuts energy use by 85 to 90
per cent.

4. Take a five-minute shower instead of a bath and use half as
much hot water.

5. When the weather warms, turn your air conditioner off when
you're out during the day. Better yet, put it on a timer. 

A LITTLE HARDER:

 6. Instead of air conditioning, use a couple of regular fans at
night to bring in cool air, then keep the house closed with
curtains drawn during the day. Ceiling fans also help.

7. Get a new water heater fuelled by natural gas. Toronto Hydro
Energy Services will soon offer a model with no tank. It's 92
per cent efficient  compared to 50 or 60 per cent for the
traditional type. 

8. Buy top-rated Energy Star appliances. Air conditioners use 30
per cent less power than those made a decade ago and new
refrigerators are twice as efficient  and four times better
than 1975 models.

RADICAL HERE; NOT ELSEWHERE: 

9. Consider solar power for heating water or geothermal for the
whole house. Pipes buried in the ground and a small pump warm
buildings in winter and cool them in summer. 

10. Generate your own power with a small wind turbine or solar
roofing material. It costs $10 per watt to install, or about
$30,000 for an average house.

SOURCES: Ontario Power Authority, Conservation Council of
Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Energy


It's time Canada gets serious about energyFeb. 25, 2006. 02:00

PMPETER GORRIEFEATURE WRITER

George W. Bush says he has a new energy vision.

The U.S. president — long-time friend of Big Oil — revealed it
this week at a Michigan factory that makes solar equipment: 

"Roof makers will one day be able to make a solar roof that
protects you from the elements and, at the same time, powers
your house," he said. "The vision is this: that technology will
become so efficient that you'll become a little power generator
in your home. And if you don't use the energy you generate,
you'll be able to feed it back into the electricity grid."

A great idea. And Bush need only shift his gaze a little north
of Toronto to see that it's not just some far-off American dream.

In Aurora, Solar Roofing Systems Inc. makes roofs that not only
keep out rain and snow, but also convert the sun's energy into
electricity. Its first models are for flat surfaces. Soon, says
CEO Norm Dodd, it will have materials for slopes so artfully
crafted they'll offer no hint they generate power.

The small company looks like a Canadian success story. Three
years ago, it purchased an American inventor's patent, then,
dramatically improved on it. Its manufacturing plant employs 16
GTA residents. 

It's evidence, surely, that this country is sprinting ahead in
the race to develop solar, wind and other renewable energy
sources to replace polluting fossil fuels and costly nuclear
power.

Not so fast, though.

Solar Roofing is being sold to Open Energy, a California
company. 

Incentives introduced by Bush — yes, that Bush — and several
state governments have created hot U.S. markets for alternative
energy products. In fact, even before the takeover, 90 per cent
of Solar Roofing's sales were south of the border.

Open Energy is paying more than $20 million for the young Aurora
business.

"They see the future of a company like ours," Dodd says.

His story is typical, industry people say. Canada offers too
little to entrepreneurs trying to develop products that promote
conservation, energy efficiency and renewable sources of
electricity, or to consumers who balk at their up-front costs.
As a result, the country is in danger of missing a chance to not
only improve the environment but also create new industries and
thousands of jobs.

 "We've had virtually no assistance," Dodd says. "If we had any
assistance, we'd be keeping it all up here." At least, he adds,
"it would have been a much tougher decision" to sell.

Other countries are pushing hard. Sweden has declared it will be
free of fossil fuels and nuclear power by 2020; Denmark has spun
wind power into a vigorous industry; Germany is installing 1
million square metres of solar panels every year; Japan is
offering generous incentives to hit its target of 100,000
megawatts of energy from the sun by 2030. That's more than three
times Ontario's current total generating capacity and light
years ahead of the province's latest solar goal — a mere 40
megawatts by 2025. 

China has launched a $100 billion (U.S.) efficiency program.
And, as Bush's Michigan speech indicates, the Americans are
moving aggressively into the game.

Politicians here, from Prime Minister Stephen Harper on down,
advocate new technologies. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and
his energy minister, Donna Cansfield, promote a "culture of
conservation."

But, businesspeople and industry analysts complain, government
support is minimal, private investors are cautious, and
electricity prices are held so low through taxpayer subsidies
that alternatives don't stand a chance.

"Clearly, there are world markets well ahead of us," Dodd says.
"We're laggards."

Politicians "say innovation is a good idea and then forget about
it," laments Joseph Dableh, co-owner and president of Fifth
Light Technology, an Oakville company that developed controls
for fluorescent lights in offices that cut their electricity
consumption by up to half. 

"Unfortunately, in Canada there's a very high degree of
conservatism," Dableh says. "It's a very big dampener on
innovation."

"If we don't do something now, we'll pay a huge penalty," adds
Brian Gold, whose Toronto-based Nulight Ltd. invented a compact
fluorescent light bulb that uses even less electricity than its
energy-efficient competitors — 15 watts instead of 23 to produce
the same light as a traditional 100-watt bulb. He's been selling
it to businesses and institutions for a couple of years, but is
still negotiating for space on store shelves.

It's not a new story: In 1875, two Toronto men, Henry Woodward
and Matthew Evans, patented the first practical light bulb. But
they couldn't get financial backing. Four years later, Thomas
Edison bought their invention, took it to New York and made it a
commercial success.

In a modern-day version, Canadians Jim Rowan and Tom
Priest-Brown spent more than a decade developing Mag-Wind, a
$15,000, beehive-shaped wind turbine that spins on magnets
around a vertical shaft, impervious to ice and snow. It sits on
a house roof and is said to generate enough electricity for an
average family.

`The Ontario government's energy policy is all over the map.
It's trying a piecemeal approach to fix the problem'

Anthony Maxwell, Canadian Innovation Centre

 
They moved the business to Texas when they couldn't generate
support here. This year, it will produce 4,000 units — 1,000
being distributed in Canada by Niagara Windpower Inc.

"We love our country, but we're also kind of frustrated," says
Mag-Wind spokesperson Sharon Rowan. "It seems that, frequently,
Canadians are willing to entertain an idea until you ask them to
do something about it.

"Before they'd invest in research and development, they'd want
to see the research and development completed."

Dableh was able to keep going largely thanks to a successful,
12-year legal battle over an invention he devised as a
researcher with the former Ontario Hydro. Without the cash
settlement, he says, "we probably would have walked away" from a
business that has now created about 60 full-time jobs and
expects to hit 200 in a year or so.

Most critics argue Canada should be much more aggressive about
energy alternatives. The country, they say, lacks vision and
focus. 

The federal government has two funding programs that several
observers describe as "fantastic." Combined, they have about $1
billion to spend, but that's small change compared to what other
nations spend, and it's spread over all kinds of projects.

Another federal fund intended to combat climate change would
support projects that cut greenhouse gas emissions. Many would
also encourage efficiency. But the new Conservative government
plans to divert much of the fund to small tax breaks for people
who buy transit passes.

Ontario is starting to promote energy efficiency, conservation
and renewable sources of power such as the sun and wind. 

It's the first government in North America to follow Europe's
lead — and leap ahead of Bush's solar-roof vision — by offering
to buy small amounts of power from homeowners or businesses that
generate their own. 

It has also ordered the Ontario Power Authority to find
conservation projects that cut electricity demand by 1,000
megawatts.

Politicians and officials cite signs of progress:


+ This spring, Toronto Hydro Energy Services, the arm of the
city utility that distributes home water heaters, will offer two
new versions: One is a solar heater that cuts energy consumption
in half; the other, a 92-per-cent efficient gas or electric
system that heats water on demand rather than keeping a
tank-full warm.


+ The province's biggest cattle farm — near Lucan, in
southwestern Ontario — will soon complete installation of a
device to convert manure and urine into fertilizer, water and,
most important, methane that can generate electricity for the
farm and a nearby village.


+ New lights will save $10,000 worth of electricity a year in
each of Toronto's Rabba convenience stores, Cansfield says. 


+ A mini-boom in wind power has brought two manufacturing plants
to the province.


+ Audits are finding simple ways for businesses to cut
electricity consumption. One firm is saving hundreds of dollars
just by installing a light in a walk-in freezer, so employees
can shut the door while working inside.

But critics complain most alternative measures are still treated
here as experiments and pilot projects, even when they've been
proven elsewhere. 

And they point out problems.


+ Ontario's subsidized electricity rates, recently frozen at a
low level for most industries, combine with skimpy incentives to
kill demand for alternatives. 


+ If everyone in Ontario used Energy Star efficient appliances,
that part of electricity demand would drop by about 40 per cent,
according to a federal government study. But the appliances
account for less than 15 per cent of the market. The other
provinces have produced tougher standards for just a few
appliances, and electricity hogs remain on the market.

A couple of years ago, Ontario offered sales tax rebates on
Energy Star goods but it had little impact. This spring, it will
try new incentives for consumers to replace air conditioners and
refrigerators with efficient new models. But it's not yet clear
whether the measures will be generous enough to change buying
habits.


+ The 905 suburbs continue to be filled with houses that are
huge "drywall barns," says Kate Holloway, whose fledgling
company installs solar water heaters and geothermal systems, in
which pipes buried in the ground keep buildings warm in winter
and cool in summer.

"Developers and banks don't care about energy efficiency,"
Holloway says. "We need to build it into new homes."

 Cansfield says recent legislation will let the province set
standards for houses, condos and office buildings, but there's
no indication how stringent any new rules might be or when
they'll be imposed.

                                
`Clearly, there are world markets well ahead of us. We're
laggards'

Norm Dodd, Solar Roofing Systems Inc.

"The Ontario government's energy policy is all over the map,"
says Anthony Maxwell of the Waterloo-based Canadian Innovation
Centre, a non-profit corporation that promotes commercial
development of new products. "It's trying a piecemeal approach
to fix the problem."

McGuinty "is surrounded by too many people who don't get it."

"We can do more," Cansfield acknowledges. "We had to begin with
something that's practical and doable. I don't think that we
stop there ... This is just the beginning."

Maxwell and others argue that Canada, like Sweden, needs to set
aggressive goals for both conservation and new power sources,
and then work hard to achieve them. That, they say, would lead
to policies that convert good ideas into marketable products,
and also get consumers involved enough to create a market for
them.

"If you say we need to produce a certain amount of power each
year, and a steadily increasing percentage will be alternatives,
it's a strong driver of innovation," Maxwell says. 

Canada could become a leader, says Chris Tyrrell, general
manager of Toronto Hydro Energy Services. "We have the
technology and resources. We have to have a stronger and better
energy platform ... one that doesn't change with every
election." 

A long-term goal, "absolutely, categorically makes sense," says
Brian Guthrie of the Conference Board of Canada. "Canada has a
history of trying to be all things to all people. It has trouble
saying, `No.' We need to pick the long-term races we'll go in."

 So far, Guthrie says, "I don't think it's happening. Whether it
actually happens, the jury is still out on."

For almost everyone involved in energy conservation and
alternatives, the first essential step is to charge the real
price for electricity. It could rise in stages, and efficiency
would offset the higher cost. 

"If they keep capping electricity ... and rely on the tax base
to subsidize the rates, they'll completely destroy the renewable
industry, at great expense to our children," Holloway says. Once
that's done, other measures can work.

Most Canadian investors, even venture capitalists, are too shy
of risk and demand too much of a new company in return for their
investment, Dableh says.

On top of that, critics say, government programs "don't talk to
each other." They support different stages of development and
each demands its own applications and assessments.

"We train people to fill out forms for government funding
instead of going out and look for customers," Maxwell says.

The solution, most say, is programs that follow an invention
from its early stages to commercial production.

The problem of up-front costs for consumers can be solved in
many ways. The simplest is rebates. New Jersey covers nearly 70
per cent of the cost of solar installations; California offers
smaller, but similar, support.

The funding can be in cash or in tax credits.

Governments or utilities could lend the cost of efficient
devices and be repaid from part of the savings. Or, like Toronto
Hydro, they can rent the equipment. 

When energy savings are subtracted from the extra equipment
cost, consumers pay less. 

Like Germany and Denmark do, governments and utilities can buy
the electricity from solar roofs and other power generators.

Building owners can lease their roofs to others who will install
generating gear and sell the electricity it produces.

Everyone involved in the issue agrees attitudes must change.

Advocates of alternatives say utilities need to abandon the idea
that the only reliable power sources are massive, centralized
generating stations linked to consumers by long transmission
lines. And consumers need to accept the importance of saving
energy, and learn how it's possible to do it.

"There's a real disconnect," Holloway says. "People don't know
it's ready for prime time."

"There seems to be a bit of a perception that conservation means
you have to do without," says Peter Love, who heads the Ontario
Power Authority's Conservation Bureau. "That's not the case."

Even when incentives are offered, people don't believe new
devices actually work, Love says. "There's mistrust, disbelief
and misinformation."

Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
 36 Japan Times: Nuclear carrier unwelcome 

By KIROKU HANAI 

The U.S. Navy recently announced a decision to deploy a
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Yokosuka Naval Base in
Kanagawa Prefecture, dismaying residents of the area. Following
the decision -- made in conjunction with the reorganization of
U.S. forces in Japan -- the mayor of Yokosuka, the prefectural
governor and other local officials urged the U.S. government to
continue keeping a conventionally powered carrier at the base. 

As Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi attaches great importance to
the Japan-U.S. defense alliance, Japanese people are watching
closely which side he will favor -- the United States or
Japanese local-government authorities. 

In 1966 the submarine Snook became the first U.S.

nuclear-powered warship to visit Yokosuka. In 1973 the
conventionally powered aircraft carrier Midway visited Yokosuka,
touching off Japanese opposition against moves to deploy the
carrier there. Authorities on both sides tried to allay Japanese
concerns by promising that the carrier would remain in Yokosuka
for only a few years. The promise was broken as Yokosuka became
a carrier home port. 

The Kitty Hawk, currently based at Yokosuka, is a
third-generation conventionally powered U.S. carrier. Last
October the U.S. Navy announced plans to retire it in 2008 and
replace it with a nuclear-powered carrier, later identified as
the George Washington. 

Candidate carriers that the navy had initially planned to assign
to Yokosuka included the Harry S. Truman, but it gave up the
idea reportedly because the name invoked memories of the U.S.
president who ordered the atomic bombings in Japan. Apparently
U.S. military authorities are quite aware of Japanese "nuclear
allergies." So it is hard to understand why they decided to
deploy a nuclear-powered carrier. 

The U.S. Navy says that, compared with their conventional
counterparts, nuclear-powered carriers have much higher
capabilities and can conduct combat and noncombat operations
twice as long, thanks to improved storage of jet fuel and arms.

It insists that nuclear-powered carriers are safe. 
But according to a citizens' group in Yokosuka, a 1998 report
published by the U.S. General Accounting Office denied the
technical superiority of nuclear-powered carriers over
conventional ones. It said nuclear-powered carriers needed more
time for repairs, limiting the time available for forward
deployment. The report noted that nuclear-powered carriers might
need less time for rapid development but that a task fleet led
by a nuclear-powered carrier would require about the same time
as one led by a conventional carrier, simply because the
nuclear-powered carriers are accompanied by conventionally
powered ships. 

The citizens' group argues that the nuclear reactor on a warship
is much more dangerous than a land-based power reactor for the
following reasons: (1) Reactor design on a warship is difficult
due to limited space, and (2) a reactor powered by highly
enriched uranium, and situated close to an explosives depot,
could suffer serious damage in a marine accident. 

U.S. nuclear-powered warships have been involved in several
accidents; two submarines have sunk. In 1999 the nuclear-powered
carrier Stennis almost caused a major disaster when it ran
aground in San Diego Bay, close to its home port, damaging its
coolant-circulation pump and halting its two reactors. (In
Japan, the nuclear-powered ship Mutsu was later scrapped after
it developed a radiation leak in 1974.) 

Yokosuka city authorities have been conducting annual
disaster-prevention drills for possible accidents involving
nuclear-powered warships, and have compiled a manual on the
subject. The U.S. Navy, however, has refused to provide
information about warship designs and operations, citing the
need for military secrecy and sticking to its mythical position
that nuclear-powered ships are not susceptible to serious
accidents. Lacking specific data for forecasting potential
damage, the city is having trouble making contingency plans. 

The nuclear-powered carrier to be deployed at Yokosuka is likely
to stay there for up to six months at a time, using repair
facilities that may be vulnerable to radiation leakage. 

In 1988, W. Jackson Davis, professor of biology at the
University of California, conducted an environmental assessment
of possible damage from an accident involving a nuclear-powered
submarine at Yokosuka. The study found that people within a
100-km radius of the accident site, including Tokyo and all of
Kanagawa Prefecture, would be affected. Deaths from exposure to
radiation itself and from genetic damage would amount to 100,000
a year. In an accident involving a nuclear-powered carrier,
whose thermal output is nine times larger than that of a nuclear
submarine, the toll would be much higher. 

The reactor on a nuclear-powered carrier is comparable to a
land-based reactor. Yet Tokyo Electric Power Co. has built its
nuclear power stations in Fukushima and Niigata prefectures,
avoiding Tokyo and neighboring areas. 

If U.S. authorities remain reluctant to help Japanese
authorities in disaster-prevention efforts, such as by providing
data on reactor design and operation, and to permit safety
checks by Japanese authorities, protests by local citizens
against deployment of a nuclear-powered carrier are likely to
strengthen. Such concerns are justified. 

The U.S. is the only country that deploys a nuclear-powered
carrier in Japan's surrounding areas. For a strictly defensive
national security policy, Japan does not need aircraft carriers,
nuclear-powered or otherwise. Excessive military power will only
invite hostility from neighboring countries and be
counterproductive to Japan's defense. It will also contravene
the spirit of Japan's three nonnuclear principles: the ban on
the production, possession or introduction of nuclear arms. 

Among U.S. allies, Japan is said to be the only country that
provides a home port for U.S. warships. To protect the safety of
Tokyo Bay and the lives of citizens in the metropolitan region,
the Japanese government should demand that the U.S. Navy rescind
its decision to deploy a nuclear-powered carrier at Yokosuka.

Kiroku Hanai, a former editorial writer for a vernacular
newspaper, writes on a wide range of issues, including
international relations. 

The Japan Times: Feb. 27, 2006 (C) All rights reserved     
*****************************************************************
 37 ajc.com: Nuclear energy an attractive option | 

Opinion                                                                                

By RON HINSON

Published on: 02/26/06                                                                                                                                                                                  
	 	
Georgia Power has asked the Georgia Public Service Commission to 
allow it to establish a special account to defer the licensing 
and permitting costs for potential new nuclear generating units. 

This "accounting order" will provide a formal means of deferring 
these costs. It would not allow the company to begin immediately 
charging customers for the expenses. This is simply an accounting 
requirement. No money from ratepayers would likely be involved 
for perhaps another decade.

In 1991, the Georgia Legislature passed laws that provide for
rigorous PSC oversight of electricity generation planning and
construction. Customers would only begin to pay for these
deferred licensing and permitting costs and any resulting
construction costs following PSC hearings under these laws and
general rate case procedures in the 2015 time frame. 

Most importantly, approval of the accounting order maintains
nuclear generation as a future energy option. 

Nuclear energy is an increasingly attractive option for
countries around the world  and here in the United States. 

Nationwide, natural gas has been the fuel of choice for new
generating plants, because they're less expensive to build and
relatively clean. While Georgia Power continues to add natural
gas-fueled generating plants to its fleet, the company's
hydroelectric, coal- and nuclear-fueled plants provide
much-needed balance. 

The average cost of natural gas in 2004 was $6.50 per million
BTU. In 2005 that average rose to about $10; and following
Hurricane Katrina, prices shot as high as $19. 

Forecasters predict the United States will need 50 percent more
electricity by 2025. In addition to its prior initiatives,
Georgia Power initiated four new energy efficiency programs for
its customers in 2004. Nevertheless, growth in electricity
demand will continue. Utilities and their customers simply
cannot afford to continue to depend only on natural gas as the
fuel source for new generation. 

Georgia Power customers will require a new large capacity plant
in the 2015 time frame. Whether that plant is powered by nuclear
energy or fossil fuels, there will be preconstruction costs
included in Georgia Power's cost recovery requests. 

In the past 10 years, Southern Co. and Georgia Power have
managed nearly $400 million in energy research and demonstration
projects, including clean coal, solar, fuel cells, biomass and
wind. We continue to explore these options in hopes that
improving technologies will make them more economic and
productive. In the meantime, we must rely on proven technologies
such as nuclear that provide large amounts of energy at
competitive prices. 

Nuclear plants use uranium, which is available domestically and
from many other countries, including Canada. A uranium pellet,
about the size of a pencil eraser, can produce as much
electricity as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of
coal or 140 gallons of oil. Nuclear energy emits no sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxide or carbon dioxide. 

Used nuclear fuel is stored safely at plant sites, either in
steel-lined vaults filled with water or steel-and-concrete
containers. The Department of Energy is working to open a used
fuel storage facility in 2010. 

While the U. S. nuclear industry has developed new, more
efficient and even safer nuclear energy plant designs, Congress
has provided federal incentives that will reduce costs to
customers and risks to investors for the first new plants. These
incentives are an important step in reinvigorating the nuclear
option. 

Nuclear energy already plays an important role in America's
energy mix today, and we believe it holds promise as an
economical, safe, clean and reliable source of energy for
tomorrow. 

Ron Hinson is Georgia Power's vice president and comptroller. 	 
 
  © 2006 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution| Customer care|
*****************************************************************
 38 IRNA: Tender documents for establishment of two nuclear power plants ready - 

Bushehr, Feb 26, IRNA                                                                                                            

Iran-Russia-Aqazadeh 

Tender documents for establishment of two 1000-megawatt nuclear
power plants in Bushehr have been prepared and will be released
in a month, said head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization
(IAEO) Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh here on Sunday.

 Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a press conference
along with his Russian counterpart S. Kiriyenko on Sunday,
Aqazadeh said naturally, Russia too will be invited to
contribute to the establishment of the two power plants.

 Aqazadeh said due to close relations between Iran and Russia,
participation of Moscow in the projects is among the issues that
will be taken into account.

 On the date for completion of Bushehr nuclear power plant,
Aqazadeh said Tehran and Moscow have held extensive talks in
that connection and Kiriyenko's visit to Iran to supervise the
pace of progress in implementing the power plant has brought
about new ideas.

 He said since 90 percent of operations for construction of
Bushehr nuclear power plant is completed, committees have been
formed to follow up different aspects of the issue.

 He added that formation of a joint committee to look into
speedy delivery of the remaining equipment is among other points
on which he and his Russian counterpart have agreed.

 The official noted that a joint committee has also been formed
to set the timetable for completion of the project this year.

 Aqazadeh said Kiriyenko has agreed to receive a monthly report
on the performance of Iran-Russia joint committee and arrange
meetings, if necessary, at the level of the heads of the two
countries' atomic energy organizations.

 He said that in their meetings the two sides have also reached
agreement on the fuel shipment.


*****************************************************************
 39 Arizona Daily Star: Ratepayers may feel vibration problem at Arizona N-plant

www.azstarnet.com Â®
 
The Associated Press Tucson, Arizona | 

Published: 02.26.2006

PHOENIX - The operators of the nation's largest nuclear power 
plant still don't have a fix for a pesky vibration problem that 
has forced it to run one of three reactors at only 25 percent 
power since December.

The problem in a coolant line at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power 
Station, run by the Arizona Public Service Co., will likely hit 
customers in the region in the pocketbook.

The reduced output from Unit 1 at the plant already has cost APS 
about $20 million in replacement power costs, and that will 
likely continue at a rate of $7 million a month until the problem 
is fixed. The utility expects to ask state regulators to let it 
pass on the costs to customers. Other utilities with an interest 
in the plant also expect to see higher costs, including the Salt 
River Project and utilities in Texas, New Mexico and California.

El Paso Electric told investors last week that Unit 1's slowdown 
costs the Texas utility $2 million to $3 million each month. The 
company revised its 2006 profit forecasts in part due to the 
reduced output. Chief Executive Officer Gary Hedrick said his 
company will ask Texas regulators to recover those fuel-related 
costs from ratepayers.

The problem is a vibration in a coolant line used during 
shutdowns of the reactor, and was first noticed in 2001. The 
vibration got much worse after the utility replaced steam 
generators with more powerful units and restarted the plant late 
last year.

The utility now plans to try another fix for the problem in the 
20-year-old plant in April. It will shut down the reactor and 
install shock absorbers to reduce the vibrations. If that fails, 
APS likely will shut the reactor again in June and relocate a 
valve in the hope that fixes the vibration.

Palo Verde can crank out 4,000 megawatts of electricity, enough 
for 4 million average homes. It is a critical link in the 
Southwest's power supply, and combined with the January shutdown 
of the 1,580-megawatt Mohave Generating Station near Laughlin, 
Nev., the reduced output could put a crimp in summertime power 
supplies in the region.

But both APS and the Salt River Project said they've lined up 
enough replacement power to avoid any power shortfalls.

Palo Verde, about 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, has been 
among the nation's top performing plants since it opened in 1986.

But the plant also has experienced numerous outages over the past 
two years that have resulted in more than a dozen shutdowns. Most 
recently, two reactors were shut down in October after regulators 
raised concerns about the emergency cooling system design. The 
plant was restarted a week later after a review.

*****************************************************************
 40 JAMAICAOBSERVER.COM: Behind the nuclear power revival - 

  Dennis Morrison

Sunday, February 26, 2006
   
In a previous article, I examined the composition of world
proven reserves of oil, natural gas and coal. The figures showed
that the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia control the
largest portion of the reserves of these fossil fuels, with
North America trailing, except in coal, where the USA has the
single largest reserves. 


  Dennis Morrison   


Given the insatiable appetite of that country for energy because
of the energy-intensive nature of the lifestyle of its people,
it is particularly vulnerable to supply and price shocks in the
energy markets. 

Concern about energy supply and price go beyond the USA,
however, as the demand for energy in all its forms is rising
with the International Energy Agency [IEA] predicting that
global energy demand will rise by 50-60 per cent over the next
25 years. 

Supplies of fossil fuels are, on the other hand, moving in the
opposite direction, as the rate of new discoveries is slowing
down. Thus, there is serious talk about alternative sources such
as nuclear power, and energy from sunlight, wind and even waves.

These alternatives offer the attraction of environmental
friendliness, free of the greenhouse gas emissions associated
with fossil fuels. 

Climate scientists are urging that emissions must fall if we are
to avoid the worst dangers of climate change. In their
estimation, the world cannot cope with a 50 per cent rise in gas
emissions that would result from the growth in energy demand
predicted by the IEA, were we to continue with the current mix
of fuels using existing technologies. 

Exploiting the clean fuel sources of sun, wind and waves is,
however, not yet economically feasible. For example, despite the
advances made in the last decade in the development of
photo-voltaic cell technology, the use of solar energy on a mass
scale is still not within the current time horizon. 
    
  The Chernobyl plant after the nuclear accident there in 1986. 
 
It is for these reasons that nuclear power has once again become
a topical issue, as it is felt that it offers the best
alternative in the context of rising prices and supply
constraints affecting fossil fuels. Estimates by the experts
indicate that there are approximately 440 commercial nuclear
reactors providing 16 per cent of the world's electricity
supply. 

France, the USA and Russia are major players in this field and
nuclear power is a significant part of the electricity mix in
China and India as well. In all likelihood, nuclear-based
electricity generation capacity will be expanded in these same
countries as they seek to satisfy rising demand, particularly as
economic growth rates are projected to remain strong. 

But not even this source of fuel is immune from supply
limitations, as stocks of uranium are finite and dangerous waste
is produced in this process of energy-generation. Some experts
are suggesting that sharp increases in nuclear capacity would
limit the time scale of economic reserves of uranium. 

It is therefore clear that regardless of any additions to the
energy supply mix, the world must face the issue of how to
reduce the consumption of energy, even as we pursue the
objectives of economic growth and living standards for its six
billion people. Furthermore, it is felt that the use of
plutonium would not be a simple way of relieving the supply
constraints of fuel for nuclear energy. This is because of the
dangers associated with that material. 

The world well remembers the largest nuclear accident in history
in 1986 at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine. An explosion did
great damage to the number four reactor at that plant and sent a
radioactive cloud across large sections of Europe. 

Prior to that accident, there was a strong anti-nuclear lobby in
most countries of Europe except France, as most countries froze
their nuclear power programmes and implemented decommissioning
plans. The Chernobyl accident served to reinforce the fears
about nuclear power until recently when oil and supply issues
have again come to the fore. 

France, which has been Europe's most aggressive developer of
nuclear power plants, has commissioned dozens of such reactors
since the oil price shocks of the 1970s. It now has 59 working
nuclear reactors out of the 173 such reactors producing power in
Europe (not including Russia which has a substantial number) and
has another 11 plants that are out of use. 

Nuclear power accounts for 78 per cent of its electricity
generating capacity and it is a big exporter of electricity and
nuclear technology. The French government has reiterated the
commitment to the building of the 4th generation of nuclear
reactors using nuclear waste as a source of energy. 

The UK, which was the first country to use nuclear energy to
generate electricity for public use, has recently been
re-examining the restrictions on the use of this form of energy
as it contemplates new policy directions to deal with supply
constraints related to fossil fuels. 

As its North Sea oil and gas reserves are depleted, the option
of nuclear power will become more attractive for the UK. It also
sees nuclear power as a major option in meeting greenhouse gas
reduction targets. It currently relies on nuclear power for only
20 per cent of its electricity consumption and has
decommissioned 21 of its 44 nuclear reactors. 

The transportation sector, which is a large user of oil, and
which in Jamaica, has seen the most rapid rate of increase in
energy use has been exploring more and more aggressively
alternative systems of powering motor vehicles. 

Dual fuel vehicles are becoming more popular in some countries
like the USA; and in Brazil ethanol is a major fuel source.

Electric-driven cars are part of the new direction, and fuel
cells based on hydrogen are also being pioneered by Honda. 

In some European countries diesel-powered vehicles have become
far more popular as governments have, either by incentives or
restrictions, pushed the motor vehicle industry and consumers in
that direction. Diesel-powered vehicles are more
energy-efficient, and their use over time result in cost savings
for consumers and lower overall fuel utilisation by countries. 
Switching to another matter, last week was a busy one, not only
in the PNP presidential campaign, but in the financial and
business arena. Both Moody's and Standard &Poor's issued results
of their recent reviews and maintained their ratings of
Jamaica's debt. 

The factors influencing their assessments in a positive
direction are the commitment to fiscal discipline, proven
ability to face severe shocks and our relatively low external
volatility factor. On the negative side, our high debt ratio is
the paramount consideration. The rating agencies have pointed to
the improved prospects for growth based on the gathering
momentum on the investment side of the economy. 

Confirming the assessments of Moody's and Standard &Poor's, the
capital markets responded positively to the latest bond issue of
the government through a 60 per cent over subscription and lower
interest rate and longer tenure than on any previous bond issue. 

This was a very encouraging outcome, especially in the face of
the tensions emanating from the PNP leadership race. It
underscores the critical importance of a smooth transition and
of continuity in the fundamental policy framework. 

Since we know that Jamaicans are big players in the market for
our global bonds and that they will be active in the foreign
exchange market in the coming weeks as they seek to participate
in the issue, the Bank of Jamaica should be prepared to step up
its interventions in the market so that any unwarranted effects
on the local currency are mitigated. As we seek to bring
inflation down to single digits, this matter requires even
closer monitoring. 


Copyright© 2000-2001 Jamaica Observer. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 41 Rediff: N-Deal: A word of caution from the RSS

February 25, 2006 18:59 IST

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on Saturday urged the government
'not to buckle under pressure' to sign the civilian nuclear
agreement with the United States as it will be detrimental to
the country's interests.

The advice has come through a resolution adopted by the RSS
Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha on the second day of its
three-day meeting in Nagpur on Saturday.

Briefing newsmen, RSS spokesman Ram Madhav said that the
separation of nuclear facilities and throwing the civilian
sector open to inspections by the International Atomic Energy
Commission was fraught with 'serious implications'.
  + Complete Coverage: Bush in India

India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and, therefore, not under compulsion to bow to the
demand for separation, Madhav asserted. It was entirely India's
prerogative to decide whether her nuclear programme will be
civilian or strategic in nature, he said.

The government must chalk out a long-term nuclear policy for the
country after taking into confidence all the political parties,
including those in the opposition, scientists, specialists in
defence and foreign policy, and the chiefs of all the three
defence services, Madhav said.

There were reports that the United States President George W
Bush was trying to pressurise the government into signing the
nuclear pact before his visit to the country, Madhav told
newsmen. 

(Central India News Service) 

 Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 42 Rediff: India offers to put 14 nuclear reactors on civilan
 
Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi | 	February 26, 2006 19:18 IST

Last Updated: February 26, 2006 21:55 IST

 India has handed over the final draft of its nuclear separation
plan to United States Under Secretary Nicholas Burns, the US
administration's point person in the dialogue between the two
nations, for the US to accept, according to a well-informed
source in the Department of Atomic Energy. With this, it appears
that the Indian side has taken a political decision to not
include more than 14 reactors on the civilian list. 

According to sources, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh shared
India's proposal with core members of his Cabinet and the United
Progressive Alliance chairperson Sonia Gandhi on Saturday
evening.Full coverage: President Bush visits India

India has offered to put 60 per cent of its nuclear reactors on
the civilian list -- which will keep them completely out of the
country's weapons-making programme. These reactors will come
under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection, and will be
eligible to recieve nuclear fuel from abroad. 

According to a source, in all 22 nuclear reactors and entities
were on the table for negotiations. Of these, 14 reactors will,
subject to the Bush administration agreeing with India's
proposal, go to the civilian list. 

Since the July 18, 2005 agreement, when the two countries
started negotiating over the nuclear deal, the US side believed
that India needed only four to six plants outside the civilian
list to carry on with its nuclear weapons programme but now, it
seems that India has insisted that it needs eight plants outside
the civilian list. 

India is unlikely to change its stance of not putting more than
14 nuclear plants on the civilian list in view of intense
pressure from its scientist community. 

However, even if the US agrees to India's proposal, it will
still be only the begining of a long journey. 

If President George Bush accepts India's proposal, the complex
battle to remove the 'sanctions regime' and denial of
world-class technology to India will start, because India will
have difficulty in initiating the actual separation without the
Bush administration keeping its part of the bargain --
initiating changes in US laws for which the US Congress support
is required. According to the reciprocity clause in the July 18,
2005, agreement, the US side will have to show results too. 

The final agreement on the separation plan, if it comes through,
will be a huge achievement for the Singh government because
India's scientific community's stand was, 'whatever was
indigenously developed should not go on the civilian list at
all.' 

It is not known on what basis or rationale India has offered to
place 60 per cent of its reactors on the civilian list. Most
importantly, if the agreement over the separation plan comes
through on March 2 during President Bush's visit to New Delhi,
Indian scientists, particularly those who are experts in the
safeguards issue, would like to know if the US will allow India
the "same benefits and advantages" as are given to other leading
countries with advanced nuclear technology. 

 Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 43 BBC: Labour conference backs nuclear
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 26 February 2006
 
Hunterston B is scheduled to close i 2011                                                            

                                 
Delegates at Labour's Scottish conference in Aviemore have 
endorsed a resolution backing the replacement or renewal of 
nuclear power stations. 

The Amicus engineering union, who had called for the move, said 
it should be part of a balanced energy policy. 

Labour's coalition deal with the Lib Dems in Scotland states new 
nuclear power stations will not be built before the issue of 
waste is dealt with. 

The SNP and the Greens condemned Labour's endorsement of more 
nuclear. 

'Nuclear dinosaur' 

Scottish National Party energy spokesman Richard Lochhead said it 
was a "crazy and utterly irresponsible decision". 

He said: "Scottish public opinion is opposed to nuclear because 
it is dangerous, dirty and expensive and Labour's anti-Scottish 
policy will undermine efforts to turn Scotland into Europe's 
clean energy capital." 

The Scottish Greens reacted with dismay and described support for 
nuclear power without resolving the waste problem as "immature" 
and "irresponsible". 

Green MSP Chris Ballance said: "This shows that at heart Labour 
is wedded to the nuclear dinosaur rather than the renewable 
technologies of the future. 

"There is no need to go nuclear, neither is it wanted by 
Scotland's people. 

We support a balanced ener policy that promotes the use of all 
available energy in the most productive manner possible Hugh 
Scullion Amicus          

"We have renewable energy sources in abundance, and we have to 
get serious about reducing energy demand." 

Moving the resolution at the conference, Hugh Scullion of Amicus 
said: "We support a balanced energy policy that promotes the use 
of all available energy in the most productive manner possible. 

"This should include conventional fossil fuels, coal and oil, 
gas, renewables and nuclear." 

Deputy enterprise minister Allan Wilson urged everyone to keep an 
open mind on the issue. 

He also restated the executive's position on nuclear power, 
saying: "We will not sanction the development of any new nuclear 
power stations while the issue of nuclear waste remains 
unresolved." 

Scotland's two existing nuclear power stations, at Hunterston on 
the Clyde coast and Torness in East Lothian, provide 40% of 
Scotland's electricity. 

Hunterston B is due to close down in 2011 but a 10 year extension 
is being discussed. Torness is also due to close within the next 
20 years. 
*****************************************************************
 44 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear power industry recharged 

February 25, 2006 

Bush policies revive push for Yucca dump

 By Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com> Las Vegas Sun

 WASHINGTON - Bolstered by President Bush's call for a nuclear
energy renaissance, the nuclear power industry is launching what
it describes as the most ambitious campaign in its history to
try to shift public opinion in its favor. 

At the same time, the industry's leading trade group, the
Nuclear Energy Institute, is trying to persuade the Bush
administration and Congress to move even more aggressively to
develop Yucca Mountain as a waste repository. The institute has
given the administration a list of five steps it could take to
clear hurdles to construction of Yucca. 

The nuclear industry has been emboldened in recent years by the
Bush administration's commitment to nuclear power. Bush has
proposed using government money to help the industry construct a
new generation of plants. 

This year Bush went further, unveiling the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership, with the goal of building nuclear plants not just
in the United States, but around the world. At its heart is a
proposal to develop waste-recycling technology - and to keep
Yucca on track. 

Foes of nuclear energy, who have won many victories over the
last three decades, say the industry has a long way to go to
persuade Americans to support new nuclear plants. 

"In polls, when you ask people if they believe we need nuclear
to solve the greenhouse gas problem, they say, 'Well, yeah, I
guess so,' " said Michele Boyd, legislative director for Public
Citizen's energy programs. 

"But if you ask them if they are willing to have a nuclear power
plant in their back yard, they say, 'Hell, no.' " 

The institute has long been an influential player on Capitol
Hill, with 250 corporate members and a staff of 130. 

The group is a top sponsor of lawmaker trips, including travel
to Las Vegas for Yucca tours and overseas to nuclear facilities
in France, Spain, Italy and England. 

The institute has spent nearly $325,000 on lawmaker trips since
2000, ranking at No. 7 on a list of more than 2,000 private
groups that sponsored congressional travel. The organization's
political action committee gives campaign cash to its allies on
Capitol Hill - $150,000 in the 2004 election cycle. 

Its member corporations and executives gave nearly $30 million
to lawmakers in the 10 years prior to the 2002 up-or-down Yucca
vote in Congress, according to a study by the group Common
Cause. 

The public relations campaign could cost roughly $8 million, one
trade publication reported, although the institute would not
confirm that, critics said. 

In the run-up to the 2002 Yucca vote, the institute waged an
expensive, all-out lobbying assault and a media blitz. 

This year, the organization's aggressive campaign includes a
proposal for Congress to remove a long-standing storage limit of
77,000 tons of waste. The Energy Department has said Yucca could
hold 105,000 tons, and the institute believes the capacity is
even greater. 

In arguing for lifting the limit, the institute's waste
management director, Steve Kraft, said Congress never explicitly
agreed that the nation should have more than one repository. He
said Congress intended to explore other sites merely to compare
geologies - the volcanic tuft of Yucca, for instance, with salt
domes or granite sites, which also were examined more than 20
years ago. 

Kraft said the cap at Yucca hindered plans for new U.S. plants. 

"We know that nuclear energy is going to expand, so that has to
be dealt with," Kraft said. 

The institute is pressing the Energy Department to include the
industry's top five priorities into a "fix Yucca" bill it is
drafting. 

Those five include an agreement to move waste off nuclear plant
sites, where it is currently held - a requirement that would
apply enormous pressure to open Yucca. Kraft said the institute
supports an amendment to allow creation of a temporary waste
site near Yucca. 

Also, the industry wants the budget process in Washington
changed to guarantee a steady stream of funding, which has been
curtailed by Congress, and wants rules changed that could hinder
development of new plants. 

Kraft also said he had no doubt Yucca would be constructed, with
a possible opening by 2025. 

"We've never lost our confidence," he said. "The scientific
basis remains excellent." 

Anti-Yucca forces do not have the money to match the institute's
campaign. They have drawn their success from a nationwide
network of grass-roots organizations - and they will be called
upon this year, said Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist
with Nuclear Information and Resource Service. 

"How do you fight a Goliath?" Kamps asked. "With everything
you've got, all the time." 

The industry's public relations campaign will include heavy
emphasis at the grass-roots level as well, trying to create
support through networks of organizations. 

Industry officials have said the construction of 12 to 19 new
reactors is realistic in the next 20 years, although ground
hasn't been broken on a new plant in this country since 1974. 

Benajamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at
grove@lasvegassun.com. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 45 TheStar.com: Nuclear power dirty and harmful
 
Send your contributions to Letters to the Editor via email to
lettertoed@thestar.ca; via fax to 416 869-4322; or by mail to
One Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1E6. 

FEB. 25, 2006. 01:00 AM
 
The Ontario Liberals appear to be on course for approving a
significant building and retrofitting of nuclear power plants to
address Ontario's future electricity needs. If they confirm this
direction, it will prove to be one of the worst decisions ever
made by this government. 

Our current high energy consumption per capita in Ontario is an
opportunity to buy critical electricity supply time through an
ambitious energy conservation plan. Critical supply time to
develop an extensive renewable energy infrastructure that would
be far less vulnerable than nuclear plants to breakdown,
terrorism attacks, mega-project cost overruns and serious
environmental liabilities. 

Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous fuel when you look at its
full life cycle from uranium extraction to nuclear waste
disposal. 



Ontario's long-term competitiveness will depend on its ability
to dramatically close the energy productivity gap it currently
suffers. Even if nuclear was not the present political issue in
Ontario, a serious energy conservation strategy and an expanded
renewable energy production plan is one of the smartest
decisions the Liberals could make to protect Ontario's long-term
competitiveness. Let's just hope the nuclear lobby does not have
the Ontario Liberal government completely sold on its nuclear
dreams. 


Eric Walton, Kingston, Ont.

Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
 46 nbc30.com: Millstone 2 Plant Shuts Down 

Compressed Air System Problem To Blame

POSTED: 10:54 pm EST February 24, 					 					2006

WATERFORD, Conn. -- The operators of the Millstone Power Station 
have shut down one of two operating nuclear power plants at the 
site because of a problem with a compressed air system.

 Pete Hyde, a spokesman for Millstone, said the system has 
nothing to do with the nuclear reactor and there is no threat to 
public safety.

 Operators shut down the entire Millstone 2 plant as a precaution 
Thursday morning after an interruption of the flow in the 
compressed air system caused two valves to close.

 Hyde said the air system is being examined and the plant should
be back online soon. He said he couldn't say exactly when the
plant would be operating again.

 Millstone 2 produces 870 megawatts of power. One megawatt is
enough to power 1,000 homes.

 Millstone 3 is operating normally, Hyde said. Millstone 1 is
being decommissioned.

For the latest news, stay tuned to NBC 30 Connecticut News and
NBC30.com

[NBC 30 Connecticut News] 


Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 47 Clarion-Ledger: We must begin building nuclear power plants immediately - 

 Clarionledger.com

February 26, 2006 

We must begin building nuclear power plants immediately 
Katy White is correct that no nuclear power plant has been
licensed since 1979 ("Better choices than nuclear power," Feb. 6
letter). That is the year that Jane Fonda appeared in the movie
China Syndrome. It was a fictitious account of a power plant
meltdown that burned a hole in the Earth all the way to China.
It is the best demonstration I can think of that Hollywood and
entertainment have more influence on our lives than does science
or politics.

She is also correct when she states that we must find a safe way
to dispose of nuclear waste. In my opinion, this would be a
warranted use of the power of eminent domain, moreso than a car
plant or luxury hotel.

This county has an insatiable appetite for electricity. Our
energy usage has soared. Natural gas used to generate
electricity has increased by 76 percent since 1989.

The majority of natural gas is used to generate electricity, not
to heat homes.

We should be licensing and building nuclear plants as fast as
possible. We can economize some in our usage, but ultimately we
must find a way to produce more power.

John Spears
Clinton 

©2006 The Clarion-Ledger                                                
*****************************************************************
 48 Indian Express: 'N-Deal will help launch thorium reactors'

 Press Trust of India

 Posted online: Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 1000 hours IST

 New Delhi, February 25: As US President George W Bush's visit
approaches, the few voices within the Department of Atomic
Energy (DAE) have joined to become a chorus.

While DAE as a whole, has been painted as being opposed to
separating military and civilian facilities, the "rebels" within
DAE hope the government would not let the opportunity pass. For
obvious reasons, they want to remain anonymous.

"India has witnessed four decades of stifled progress in the
civilian nuclear programme, which till recently was acting more
like camouflage for the not explicitly spelt out military
ambitions," said one top DAE scientist. 

"It is high time that the dubious status of affairs changes", he
said. "In a changed world, where China is making strategic
agreements to buy uranium from Canada and Australia for
long-term energy security, India can ill-afford to turn down the
opportunities striking its doors," said another physicist at the
Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC).

A senior reactor designer dismissed as rubbish DAE's argument
that the separation plan would jeopardize research on thorium
reactors that are expected to be main provider of electricity in
the third stage of Indian nuclear power programme.

The basic reason why thorium is ignored world over is that it
has to be externally fed with some man-made fissile material
like plutonium to get ignited and start producing power, he
said. 

According to the designer, if India on its own, wanted to
accumulate sufficient plutonium for its fast breeder programme
and the thorium reactor research, it has to wait for at least 30
years.

"On the other hand, the Indo-US deal provides India a window of
opportunity to get the plutonium and build thorium reactors
today", he said.

There is at least 3000 tons of plutonium waiting to be
reprocessed from spent fuel discharged globally from
uranium-based reactors. For the first time after 30 years of
freeze, the US is reconsidering plutonium use for energy
generation and, together with Russia, is wanting to set up the
GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) for plutonium recovery.
It has invited India to become a partner.

Some DAE scientists say the indo-us deal would pave the way for
India acquiring the plutonium it needs for its long-term energy
security from thorium.

Coincidentally, BARC physicists Usha Pal and Jagannathan have
designed a Thorium Breeder Reactor (ATBR) generating 600 mw of
electricity that will consume only 880-kg of plutonium every two
years. The reactor produces 50 per cent of its energy from
thorium.

According to some DAE scientists, this ATBR is poised to start
thorium utilization by India today without having to wait for 30
years if the Indo-US deal went through.

"The political climate is conducive for such a dialogue for
first time in the history of world nuclear power generation",
they said. 


© 2006: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 49 The Advocate: Millstone 2 shut down because of air system problem
 	 	 	
Associated Press
 
Published February 24 2006
 	
WATERFORD, Conn. --      The operators of the Millstone Power 
Station have shut down one of two operating nuclear power plants 
at the site because of a problem with a compressed air system.

 Pete Hyde, a spokesman for Millstone, said the system has 
nothing to do with the nuclear reactor and there is no threat to 
public safety.

 	 	 Operators shut down the entire Millstone 2 plant as a
precaution Thursday morning after an interruption of the flow in
the compressed air system caused two valves to close.

 Hyde said the air system is being examined and the plant should
back online soon. He said he couldn't say exactly when the plant
would be operating again.

 Millstone 2 produces 870 megawatts of power. One megawatt is
enough to power 1,000 homes.

 Millstone 3 is operating normally, Hyde said. Millstone 1 is
being decommissioned.

 	 
Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press   
        
© 2006, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 50 The Advocate: Millstone Two nuclear power plant reopens after repairs
 	 	 	
Associated Press
 
Published February 26 2006
 	
WATERFORD, Conn. --      The Millstone Two nuclear power plant 
has reopened after repairs were made to fix a problem that 
prompted operators to close the facility Thursday morning.

 Peter Hyde, a company spokesman, said Sunday that the facility 
in Waterford was reopened late Friday night and was operating as 
usual.

Operators shut it down Thursday as a precaution when two valves 
closed, a result of an interruption in the flow of the compressed 
air system. Officials said the problem was not related to the 
nuclear reactor, and did not jeopardize public safety.

 Hyde said Sunday that the cause of the problem remained under
investigation.

 Millstone Two produces 870 megawatts of power. One megawatt is
enough to power 1,000 homes.

 Millstone Three was operating normally while Millstone Two was
shut down, and Millstone One is being decommissioned.

Copyright © 2006, The Associated Press   
        

© 2006, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 51 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine to diversify fuel supplies for its nuclear power plants.

25.02.2006, 19.44

DONETSK, February 25 (Itar-Tass) --The Ukrainian government said
it would diversify fuel supplies to the national nuclear power
plants. 

Prime Minister Yuri Yekhanurov told a press conference in
Kharkov on Saturday, “We want to diversify fuel supplies to
Ukraine to feel better.” 

He said Ukraine is considering closer cooperation in this field
with Russia. “We are also working with Westinghouse of the U.S.,
and there are offers from French firms,” he said. 

In October 2005, the Ukrainian Fuel and Energy Ministry said
Westinghouse Electric Company (U.S.) might become an alternative
supplier of fuel for Ukrainian nuclear power plants in two to
three years. 

The U.S. government has decided to extend the Ukrainian nuclear
fuel qualification project in order to bring American fuel in
compliance with Ukrainian standards so that it could be used by
Ukrainian nuclear power plants. 

Currently Russia’s company TVEL is the sole supplier of fuel to
all Ukrainian nuclear power plants. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 52 KVOA: Engineers find Palo Verde plant fix elusive

February 27, 2006
  
PHOENIX Engineers at the Palo Verde Nuclear plant west of Phoenix 
still haven't fixed a vibration problem that's forced a cutback 
in power output, and that means A-P-S customers can expect to pay 
more for electricity.A vibrating cooling line has kept the 
plant's Unit One reactor at just 25 percent power since December. 

That's cost A-P-S 20 (m) million so far and the utility says it 
costs 7 (m) million a month.

A fix isn't expected until April, and that's not certain to work. 
The problem is a bad vibration in a line used when the reactor 
shuts down, and engineers plan on installing big shock absorbers 
to fix it. If that doesn't work, they'll try again in June.

A-P-S officials say they'll ask the Arizona Corporation 
Commission to let them pass the extra costs of buying replacement 
power on to customers. Other utilities who own interests in the 
plant also are seeing higher costs, including S-R-P and utilities 
in New Mexico, California and Texas.___Information from: The 
Arizona Republic,

http://www.azcentral.com                                                        Copyright 2006 Associated
  
.gif">    All content © Copyright 2003 - 2006 WorldNow and KVOA.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 53 PittsburghLIVE.com: Westinghouse legacy survives - 

  [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review] Back to headlines
 
 By Thomas Olson
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
 Sunday, February 26, 2006 

With a flick of a switch, Shyam Dighe's bazooka-sized torch
unleashes a blinding white flame as hot as the sun's surface and
able to turn hazardous waste into glass. 

"This is truly the kind of technology that made Westinghouse
Electric big," said Dighe, 55, who bought the plasma-torch
business in New Stanton from his old employer in 1999. 

Westinghouse Plasma Corp. is but one of about 20 current and
former Westinghouse Electric Corp. companies still operating
locally and employing 10,600. They are anchored by Westinghouse
Electric Co., the nuclear powerhouse in Monroeville that remains
the most prominent business that was part of the conglomerate
carved up almost a decade ago. 

But with the stroke of a pen, today's Westinghouse Electric is
about to change hands, too. On Feb. 6, Toshiba Corp. of Japan
inked a deal to acquire the company for $5.4 billion, blowing
away rival bidders. Pending regulatory approval, the deal will
be sealed in a few months. 

What will the transfer mean for Pittsburgh-area jobs? And how
could the government allow ownership of treasured,
U.S.-developed nuclear-power technology to be exported to Asia? 

The Westinghouse nuclear business drew several billion-dollar
bidders mainly because its technological prowess is so admired
-- and has been since George Westinghouse founded its
predecessor company in 1886. 

Control of power 

At just 23, Westinghouse developed air brakes for locomotives.
His 1869 invention enabled trains that often derailed and
crashed to travel faster and safer, transforming the U.S. rail
industry. Westinghouse Air Brake Co. still exists, as publicly
owned Wabtec Corp., in Wilmerding. 

The inventor's foray into railroad signaling produced Union
Switch &Signal Co., founded in Pittsburgh. But Westinghouse drew
his biggest crowd with electricity exploits at Chicago's
Columbian Exposition of 1893. 

With the press of a button, President Grover Cleveland
illuminated the alabaster exhibit halls lining a mile-long
reflecting pond as thousands of fairgoers gasped in delight. The
astonishing scene proved Westinghouse's inventions -- giant
generators and circuit breakers that produced alternating
current -- could safely send electricity over great distances. 

Two years later, Westinghouse developed three giant steam
turbine generators to harness the power of Niagara Falls to
supply electricity for Buffalo 22 miles away. 

By the turn of the century, 15 Westinghouse companies were
operating, including five in Europe. They employed about 50,000
people. 

When George Westinghouse died in 1914, he owned 361 patents.
Over the decades, Westinghouse Electric kept producing world
firsts, including: 

= A commercial radio station, Pittsburgh's KDKA, in 1920 

= An industrial atom smasher, in a research laboratory, in 1937 

= A nuclear reactor, for powering submarines, in 1953, and 

= A commercial nuclear power-plant reactor, in Shippingport in
1957 

But by the 1980s, Westinghouse Electric started to weaken under
the weight of poor real estate and industrial loans made by its
financial unit, uranium price guarantees and litigation. Most of
its businesses were dismantled or sold between 1996 and 1999. 

The prized core of what still employs 9,000 worldwide is
Westinghouse's nuclear energy business -- with ownership soon
shifting to Japan. 

Nuclear power shift 

Westinghouse owner British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. put the
corporation up for sale two years ago when the British
government decided to reorganize it. It now focuses on cleaning
up nuclear sites in the United Kingdom, rather than developing
and servicing nuclear power plants, which is Westinghouse's
specialty. 

Bidders for the nuclear trophy included Westinghouse's historic
U.S. rival, General Electric, as well as Japan's Hitachi,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Toshiba. Bids started at about
$2 billion last summer and jumped from there. 

Little surprise, given the world's renewed interest in nuclear
power. More than $200 billion will be spent on nuclear power by
2030, estimates the International Energy Agency, Paris. More
than 40 percent of the world's nuclear power plants already use
Westinghouse technology. 

Westinghouse is a favorite to win an $8 billion contract to
develop four 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactors to serve China's
growing need for electricity. China's government could award the
contract to Westinghouse at any time. 

In addition, Westinghouse's advanced, nuclear reactor -- the
AP1000 -- finally is attracting orders from U.S. utilities. This
same design that gives Westinghouse an edge in China was chosen
recently for new nuclear plants on the drawing boards of five
different electric utilities after a decade in development. 

"Two things have not happened since the 1970s," said U.S. Rep.
Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, whose district includes
Monroeville. "One is that the U.S. hasn't built a nuclear power
plant, and the other is Pittsburgh hadn't won a Super Bowl." 

Pittsburgh has grasped "one-for-the-thumb," and the arrival of
Westinghouse's nuclear renaissance appears within reach. 

Toshiba did the math on those business prospects and snatched
Westinghouse from rival bidders for an eye-popping $5.4 billion
in cash. British Nuclear Fuels and Toshiba expect to complete
their deal within months. 

Toshiba is mostly a manufacturer of semiconductors and consumer
products. Founded in 1875, its milestones include the first
Japanese word processor and the world's first laptop computer.
Its Toshiba Plant and Services unit designs and builds nuclear
power plants within Japan. 

But some U.S. leaders are concerned that's where Pittsburgh's
Westinghouse technology is headed. 

"There should have been a healthy debate when British Nuclear
Fuels bought Westinghouse, too. But because Britain is a
nuclear-weapons state ally, the concern was not the same," said
Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research, Takoma Park, Md. The nonprofit analyzes
strategic and environmental issues of nuclear power and weapons. 

Makhijani admits that Japan has collaborated with U.S. companies
to produce nuclear energy for years. Both GE and Westinghouse
have developed nuclear plants in Japan that operate under
licensing agreements. But Makhijani worries about Japan's
growing ability to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear
fuel. 

Nuclear ambition 

Japan's trade and territorial tensions with China, such as
disputes over vast oil reserves in the China Sea, could trigger
an armed conflict and fuel Japan's nuclear weapons-making
ambitions, said Makhijani. He estimates the island nation could
become a "full-fledged nuclear-weapons state" within six months
of starting a weapons program. 

"The question is, will the U.S. be there if Japan gets in
trouble with China?" said Makhijani. "Among great nations, you
don't have permanent friends; you have permanent interests." 

But Toshiba objects to the notion that age-old regional disputes
would ignite nuclear armed conflict or that sensitive technology
would leak from inadequate safeguards. 

"Toshiba is committed to anti-proliferation efforts and will
work with U.S. and international authorities, as well as with
the Westinghouse team, to ensure that nuclear technologies are
only used for peaceful purposes," said spokesman Keisuke Ohmori
in Tokyo. 

"Toshiba has been strictly complying with, and will continue to
comply with, export control regulations of the United States,
Japan," and other trade partners, he said. 

Still, the Westinghouse sale worries a few in government. U.S.
Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, a senior member of the House Energy
and Commerce Committee, urged the administration to scrutinize
the Westinghouse sale in a December letter. 

"(F)oreign ownership of a major nuclear energy company raised
national security and competitive implications in light of the
fact that there are so few nuclear reactor manufacturers in
existence today," Hall wrote the White House's Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States. 

Hall could not be reached. His chief of staff, Janet Poppleton,
said the congressman remains "concerned" about the technology
transfer and wants to see "final details" of the deal. 

The foreign-investment panel, formed in 1975, is comprised of
top officials from the departments of Treasury, State, Commerce,
Homeland Security, and Justice, plus the National Security
Council and other agencies. The body investigated foreign
acquisitions' national-security risks since 1988. 

But out of 1,570 reviews since then, the super-agency referred
only 12 to the president as probable security risks, a panel
official told Congress in October. 

Spokeswoman Brookly McLaughin said the panel could not disclose
whether it was or would review the Westinghouse-Toshiba
transaction. Even if it does, the members' report would not be
made public. 

Nor is it clear if the National Nuclear Security Administration
will examine the Westinghouse deal. Spokesman Bryan Wilkes said
the agency, part of the Department of Energy, generally would
"participate in these kinds of reviews" but has not done so. 

Now, on the cusp of a nuclear-power renaissance, Westinghouse is
changing hands again. The company is gearing for the likelihood
of snaring billions in new contracts over the next decade,
mostly in China. 

Westinghouse hired 800 people in 2005, including almost 300
locally, said spokesman Vaughn Gilbert. The company expects to
hire another 400 to 500 a year for the next five, about
one-third of which would be local. 

But would those techno-charged jobs stay here? 

On Feb. 6, Toshiba CEO Atsutoshi Nishida said in a Webcast
message that the new owners will stay the course. 

"Westinghouse will continue to operate from its headquarters,
located in Pittsburgh, Pa., and will retain its current
facilities, equipment, employees, patents and trademarks," he
said. 

Westinghouse CEO Steve Tritch told Monroeville employees in an
e-mail that the Toshiba deal was a "positive step" that would
strengthen Westinghouse "as the worldwide leader" in nuclear
power. "This is excellent news for Westinghouse customers and
employees." 

Whether that proves true won't be evident for some time. It will
be at least six months before the Toshiba-Westinghouse deal
closes, the parties said. But especially in this job-challenged
region, ownership changes make people wary. 

"Every one of those Westinghouse jobs in Southwestern
Pennsylvania supports eight other jobs here," said Rep. Murphy.
He pledged to help make sure Westinghouse's "high-level" jobs
stay here. 

"I am very proud to be a former Westinghouse employee who worked
hard for the old company," said Dighe wistfully. The old
Westinghouse would have dissolved his plasma-torch business, he
says, had he not bought it. "And having the Westinghouse name is
definitely helpful to our business." 

But will Toshiba, in fact, always retain the Westinghouse name? 

Siemens AG didn't. The German conglomerate bought Westinghouse's
non-nuclear power generation business for $1.53 billion in 1998
and renamed it Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. But the
Orlando-based company quietly became Siemens Power Generation in
October. 

"The rest of our company outside North America operates as
Siemens Power Generation," said spokeswoman Melanie Forbrick.
"We had retained the Westinghouse brand equity for seven years,
which we felt was long enough." 

Thomas Olson can be reached at tolson@tribweb.comor (412)
320-7854. 

copyright © 2006 by The Tribune-Review
Publishing Co.
 Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from
*****************************************************************
 54 MetroWestDailyNews.com: No easy answer to questions on nuclear power

Columnists: Gregg: 

 By John P. Gregg/ Local Columnist

 Sunday, February 26, 2006 


When President Bush delivered his State of the Union speech last 
month, he drew much attention to his acknowledgement that 
"America is addicted to oil."

    What may be more significant was what he said immediately
afterward -- his proposal to increase spending on "clean-energy"
research in the belief that new technology can meet our
ever-growing demand for electricity.

    "To change how we power our homes and offices, we will
invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary
solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy,"
Bush said to applause.

    Superficially, it certainly sounds promising, but energy
production is not such a breezy, problem-free issue, by any
means.

    Leaving aside the question of how burning coal could be
"zero-emission," lets not forget that mining it is not only
dangerous work, but also wreaks havoc on the landscape.

    Even wind turbines are environmentally -- or at least
aesthetically -- touchy subjects; just ask the proponents of the
wind-power project proposed off Cape Cod.

    But the most serious issue to ponder is the Bush
administrations obvious belief that nuclear power represents an
important component of the long-range solution to American
energy needs.

    For 50 years, now, nuclear power has been touted as an easy
source of energy, and it has, indeed, become a major source of
electricity in places like Japan, France and parts of the United
States. There are now some 64 reactor sites in 31 states.

    But given the toxic, radioactive waste it produces, it can
hardly be characterized as "clean." And given both terror
threats and the man-made disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile
Island, describing nuclear energy as "safe" could require
supernatural optimism about the future.

    This is no small issue, especially here in New England.
Entergy Nuclear, the Mississippi-based company, owns nine
nuclear facilities around the country. Locally, Entergy is
seeking to boost power production at its Vermont Yankee plant,
along the Connecticut River not far from Greenfield, Mass., and
also extend its operating license by 20 years when it expires in
2012. 

In Massachusetts, Entergy is also seeking to extend the license 
for the Pilgrim nuclear plant it owns in Plymouth.

    The nuclear power industry argues that it produces energy at 
a stable price, doesn't pollute the air, and reduces American 
dependence on foreign oil. It also is making the argument that 
because nuclear power is now so entrenched in the nation's power 
supply, it has to be supported and expanded. One of its Northeast 
plant's slogans is "Safe. Secure. Vital."


    Here's what the Web site backing that plant says: "Replacing 
the 2,000 megawatts (at the plant) would cost over $1 billion a 
year in electricity costs, and would lead to electricity 
shortages, price spikes of as much as 40 percent, and rolling 
blackouts."

    Does it make you feel better, or worse, to know that the 
plant in question is the Entergy-owned Indian Point, located on 
the Hudson River just 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan? Some 
20 million people live within 50 miles of the Indian Point plant.

    But Indian Point is an important source of power -- supplying 
about 11 percent of New York state's electric needs. Similarly, 
Vermont Yankee accounts for about 30 percent of Vermont's power 
supply.

    Still, the nuclear industry hasn't exactly earned our trust 
with its various claims over the years.

    Edward Anthes, a spokesman for Nuclear-Free Vermont By 2012, 
notes many of the most important promises about nuclear power did 
not pan out.

    "They didn't have a solution of what to do with nuclear waste 
50 years ago, and they still don't," Anthes said. As a result, 
radioactive waste is being stored, on site, at nuclear facilities 
around the country, many of them near population centers and 
major rivers.

    "There is nothing to do with the waste that can keep it away 
from people and other living things for a quarter of a million 
years," Anthes said. Moreover, claims that nuclear energy would 
be "too cheap to meter" were also never close to the truth.

What has changed, unfortunately, is the fact that nuclear power 
plants could make prime terror targets. Anthes pointed out that a 
report this past week showed government security standards may 
not even protect plants from a simple "vanload" of terrorists 
armed with rocket-propelled grenades.

    Given that nuclear technology is expanding rapidly around the 
world, with India and Iran only the most recent focal points, the 
United States seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place.

    Does it make sense to abandon the potential of nuclear power 
when it is being harnessed (or exploited) so many other places 
overseas, where we have no control over security, environmental 
and engineering standards?

    No one has an easy answer. But as our existing nuclear plants 
continue to age, Americans need to have a full, thorough debate 
about the costs, both financial and environmental, of nuclear 
power.

    Calling it "clean" and "safe" is not a good starting point 
for discussion. It's a way of avoiding the fact that nuclear 
power may be an important source of power, but also, more than 
ever now, could lead to cataclysmic problems.

    John Gregg can be reached at greggvt@aol.com.



© Copyright by Community Newspaper Co. and Herald Media.
 No portion of BostonHerald.com or its content may be reproduced
*****************************************************************
 55 AFP: Nuclear, terrorism issues to hog Bush's first South Asia trip -
    
 Sun Feb 26, 12:12 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush" /> President
George W. Bushleaves on a maiden visit to South Asia this week
determined to clinch a landmark nuclear deal with India and prod
Pakistan to move more rapidly against Al-Qaeda leaders believed
to be hiding in the country. 

 "In this vital region, the stakes are high and the
opportunities are unprecedented," Bush said ahead of Tuesday's
departure to what is home to the world's most bitter nuclear
rivals, the most dreaded terrorists, the largest democracy and a
rapidly growing region and vast market. 

In India, Bush wants to seal an elusive agreement for the United
States to share civilian nuclear technology as part of a
strategic partnership initiative launched with Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh last summer. 

It may be an irony that the United States, which saw India as an
ally of the Soviet Union and imposed many sanctions on New Delhi
after its defiant 1974 nuclear tests, now wants to embrace the
Asian giant. 

"The nuclear agreement attempts to cut through this past
history, and offer to India a tailor-made 'regime' outside of
the NPT," said Stephen Cohen, a South Asian expert at the
Brookings Institution in Washington. 

Although still outside the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), India has become vital to the United States. It is the
world's largest democracy, set to surpass China as the most
populous nation and fastest growing economy, and a vibrant
market. 

The atomic pact will acknowledge India's military nuclear status
and allow the energy-starved nation to accept help for its
civilian nuclear program. 

Key to the agreement is a requirement for New Delhi to separate
its civil and military programs to ensure that India's military
facilities do not benefit from nuclear technology transfers. 

But India is reluctant to be fully transparent because it is
worried Bush may not be able to influence the powerful US
Congress to give mandatory approval to the plan, said former US
Defense Secretary William Cohen. 

"This Gordian knot must have to be cut, cut very soon because if
the civilian nuclear agreement unravels, it is going to have a
major impact on the relationship," Cohen said, suggesting that
both parties make major compromises. 

While the nuclear deal seems to be the focus of Bush's three-day
visit to India, his tightly-guarded day-long trip to Pakistan is
expected to be dominated by talks on the "war on terror." 

The US leader is expected to nudge Pakistani leader Pervez
Musharraf, a key ally in Bush's anti-terror campaign, to commit
more resources to capturing Al-Qaeda kingpin Osama bin laden and
his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, reportedly hiding in Pakistan's
northwest frontier province on Afghanistan" /> Afghanistan's
border. 

Zawahiri reportedly escaped missile strikes by US drones in a
tribal village in Pakistan in January. 

At a time when Musharraf is in political difficulty at home
partly because of his close identification with American policy,
Bush is expected to use quiet diplomacy to push the anti-terror
agenda and for democratic reforms. 

He will tell the Pakistani military strongman "perhaps a little
more quietly, but 'I wish you could do more on the borders,'"
said Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department analyst for
Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

"He might very well bring up in the same vein: 'And we'd like to
see you crack down a little harder on your jihadists, help out
Afghanistan in that regard by going after the Taliban,'"
Weinbaum said. 

Pakistan has of late been accused by Kabul of harbouring radical
Taliban leaders directing a four-year-old insurgency in
Afghanistan. 

Seven out of eight Americans believe that it is important to
capture or kill bin Laden, while 75 percent believe he is
planning a significant attack on the United States, according to
recent polls by the USA Today newspaper. 

"These numbers suggest that bringing bin Laden to justice would
be a key psychological victory in the war on terrorism," Peter
Bergen, a fellow of the think tank New America Foundation, wrote
in the Washington Post. 

Bush said he would encourage Musharraf and Singh to resolve the
Kashmir" /> Kashmirdispute -- the cause of two of the three wars
between India and Pakistan. 

The US leader's visit to the region comes at a sensitive time
amid Muslim rage over the Danish publication of controversial
cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. 

Hindu-majority India has about 150 million Muslims while
Pakistan is home to 162 million Muslims. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 56 IRNA: Iran almost self-sufficient in nuclear medicine 

Mashhad, Khorassan prov., Feb 25, IRNA                                                                                          
		 
-- 
An expert with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Fathollah 
Shahidi said on Saturday that the country is almost 
self-sufficient in nuclear medicine.

 Shahidi told IRNA that Iran has scored remarkable success in
nuclear medicine and production of radio medicines.

 "It is about several decades that Iranian scientists have been
active in this field and presently, import of the radio
medicines with high consumption rate has drastically declined,"
said the expert.

 Praising Iran's nuclear success in the industrial and
 agricultural sectors, Shahidi said that Iran has set good
records in application of nuclear techniques for seeds
improvement and Iranian technicians are now working on
improvement of such strategic crops as wheats, rice and
soyabeans.

 He said that Iran has also been successful in production of
instruments to guage density and surface of materials.

 Elsewhere in his remarks, he complained about lack of necessary
equipment for related research due to the sanctions imposed on
the country.


*****************************************************************
 57 AP Wire: Livermore lab faulted in workers' plutonium exposure

Posted on Sat, Feb. 25, 2006 

 Associated Press 

LIVERMORE, Calif. - Lawrence Livermore National Lab must share
responsibility for a series of accidents that exposed workers to
plutonium, according to a newspaper report. 

Citing a report from the U.S. Department of Energy, the San
Francisco Chronicle reported that while investigators at first
only faulted the contractor who ran the Livermore facility where
the mishaps happened in 2004, the lab was also liable. 

In a Feb. 23 letter to lab director Michael Anastasio obtained
by the Chronicle, the head of the National Nuclear Security
Administration said the case shows "the need for significant
improvement in LLNL's nuclear safety culture." 

Five workers at the lab inhaled plutonium particles while
packaging radioactive waste that was to be shipped to New Mexico
for disposal. Their exposure was below acceptable safety limits,
but the workers, who were not wearing respirators, will need to
be monitored for years to come. 

The number of incidents "casts significant doubt on the
Laboratory's ability to effectively analyze and correct
performance problems," Linton Brooks, director of the National
Nuclear Security Administration, wrote. 

A Lawrence Livermore spokeswoman who in December denied that the
lab or its employees had any role in the accidents apologized
Friday. 

"Quite honestly," lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton said, "we
should take responsibility for anything that happens on our
site. At the time we did not, and we are now." 

An earlier Energy Department report found that workers continued
handling plutonium while emergency alarms sounded, warning of a
possible contaminant hazard. Workers also unsuspectingly brushed
plutonium particles off cutting tools, causing particles to
become airborne. 

The contractor, Washington TRW, was fined $192,500 for the
violations that led to the contamination incidents between April
and August of 2004, and the lab could have been fined nearly
three times that amount. 

The Energy Department waived the fine, though, because the
University of California, which manages the lab, has nonprofit
status. 

*****************************************************************
 58 SF Chronicle: BAY AREA / Screening, stockpiles anti-terror priorities /
Oakland, San Jose, S.F. explain request for $332 million
 
Saturday, February 25, 2006

Passenger screening at ferry terminals, expanded security
monitoring in the BART Transbay Tube and stockpiling mass doses
of drugs to counter the effects of bioterrorism are among the
items Bay Area cities and counties want funded as part of a
request to the federal government for $332 million in homeland
security grants. 

Elected officials from the Bay Area's three largest cities
released a broad overview of the regional proposal Friday during
a press conference on Treasure Island. In the distance on the
sparkling-clear day was the Golden Gate Bridge, which
authorities consider a high-visibility target for terrorists.
The funding request includes a proposal to pay for better
barriers and lighting on and near the span. 

The request represents the first time local cities and counties
have worked together on a homeland security application, under a
new mandate from Washington, D.C. Previously, each local
government submitted its own application. 

Cities and counties were asked to take a regional approach to
anti-terrorism efforts, because such disasters can cross
political boundaries. 

The regional grant application was submitted to the state Office
of Emergency Services for review Friday and will go to the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security next month. 

The federal government has earmarked $765 million for grants to
be dispensed to major urban areas in the 2006-07 fiscal year.
Thirty-five regions are competing for the money. An announcement
of how much each area will receive is not expected until June. 

San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, who was joined at the press
conference by Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La
Fuente, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the city's
emergency services director, Annemarie Conroy, conceded that the
$332 million request is a lot of money. But Gonzales said
everything in the application has merit. 

"I don't want to give any kind of signal to the federal
government that we think anything below what we've asked for is
acceptable,'' Gonzales said. "You have to recognize we have a
lot of catching up to do.'' 

Newsom also challenged federal officials to make sure that local
governments get what they need. 

"If they want to be forthright in their rhetoric and want to
support that rhetoric in reality by saying, 'We want to secure
the American people, we want to secure the target-rich
environments,' then we think on that basis this application is
reasonable,'' Newsom said. 

De La Fuente added, "This is not a pie-in-the-sky proposal.
We're going to fight very hard to make sure we get what is
necessary to protect our citizens.'' 

Although the regional applications cover a two-year period, the
federal government has allocated money only for one year. It is
unclear how much will be included in the 2007-08 federal budget. 

As it is, the federal appropriation for urban grants in 2006-07
is $120 million less than last year's allocation. 

Bay Area officials refused Friday to disclose specifics on
exactly how they would spend the money they want. Instead, they
listed 12 broad areas they are focusing on, including funding
for infrastructure protection and care of mass casualties. 

They did, however, release a handful of skeletal examples, such
as shoring up the transmission facilities atop San Francisco's
Twin Peaks to expand regional communications capabilities. They
also said buying cots and blankets to use in emergency shelters
would be a priority. 

Other proposals include setting up a uniform credentialing
system for medical personnel, starting a regional public
education campaign and establishing a regional training center. 

Also on the wish list are requests to improve security on Bay
Area ferries and in the Transbay Tube, and to create stockpiles
of drugs to counter the effects of biological, chemical and
nuclear attack. 

In addition to San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, the plan
covers nine cities with populations exceeding 100,000: Berkeley,
Daly City, Fremont, Hayward, Palo Alto, Richmond, Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale and Vallejo. Also included are Santa Clara and Alameda
counties. 

And while representatives from the three big cities spoke Friday
of the cooperative spirit of putting the grant application
together, they also hinted that the regional goodwill could be
tested if the federal agency gives the Bay Area less than it
wants. 

That's when everyone will have to come back to the table and
decide which projects will be funded and which will not. 

"San Francisco is one of the top threat-identified cities in the
United States of America. I cannot overstate the significance of
that. I think everyone in the region understands that,'' Newsom
said. "However, we're in a competitive environment. We're going
to be fair, considerate, but we're going to be advocates as
well.'' 

Bay Area wish list 

The Bay Area's $332 million regional grant application for
federal homeland security funds focuses on 12 broad areas: 

-- $11.6 million to expand regional cooperation. 

-- $31.5 million for training emergency services personnel. 

-- $26.3 million for detecting and responding to explosives and
chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. 

-- $25.2 million to create a regional plan for hospitals in case
of mass casualties. 

-- $50.1 million for protection of infrastructure, including the
ports, mass transit systems, bridges and utilities. 

-- $26.3 million for delivering medicine to people in case of
mass attack. 

-- $107.4 million for communication system improvements. 

-- $16.6 million to coordinate data sharing among cities,
counties and agencies. 

-- $7.1 million to shore up public information procedures and
public warning systems. 

-- $12.1 million to provide shelter, food and other care for
people displaced by a disaster. 

-- $10.7 million to increase citizen preparedness and
participation. 

-- $7.5 million to bolster emergency operations centers. 

E-mail Rachel Gordon at . 				
Page B - 1 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 59 Independent: Don't mention the war: BBC plan for surviving nuclear armageddon 

By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent 

Published: 25 February 2006 

In the event of all-out nuclear war, the BBC was to distract the
nation by broadcasting a mix of music and light entertainment
shows, secret papers released by the Home Office reveal. 

Hundreds of security-vetted BBC staff and a select band of
unnamed radio artistes were to be clandestinely dispatched to
transmission sites across the country at the first signs of
international tension. 

Just before the first missiles had reached Britain, the BBC was
to use regional centres in Birmingham, Sheffield, Bristol and
Middlesbrough to broadcast a national service that the
Government hoped would create "a diversion to relieve strain and
stress". 

By 1960 the BBC had stockpiled thousands of recordings of "war"
programmes and records for possible broadcast at the height of
an attack. 

How much of a boost to Britain's morale these programmes would
have really been is highly questionable. Another set of secret
documents detailing the horrors of nuclear warfare reinforces
the huge challenge facing the BBC. 

In a military briefing held at the BBC on 18 February 1955,
senior staff were told by a General Kirkman of the War Office
that, if a BBC building took a direct hit, "even those within a
distance of about 30 miles downwind who escaped the blast would
die from radiation effects." 

Staff who lived within a 50-mile radius from the burst would
develop serious radiation sickness. 

General Kirkman concluded: "If one were to envisage half a dozen
hydrogen bombs falling on the United Kingdom, very large numbers
of people might be infected by radiation and it would be
essential for those who had escaped to keep themselves free from
contamination, in order both to rescue the victims of the
fall-out ... and to restore life to the country." 

With these survivors in mind the BBC and the government set out
a strategy for broadcasting programmes that would boost morale
and help the public cope with nuclear catastrophe. A BBC
briefing paper written in 1957 declares the objectives of the
broadcasts were to provide "instruction, information and
encouragement". 

The paper adds: "The only practicable means of providing
programmes in war for the purpose of 'diversion to relieve
strain and stress' would be by records and recorded programmes.
To enable such programmes to be added to during the course of
the war, the necessary artistes, facilities and staff should be
dispersed to ... [existing] BBC premises [outside of London]." 

Long before war was declared the BBC hoped to have dispersed
1,500 staff and artistes around the country. The remainder of
the corporation's employees would be evacuated just before the
first bombs fell, leaving a small nucleus in London "until it
becomes untenable, or the seat of government leaves London".
Preparations were begun on building fall-out bunkers in BBC
buildings such as Broadcasting House. 

The advent of television brought a new means of communication
with the public during a nuclear war. But memos and letters,
written in the early 1960s and originally deemed too sensitive
for publication until 2015, indicate tensions between the BBC
and War Office over who should have control of these facilities. 

The military wanted to take over as soon as a nuclear threat
became imminent, a plan resisted by the BBC. This issue was
drawn to the attention of the Home Office and led to one
minister observing: "An abrupt discontinuance of the television
service in the preparatory period would have considerable effect
on public morale and it would be desirable that the television
service should continue, as far as possible, up to the outbreak
of the war." 

1955: The BBC's scenario 

* THE KILLING ZONE: Staff living within a distance of about 30
miles downwind who escaped an initial blast would die from
radiation effects. 

* RADIATION SICKNESS: Gamma rays would gradually destroy
individuals' white corpuscles. Cuts or bruises would become
septic and colds would not get better. The only cure was careful
nursing. 

* BUILDINGS: Full protection would be provided by two to three
feet of earth or equivalent screening by bricks, concrete or
sandbags. A well-built house would provide only 20 to 40 per
cent protection as rays would penetrate roofs. 

* LENGTH OF TIME IN HIDING: BBC staff were told to stay in
shelters for 14 days before it was safe to leave. It was
estimated that it took this long for radioactive particles to
decompose. 

* EVACUATION: It was doubted whether evacuation before fallout
arrived would have been possible. 
Also in this section 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 60 Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction: VBDR Board Meeting - 
Los Angeles, California 

[VBDR:Improving communications with veterans and resolving
issues related to dose reconstruction and claims adjudication]  

Improving communications with veterans and resolving issues 
related to dose reconstruction and claims adjudication.         

 Los Angeles/January 2006 Agenda       
      
VBDR Board Meeting Agenda January 12-13, 2006 Los Angeles, 
California 
        
AGENDA 
VETERANS ADVISORY BOARD ON DOSE RECONSTRUCTION MEETING 2 
January 12-13, 2006 

Sheraton Gateway Hotel Los Angeles Airport
 6101 West Century Boulevard 
Los Angeles, California 90045
 Phone: 310-642-1111 
LOS ANGELES MEETING MATERIALS: 
View Handouts
 View Presentations
  
Thursday, January 12, 2006 


8:30 AM9:00 AM Registrants and Board Members Check in and Sign
Log Book 

9:00 AM9:15 AM Call to Order and Opening Remarks (Mr. Ronnie
Faircloth, Designated Federal Official) 

9:15 AM9:30 AM Introduction of the VBDR Members and Chairman's
Welcoming Remarks (Vice Admiral James Zimble) 

9:30 AM9:45 AM Board Discussion Session 
  + Discussion of the Charge and Board Responsibilities 
  + Review and Board Approval of August 17-18, 2005 minutes 

9:45 AM10:15 AM A Briefing on Interactive Radio-Epidemiological
ProgramFuture Development? (Dr. Charles Land) 

10:15 AM10:45 AM Board Members Questions and Discussion 

10:45 AM11:00 AM Break 

11:00 AM11:30 AM A Briefing on NAS Report Assessment of the
Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and
Education Program (Dr. Julian Preston) 

11:30 AM12:00 PM Board Members Questions and Discussion 

12:00 PM1:30 PM   Adjourn for Lunch 

1:30 PM3:30 PM Public Comment Session 

3:30 PM4:00 PM Break 

4:00 PM4:30 PM A Briefing on NTPR Dose Reconstruction, Quality
Assurance Manuals and Veterans Communication Activities (Dr.
Paul Blake) 

4:30 PM5:00 PM Board Members Questions and Discussion 

5:00 PM5:30 PM A Briefing on VA Radiation Claims Compensation
Program for Veterans, and VA Quality Assurance Manuals (Mr.
Thomas Pamperin) 

5:30 PM6:00 PM Board Members Questions and Discussion 

6:00 PM   Meeting Adjourns 

  
Friday, January 13, 2006 


8:30 AM9:00 AM Registrants and Board Members Check in and Sign
Log Book 

9:00 AM9:15 AM Review and Board Approval of Revised Scope of
Work of Subcommittee on DTRA Dose Reconstruction Procedures and
Subcommittee on Communication and Outreach 

9:15 AM9:45 AM A Report from Subcommittee on DTRA Dose
Reconstruction Procedures (Mr. Harold Beck) 

9:45 AM10:15 AM` A Report from Subcommittee on VA Claims
Adjudication Procedures (Dr. Ronald Blanck) 

10:15 AM10:30 AM   Break 

10:30 AM11:00 AM A Report from Subcommittee on Quality
Management and VA Process Integration with DTRA Nuclear Test
Personnel Review Program (Dr. Curt Reimann) 

11:00 AM11:30 PM A Report from Subcommittee on Communication and
Outreach (Mr. Kenneth Groves) 

11:30 AM12:00 PM Board Members Questions and Discussion 

12:00 PM1:30 PM   Adjourn for Lunch 

1:30 PM3:00 PM Public Comment Session 

3:00 PM3:15 PM Break 

3:15 PM4:45 PM Board Members Questions and Discussion 
  + Discussion of Comments and or Questions on Probability of
Causation and/or Dose Reconstruction 
  + Discussion of Background Materials Relevant to VBDR 
  + Plans for Inviting Experts to Provide Input to the Board 
  + Discussion of Board Work Schedule 
  + Schedule Future Meeting Dates 

4:45 PM5:00 PM Chairman's Concluding Remarks (Admiral James
Zimble) 

5:00 PM   Meeting Adjourns 

PLEASE NOTE: The scheduled time allotted for each session is
approximate and will depend on discussion. Agenda items are
subject to change as priorities dictate. 
 
 
Meeting Materials & Presentations
 Presented at Los Angeles Meeting 

  + IREP after BEIR VII 

Charles Land
 Radiation Epidemiology Branch
 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics

 National Cancer Institute

 
  + Assessment of the Scientific Information for the Radiation
Exposure Screening and Education Program 


R. Julian Preston 
U.S. EPA 
Research Triangle, NC 

  + Update on the Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) Program
 
Dr. Paul K. Blake
 
Veterans Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction
 

  + C&P Quality Review Program 

Thomas Pamperin 

Assistant Director, Policy Staff
 Compensation & Pension Service
 Department of Veterans' Affairs 


© 2005, Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction. All
rights reserved.

*****************************************************************
 61 [DU-WATCH] Leetso, or "yellow monster."
 
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:09:18 -0600 (CST)

Study may help slay 'Yellow Monster' Research pioneers understanding of 
uranium toxicity
Northern Arizona University

http://vocuspr.vocus.com/VocusPR30/DotNet/Newsroom/Query.aspx?SiteName=nau&Entity=PRAsset&SF_PRAsset_PRAssetID_EQ=107192&XSL=PressRelease

Flagstaff, ARIZ. (Feb. 23, 2006)-Low-grade uranium ore is nicknamed 
"yellowcake" for its color and powdered consistency. The Navajos have 
another name: Leetso, or "yellow monster."

The yellow monster surfaced on the Navajo Nation with uranium mining that 
started in the 1940s and continued for the next several decades. In its 
aftermath came illnesses such as lung cancer among mine workers and worries 
about environmental contamination among people who live on that land.

The Navajos believe you must gain knowledge of a monster to slay it and 
restore nature's balance.
Northern Arizona University biochemist Diane Stearns and her Navajo students 
are not only gaining knowledge, they are adding to that knowledge with new 
discoveries about uranium.

The fact that uranium, as a radioactive metal, can damage DNA is well 
documented. But what Stearns and her collaborators recently have found is 
that uranium can also damage DNA as a heavy metal, independent of its 
radioactive properties.

A cell with damaged DNA takes on the appearance of a comet with a "tail" of 
fragmented DNA.

Stearns and her team are the first to show that when cells are exposed to 
uranium, the uranium binds to DNA and the cells acquire mutations. When 
uranium attaches to DNA, the genetic code in the cells of living organisms, 
it can change that code. As a result, the DNA can make the wrong protein or 
wrong amounts of protein, which affects how the cells grow. Some of these 
cells can grow to become cancer.

"Essentially, if you get a heavy metal stuck on DNA, you can get a 
mutation," Stearns explained. Other heavy metals are known to bind to DNA, 
but Stearns and her colleagues are the first to identify this trait with 
uranium. Their results were published recently in the journals Mutagenesis 
and Molecular Carcinogenesis.

Their findings have far-reaching implications for people living near 
abandoned mine tailings in the Four Corners area of the Southwest and for 
war-torn countries and the military, which uses depleted uranium for 
anti-tank weapons, tank armor and ammunition rounds. Depleted uranium is 
what is left over when most of the highly radioactive isotopes of uranium 
are removed.

"The health effects of uranium really haven't been studied since the 
Manhattan Project (the development of the atomic bomb in the early 1940s). 
But now there is more interest in the health effects of depleted uranium. 
People are asking questions now," Stearns said.

The questions include whether there is a connection between exposure to 
depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome or to increased cancers and birth 
defects in the Middle East. Stearns said it is estimated that more than 300 
tons of depleted uranium were used during the first Gulf War. Military uses 
of depleted uranium in weapons continue today.
Closer to home, questions continue to be asked about environmental exposure 
to uranium from mine tailings that dot the landscape across the Navajo 
Nation.
"When the uranium mining boom crashed in the '80s, it really crashed and 
there wasn't much cleanup," Stearns said. Estimates put the number of 
abandoned mines on the Navajo Nation at more than 1,100.

NAU senior Hertha Woody grew up on the Navajo Nation in Shiprock, N.M. 
Before joining Stearns' research group, Woody said she was not very aware of 
heavy metal contamination of soil and water from a large uranium tailing 
pile near her hometown. But now she wonders about the ongoing health 
problems of her uncle who worked in the uranium mine at Shiprock. And she 
worries about others living in the area.

"My parents still live there and drink the water," she noted.

There's another Navajo word that Woody shares. It is hozho, which relates to 
harmony, balance and beauty. Woody explained that the yellow monster 
disrupts hozho and that uranium should remain in the ground to ensure 
balance. In fact, in the spring of 2005, Navajo Nation President Joe 
Shirley, Jr., signed the Dini Natural Resources Protection Act, which bans 
uranium mining and processing on the Navajo Nation.

Woody said she has learned a great deal and not just in the realm of 
science. "It opens up doors and windows everywhere else," she said, noting 
that the work has raised her awareness about mine safety, tribal issues and 
reclamation efforts.
"When we first heard of the yellow monster, it was scary and not much was 
understood until the research began and it was passed on to the people 
through booklets and talks at the chapter houses," said Sheryl Martinez, a 
junior in NAU's nursing program and another member of Stearns' research 
group. Martinez, also a native of Shiprock, hopes to return to her community 
and put her knowledge to work after graduation.

The funding for Stearns' work is tied to improving health among Native 
American communities. Stearns is the NAU principal investigator of a grant 
jointly awarded to NAU and the Arizona Cancer Center by the National Cancer 
Institute. Louise Canfield is the principal investigator on the grant for 
the Arizona Cancer Center. Collectively, these two grants comprise the 
Native American Cancer Research Partnership, a consortium of cancer 
researchers and educators at NAU and the Arizona Cancer Center. NACRP is one 
of only five such partnerships in the nation and the only one focused on 
Native American issues.

"The data on Native Americans for cancer evidence is very poor," Stearns 
said. "Navajo and Hopi may not get cancer to a greater extent, but the 
survival rate is lower than the general population." Stearns said the lower 
survival rate might be more the result of limited access to care or cultural 
boundaries that may prevent people from seeking care.

A goal of the partnership is to address these disparities by training Native 
students for cancer-related careers.
In this way, Stearns and her students can help slay the yellow monster, 
whether on the Navajo Nation or abroad.

CONTACT:
Lisa Nelson
Director, NAU Office of Public Affairs
(928) 523-6123
Lisa.Nelson@nau.edu 

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
*****************************************************************
 62 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast report facing delay

02/26/2006 | 

 DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer 

TALLEVAST - Lockheed Martin Corp. has asked the state for an
extension on the March 13 due date for its next report on the
Tallevast plume. 

The defense giant needs more time because several unanticipated
events have delayed test results, wrote Tina Armstrong,
Lockheed's project manager for the Tallevast site, in a Feb. 20
letter to William Kutash of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. 

Those delays, Armstrong wrote, will make it impossible for
Lockheed Martin to provide all of the information required by
the consent order governing the Tallevast clean-up. 

In the letter, Armstrong said Lockheed was willing to submit an
interim report with the data available so far. 

As of Friday, Lockheed had not yet received an answer from DEP. 

Lockheed Martin is responsible for cleaning up the plume of
toxic underground waste stemming from the former Loral American
Beryllium Co. plant. The pollution was discovered in 2000. 

Lockheed reported the plume to DEP and county officials after
its discovery, but has since sold the plant, which is now
operated by Wire Pro International, a cable manufacturer. 

Two different test methods have yielded conflicting results on
the presence of 1,4 dioxane, one of the contaminants found in
the plume, Armstrong said in the letter to Kutash. 

Gail Rymer, Lockheed spokeswoman, said more time is needed to
determine why the two testing methods yielded such extremely
different results. 

Lockheed also has been unsuccessful gaining access to install
proposed monitoring wells on the property owned by Walter
Schmidt, near the Tallevast Post Office. 

The installation of the wells is necessary, especially in light
of the new 1,4 dioxane data, Armstrong said. 

Rymer said Tallevast cattlewoman Heidi Boothe has agreed to give
Lockheed access to her property. Independent tests performed by
Michael Graves on behalf of the Tallevast community yielded high
levels of 1,4 dioxane. 

Drilling rigs, Rymer said, should arrive soon on Boothe's
property. 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at . 

HERALD WATCHDOG 

HeraldToday.com 

*****************************************************************
 63 Deseret News: Law isn't needed, Hatch tells legislators
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, February 25, 2006                              

By Lisa Riley Roche and Jennifer Toomer-Cook Deseret Morning News                         

Sen. Orrin Hatch told state lawmakers Friday it isn't necessary 
to require more formal communication between the Legislature and 
Utah's senators.

       "I don't think we need legislation, to be frank with you.
I think we can work this out together," Hatch told the state
Senate. "We respect you. We know you have a tough job."

       SB156, sponsored by Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, was
originally intended as a "soft repeal" of the 17th Amendment
that gives voters the right to choose their U.S. senators.

       Now the bill, which currently is awaiting a hearing in
the House, calls for an interim study on the issue of whether
lawmakers should have a role in choosing their political
parties' nominees.

       It also permits the Legislature to "give direction" to
Utah's U.S. senators and seek reports from them. Stephenson told
Hatch that his intent was to "create a formal process by which
the state Legislature can have input," especially on issues of
states' rights.

       Hatch's remarks to lawmakers focused on the state's
ongoing battle to stop the construction of a high-level nuclear
waste storage facility on Goshute Indian land in Tooele County's
Skull Valley. Up to 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods could
be stored on the site, a prospect Hatch called "a dangerous
situation" and "from a national security standpoint . . . a
serious problem."

       Lawmakers were urged to make their concerns about the
project known to the federal Bureau of Land Management during a
90-day public comment period on whether to grant access to the
site over federal land. With 100,000 nearby acres recently
declared federally protected wilderness, the BLM must give
right-of-way approval before the tribal land can be leased for
nuclear storage.

       "Let the administration know, the BLM know, and others
know that we're serious," Hatch told the House.

       Hatch said the comment period ends in May.

       House members inquired about the status of a United Arab
Emirates company taking over operations of terminals at six U.S.
seaports. "I think the administration failed to comply with the
laws that basically say . . . we have to look at this another 45
days . . . to make sure that our ports are protected," Hatch
said.

       He also said he wanted to keep open communication with
legislators about No Child Left Behind issues.

 
E-mail: lisa@desnews.com; jtcook@desnews.com
			  		 		   
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 64 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear sleight of hand 

Today: February 26, 2006 at 8:37:32 PST 

President's recent revival of discredited reprocessing solution
seen as political ploy to push failing Yucca Mountain plan 

By Benjamin Grove <>, Sun Washington Bureau 
Las Vegas Sun

 Washington 

The Bush administration's revival this month of a decades-old
proposal to reprocess nuclear waste startled many of the
nation's top scientists. They view the concept as virtually
unworkable because of the enormous costs involved and its
reliance on unproven science and technology that would at best
take decades to develop. 

The real purpose of the initiative, these scientists say, is
political - and it has everything to do with Yucca Mountain. 

In a few years, the nuclear industry will have produced enough
waste to fill the proposed 70,000-ton capacity repository. At
that point, the nation will face bruising fights over more
nuclear waste repositories, even as the 20-year-old battle over
Yucca drags on. 

Reprocessing, or "recycling" waste, will eliminate the need for
more repositories - and unwinnable political wars - for the next
100 years, they say. 

"My view is this is driven by Yucca Mountain, in part because it
is kicking the can down the road," said Frank von Hippel,
director of the Program on Science and Global Security at
Princeton University. 

That "can" is the waste problem. But reprocessing technology
does not hold the promise that Bush administration officials say
it does, perhaps even far down the road, critics say. 

"They might throw a few billion dollars at it," said Edwin
Lyman, senior staff scientist in the global security program at
the Union of Concerned Scientists, "but I think ultimately it is
going to sink under the weight of logic and all the plan's
inconsistencies." 

At its very heart, the proposal depends on developing a
"technological unicorn," said Robert Alvarez, senior scholar at
the Institute for Policy Studies. He said he doubts that the
administration itself has faith in the idea. 

"I don't know if these guys are believing this," said Alvarez,
who served as a senior policy adviser to the energy secretary in
the Clinton administration. "If they do, they are fabulists. If
they don't, it's a cynical gesture ..." 

President Bush unveiled the reprocessing proposal while calling
for a new commitment to nuclear energy - an industry
"renaissance," some call it - in his State of the Union Address
last month. 

Since then, his administration has promoted the idea not only as
an answer to nuclear waste storage problems but also to the
dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation. 

The Energy Department's 2007 budget includes a plan to advance
reprocessing from its long-standing conceptual phase to
engineering in the next decade. Toward that end, the Bush
administration has asked Congress for $250 million in start-up
money, and it intends to ask for significantly more before Bush
leaves office in 2009. 

The concept of recycling spent fuel is as old as nuclear power
plants. 

The industry's biggest problem has always been that plants
produce some of the nastiest material on Earth - highly
radioactive spent uranium fuel rods that come out of the
reactors every 18 to 24 months. 

The drawback of modern-day recycling, which is practiced in a
few nations, including France, is that the process separates out
plutonium - which could eventually find its way into the hands
of terrorists or rogue nations. 

The United States experimented with reprocessing from 1966 to
1972 at a plant at West Valley, N.Y., developed by a subsidiary
of Getty Oil. The plant was closed because the operation was too
expensive and faced big regulatory hurdles. It also produced
more than 600,000 gallons of highly radioactive liquid waste as
a byproduct of the reprocessing. 

President Jimmy Carter banned the process altogether in 1979 out
of concern about plutonium falling into the wrong hands. 

At that point, Congress took another approach to waste - burial,
which led eventually to Yucca Mountain. As the Yucca plan
trudged forward over the years, reprocessing essentially
remained dormant, until Bush took office. 

Earlier this month, Energy officials described the new plan.
They said they aim to develop two unproven technologies, known
as UREX-plus and pyroprocessing. 

In theory, those technologies would reprocess spent nuclear fuel
in a way that did not separate out plutonium. 

Those technologies would essentially burn up much of the
radioactive material from spent nuclear fuel rods. The remaining
material could be recycled again and again into fuel.
Eventually, the waste would reach a point when it could not be
recycled. It would then go to Yucca. 

The effect would be a decline in the amount of waste heading to
Yucca and a reduction in the toxicity of that waste. Also,
Energy Department officials say, the nuclear energy industry
would have a new technology that all but eliminates the risk of
nuclear weapons proliferation. 

At that point, said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, the world
would be poised for nuclear energy nirvana, "the promise of
virtually limitless energy to emerging economies around the
globe." 


To be sure, reprocessing has strident advocates, including
scientists at Argonne National Laboratory, which stands to gain
from research into reprocessing. 

"Waste minimization" is a leading benefit, said Phillip Finck,
deputy associate laboratory director of applied science and
technology and national security at Argonne, which is operated
by the University of Chicago for the Energy Department. 

"By processing spent nuclear fuel and recycling the hazardous
radioactive materials, we can reduce the waste disposal
requirements enough to delay the need for a second repository
until the next century, even in a nuclear energy growth
scenario," Finck told a congressional panel in June. 

The cost of reprocessing would be minimal if spread over decades
and shared by millions of electricity ratepayers, said Roger
Gale, a consultant and former Energy Department official,
another believer in the technology. 

"If we are going to pursue a new generation of nuclear plants,
this is just the right time to be facing these considerations,"
said Gale, a former Yucca Mountain director. 

Those arguments have won allies on Capitol Hill, including Rep.
David Hobson, R-Ohio, a powerful member of the Appropriations
Committee, and Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici,
R-N.M., the Senate's leading nuclear power advocate. 

"I believe what we can do with the fuel cycle in the next 20
years can amaze the world," Domenici said in a recent speech in
Washington. 

But reprocessing is destined for debate this year in Congress,
where it will face opposition from lawmakers and scientists who
do not believe the new technology could reduce the risk of
nuclear proliferation. 

"I don't think it holds up to the claims that the administration
has made about it," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., told Bodman at
a hearing this month. 

Reprocessing critics note that it is controversial among the
leading scientists who understand it best. They say it would be
prohibitively expensive and take many decades to develop. 

A National Academy of Sciences study panel found in 1996 that
the cost of developing a reprocessing technology "easily could
be more than $100 billion." 

A 1999 report by Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists
projected that reprocessing could cost as much as $279 billion
to develop - over a period as long as 118 years. That cost
includes developing a new generation of nuclear reactors because
reprocessed waste could not be used by conventional nuclear
plants. 

The Los Alamos Laboratory is part of the Energy Department, but
Energy officials are not advertising those projections in their
current plan. 

"Clearly, these are not politically correct numbers," said
Lyman, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Other scientists say the Bush plan makes a host of suspect
assumptions. 

"There is a big difference between understanding the physics of
something and making a factory that runs efficiently and works,"
said Ivan Oelrich, director of the Strategic Security Project at
the Federation of American Scientists. 

"In theory, it works brilliantly, and I have no doubt that in
100 years it will work beautifully. The problem now is there is
a tremendous sense of urgency. It has this insanely accelerated
schedule. We can put this off for decades." 

Alvarez, of the Institute for Policy Studies, said, "I don't
know if there is any adult supervision going on over there -
there's no peer review. What you have is a lot of marketing that
has suddenly turned into policy." 

Scientists also doubt that reprocessing would create a waste
stream that terrorists would not find attractive, even if the
science and technology were better developed. 

When Energy Department officials disclosed the plan, Deputy
Secretary Clay Sell conceded that while the technology held the
promise of "significant nonproliferation benefits," he noted
that those benefits were "hard to quantify." 

In fact, the reprocessing technology the Energy Department wants
to pursue is not that different from modern-day reprocessing
method known as PUREX, which separates plutonium and thus
creates a risk, said Princeton's von Hippel. The idea that
reprocessing can help resist proliferation "is a fraud," von
Hippel said. 

Von Hippel said he met with Sell and one of Sell's top advisers
recently to explain how the technology envisioned by Energy
would still create a dangerous proliferation risk. As he spoke,
von Hippel said, Sell's adviser interrupted and said, "Yeah,
yeah, we know that." 

"And Clay Sell looked at him and said, 'I didn't know that,' "
von Hippel recalled. 

"They're spinning that they have something that is going to get
them out of this problem in a clean way," von Hippel said. 

"They say technology will come to the rescue, and they're not
interested in facing the ugly truth." 

Sell could not be reached for comment. Energy spokesman Craig
Stevens said this week that Hippel's "inference that the deputy
secretary didn't know the full breadth of the proliferation
concern is simply not true." 

Stevens reiterated the department's belief that new reprocessing
technologies could curtail proliferation and eventually lead to
a global resurgence of nuclear power and "a virtually
inexhaustible power supply to growing and developing nations
around the world." 

Benajamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at
grove@lasvegassun.com. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 65 Salt Lake Tribune: Hatch takes on Utah Legislature 

Article Last Updated: 02/25/2006 12:44 AM MST 

Back off: Utah's senior U.S. senator opposes a legislator's plan 
for oversight of his work 

By Rebecca Walsh The Salt Lake Tribune 

Sen. Orrin Hatch took on state senators Friday during his 
second visit this year to the Utah Legislature. 

Draper Republican Rep. Howard Stephenson has sponsored a 
so-called "soft repeal" of the Constitution's 17th Amendment, 
which allows direct election of U.S. senators by voters. 

After talking about federal cuts in Medicaid funding, 
storing spent nuclear fuel rods on the Skull Valley Goshute 
Reservation and hydrogen cars, Utah's senior senator said 
Stephenson's bill, although in a watered-down version, is 
unnecessary. 

"I don't think the 17th Amendment is going to be repealed," 
Hatch said. "You have to be very careful that you meet the 
constitutional requisites. The Supreme Court would very 
zealously and jealously guard the 17th Amendment." 

Stephenson said his bill has been "blown out of proportion" 
by the media. SB56 has been amended so it would require Utah's 
senators to report to the Legislature. Another part of the bill, 
which would have allowed legislators to pick party candidates, 
has been amended out. 

"This is designed to create a formal process by which the 
state Legislature can have input with our state senators," 
Stephenson said. 

During his report to lawmakers on Thursday, Sen. Bob Bennett 
joked about the legislation. "If it comes that the 17th 
Amendment is repealed, I'll be around to see every one of you," 
he said. 

But Hatch apparently took the legislation more seriously. 

"I don't think we need legislation," he said. "I'm happy to 
do whatever it takes to have a better relationship with 
legislators. We respect you. 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 66 San Bernardino County Sun: Well cleanup sought 

 02/25/2006 12:00 AM PST  

$50M would target underground plume 

  Andrew Silva, Staff Writer  
    
  RIALTO - Standing in front of two truck-sized cylinders that
scrub a rocket fuel ingredient from the city's drinking water,
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., pushed her legislation that
seeks $50 million in federal dollars to help clean up the
contamination. 

"If we don't take action now, this plume will make the
groundwater for thousands of people undrinkable," Feinstein
said, flanked by the mayors of Rialto, Colton and Fontana, plus
county Supervisor Josie Gonzales and state legislators.

 It is the largest single proposed contribution by the federal
government to assist in the cleanup of wells throughout the
state.

 Perchlorate, which provides the oxygen for solid rockets, road
flares and fireworks, has contaminated hundreds of wells in
California, including dozens in San Bernardino County.

 The underground plume of contamination she referred to is the
one running from north Rialto about six miles into Colton and
Fontana. It has affected 22 wells, with nine of those back in
operation after expensive treatment equipment was installed.

 Feinstein's bill, which would also provide another $8 million
for research into new and cheaper cleanup techniques, will be
tacked on to a bill by Rep. Joe Baca, D-Rialto, and Rep. Richard
Pombo, R-Tracy, passed last year that also provides for cleaning
up perchlorate.

 "Ninety percent (of the contamination) comes from federal
resources, therefore the federal government should take
responsibility for the cleanup and not stick local communities
with the bill," Baca said.

  In her words   

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein was in San Bernardino Friday, Feb.
24, 2006, addressing issues of concern to area residents,
specifically gangs, methamphetamine use and production, the
economy, border and immigration matters, and perchlorate
contamination and cleanup. 

In these video clips, she speaks to each of the five issues: 
· The spread of criminal gangs and the toll it takes on the
region
· Methamphetamine use and production and legislation aimed at
stopping it
· On the importance of a balanced national budget
· Border and immigration issues facing the region, state and
nation -- including the tunnels across the border to Mexico
· Proposal seeking $50 million to clean up perchlorate
contamination in California

Democrat Feinstein and U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo, Replublican and
chairman of the House Resources Committee, are seeking $50
million for California perchlorate cocntamination cleanup. 

The senator's Web site: http://feinstein.senate.gov/      


It costs about $1 million per well to install treatment
equipment, and maintaining it can run to more than $200,000 per
year.

 State water officials and the cities have been pursuing the
companies they believe are responsible for the contamination for
years.

 The perchlorate plume originates near the county-owned
Mid-Valley Landfill, where an ammunition storage company
operated from the 1940s through the 1950s. The area also has
been home to numerous fireworks manufacturers.

 B.F. Goodrich has pitched in $4 million for the cleanup so far,
and a company affiliated with Black &Decker has been fighting
charges that it also bears responsibility.

 At a hearing before the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board next week, the companies are expected to propose 
that they pay to dig monitoring wells in exchange for delaying 
any further enforcement action.

 Rialto City Attorney Robert Owen, who has sued the Department
of Defense and several dozen other potentially responsible
parties, said the city would oppose any delay in forcing the
companies to take responsibility and start paying their share.

 Because most of the contamination throughout the state is in
some way connected with defense, Feinstein said the Department
of Defense has not done nearly enough.

 The Senate rejected attempts by the department to seek
legislation to protect it from having to pay for perchlorate
contamination, she said.

 The Defense Department said it has spent about $59 million on
perchlorate cleanups and research.

 Baca's bill requires that local communities pay 35 percent, and
his son, Assemblyman Joe Baca Jr., D-Rialto, has introduced a
bill that would provide state money for local communities to
meet the match.

 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last month ignored the
recommendations of its own scientific panel and proposed
guidelines for cleaning up perchlorate to a level of 24.5 parts
per billion. The state has proposed 6 parts per billion and some
scientists think the permissible level should be 1 part per
billion.

 "I think the EPA has downgraded the significance of this,"
Feinstein said. "I'm very worried it's gotten into food
products, and most impacts will be to nursing mothers and their
babies." 

Perchlorate is known to reduce thyroid function and the fear is
that the chemical could harm the development of fetuses and
small children.

 Neither the state nor the federal government has established an
enforceable drinking water standard, and Feinstein's bill
includes language encouraging the EPA to set a standard.   
                  
Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 67 Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmakers know best

Opinion

Article Last Updated: 02/25/2006 1:04 PM MST  

  As lifelong Utah residents, we must thank the legislators for
their ability to know what is good for the public. Many of these
officials carry with them a level of knowledge we mere citizens
cannot ever possess. 

   For example, who knew that Utah needed more nuclear waste,
less public access and media oversight to records, continuance
of lobbyist gifts, more accessibility for guns and tacit
approval to hate anyone who may be different from us. 

   They have also shown us that high school students have no
rights to discuss ideas, public education doesn't need funding
beyond the lowest level in the country and immigrants who work
for Utah businesses, and their children, should be penalized for
being born poor and in the wrong country. Thank them also for
keeping social services expectations at the bottom of the 
priority list and for keeping the tax on food. We shouldn't 
encourage people to expect help, and that waiting lists for 
handicap services last only for years, not decades. 

   The citizens who thought they had a say in determining how
their money was spent have once again been shown the error of
their ways. The recent Tribune/KUED poll which supported
spending the budget largess on education, was obviously
incorrect. 

   Eventually, maybe we can all remember to thank them at
election time. Let's give them the recognition they so richly
deserve. 
    
   Larry and Tina Howard 
   Highland 
    
Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 68 Salt Lake Tribune: N-dump seeks hike in pollution permit 

Article Last Updated: 02/25/2006 12:45 AM MST 

EnergySolutions: Request suggests it will accept greater 
quantities of waste this year 

By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 

EnergySolutions' request for a change in its air quality 
permits suggests the company expects to get even greater volumes 
of hazardous and radioactive waste than it did last year, its 
busiest ever. 

A permit-change pending before the Division of Air Quality 
says the company needs a more generous allowance for 
air-pollution than already is allowed. According to a legal 
notice to be published next week, the Salt Lake City-based 
nuclear-waste company needs to increase emissions based on the 
disposal of 1.5 million tons a year, rather than the current 1 
million. 

The public notice about the request notes the added air 
pollution would be about 2.86 tons a year for microscopic soot 
particles called PM10. The overall total of PM10 under the 
updated permit would be 64.77 tons per year, according to the 
notice. 

“From an air-quality perspective, its almost nothing,” said 
Rick Sprott, director of the state air-quality division. 

He will make the permit final after a 10-day comment period, 
barring the need for a major adjustment. 

From the waste-volume perspective, the change is noteworthy 
because the company has publicly downplayed the future role of 
the Clive, Utah, waste disposal site, which is nearly 1 square 
mile. The company's effort to double in size has apparently 
stalled for the short term, and Steve Creamer, president and 
chief executive officer said earlier this month that more 
disposal space is not needed. 

Last year, the company took in 934,772 tons, the biggest 
volume in its 18-year history, most of it from nuclear power 
plants and government cleanups. And the volume of waste in 2005 
was 53 percent higher than in 2004. 

Earlier this month, EnergySolutions, renamed itself and 
added two other nuclear services companies to its portfolio. 
Previously, the company was called Envirocare of Utah. 

The company did not return calls seeking comment on the 
permit change. 

fahys@sltrib.com 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 69 Xinhua: Ukraine won't be engaged in uranium enrichment activities - PM 

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-25 12:57:27   

    KIEV, Feb. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- Ukraine, which is planning to
build part of nuclear fuel recycling facilities, will not be
engaged in uranium enrichment activities, Prime Minister Yuri
Yekhanurov saidon Friday. 

    Yekhanurov made the remarks in the eastern region of Kharkov
when presiding over a meeting on his country's nuclear fuel
recycling capabilities, the Interfax-Ukraine news agency
reported. 

    Ukraine could make a breakthrough in energy independence in
thenext 10-12 years, he said. Construction of part of the
facilities for nuclear fuel recycling is a priority in the
country's energy strategy, he added. 

    The prime minister said Ukraine is doing research on nuclear
fuel recycling, including ways to store nuclear waste. 

    Considering the number of nuclear power plants in the
country, the issue of nuclear waste recycling must be put on the
agenda now,Yekhanurov said. 

    Ukraine currently has five nuclear power plants that provide
about half of the country's electricity needs. 

    Russia had supplied all of Ukraine's nuclear fuel needs in
the past. In 2005, the United States began to provide nuclear
fuel forsome of the country's nuclear plants. Enditem   


  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 70 RGJ.com: Plan to store mercury in state draws ire-Military wants
to move 4,436 metric tons to Hawthorne depot

Nevada, USA  775-788-6200    February 26, 2006 		 		 		 		 			

DON COX

RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL -->


For Clydell Wert, the prospect of living next to a stockpile of
more than 4,000 metric tons of mercury at the Hawthorne Army
Depot in Northern Nevada is no cause to be scared or even
worried.

"We've probably had stuff out here much more dangerous than
that," said Wert, a Hawthorne resident since 1945. "The average
person probably doesn't know what's out there. "If you really
knew, you probably wouldn't live here."

But state officials are looking for ways to stop a federal
government plan announced this month to store the military's
mercury supply of 4,436 metric tons at Hawthorne, starting next
year.

"We're working through the governor's office and the attorney
general's office to see what options are open to us," said Allen
Biaggi, director of the state's Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources. "Do we have recourse through the court
system? Do we have recourse through the National Environmental
Policy Act? We should know in the next few days."

Mercury, a potentially toxic substance, could contaminate Walker
Lake, six miles from Hawthorne, Biaggi said.

"We don't think that's the best place to have the mercury stored
for the long term," Biaggi said. "Just the fact that you are
storing that much mercury in that location so close to Walker
Lake is a concern to us."

Mercury will be warehoused at Hawthorne, 132 miles southeast of
Reno-Sparks, for at least 40 years, a spokesman for the program
said.

"It's not going to have any impact at all, as far as leakage
into the ground water and the lake," said Robert Jones, a
spokesman for the Defense Stockpile Center headquartered at Fort
Belvoir, Va.

The 230-square-mile Hawthorne depot, the largest ammunition
storage facility in the U.S. military, was, according to federal
administrators, selected as the mercury site for these reasons:


+ It's a federal facility.


+ It has expertise.


+ It has security.


+ It meets government standards.

"Hawthorne was one of five locations considered," Jones said.
"Hawthorne fit the bill."

If it comes to Hawthorne, the mercury, contained in metal flasks
packed in steel barrels, will be stored in "14 or 15" concrete
warehouses at the base, which has 2,900 structures, said Army
Lt. Col. John Summers, the facility's military commander.

"It will be stored here and never opened to the environment,"
Summers said. "You are talking about a much more likelihood of a
spill if you're talking about opening the mercury vessels."

Mercury can become "highly toxic" if people are exposed to high
levels of it in air or water, according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, with the potential to cause
brain damage and harm to other organs.

"We think it's a good decision the (state) is questioning
bringing more mercury into Nevada," said Elyssa Rosen, senior
policy adviser and founder of the Reno-based Great Basin Mine
Watch, an environmental group urging the state to adopt stronger
mercury controls.

The mercury bound for Hawthorne is stored at three locations,
New Haven, Ind., Sommerville, N.J., and Warren, Ohio.

"I don't think there is any issue here," said Michael Bender,
executive director of the Mercury Policy Project, a
Vermont-based environmental group working to reduce mercury
exposure. "They have been able to safely store this stuff for
the last 40 years. It's not at the same level of concern as many
of the toxic and nuclear wastes out there. But it's hard to
convince people of that."

The depots in Sommerville and New Haven are scheduled for
closure, Jones said. Along with Hawthorne, facilities considered
for the mercury were Warren and Tooele, Utah.

Hawthorne, opened in 1930, was placed on the closure list by the
federal government last summer. Tooele recommended as the new
site for the 300,000 tons of ammunition kept at the Hawthorne
depot, which nearly surrounds the town of Hawthorne. But the
Hawthorne depot, Mineral County's largest employer with about
500 workers, was removed from the closure list in August.

Discussions about storing mercury at Hawthorne started in 2003,
two years before the closure debate.

"The state voiced its opposition to the proposal at that time,"
Biaggi said.

In Hawthorne, where the population is about 3,000, there may not
be as much concern.

"It's not an issue here," said Shelley Hartmann, director of the
Mineral County Economic Development Authority. "They know it can
be (stored) well. We've had much nastier stuff here."

Much of the ammunition at Hawthorne is outdated. Ammo was
manufactured at the base until the end of the Vietnam War. The
depot, where more than 5,000 civilians worked and 2,000 military
personnel were stationed during World War II, has been operated
by a civilian company under Army supervision since 1980.

"We have adequate storage space," Summers said. "We have
experience in storing hazardous items."

The head of a group hoping to preserve Walker Lake isn't worried
about the mercury.

"It has to be loose in the environment," said Louis Thompson,
director of the Walker Lake Working Group and a Hawthorne
resident. "I feel the way they package and care for (the
mercury), it shouldn't be a problem."

Thompson stressed he was expressing his own opinion, not the
working group's.

The future of the lake, which is popular for fishing and
important to Hawthorne's economy, is in question. Over the last
half century, agricultural diversions have lowered the lake
level by 150 feet, resulting in a steady buildup of salts that
experts fear could soon render the lake incapable of supporting
fish.

If the mercury comes to Hawthorne, it will be delivered in
trucks over a period of time to be determined, possibly 90 to
180 days, Jones said.

"It depends on how many we can get on the road and how many the
site can accept in one day," Jones said.

The mercury, which was stockpiled during the Cold War, is no
longer used by the military.

"It looks like it may be coming," Biaggi said. "At least that's
the way it is right now. We are looking at our options." 

*****************************************************************
 71 Boston Globe: Nuclear waste is a federal problem - 

 LETTERS 
 
February 26, 2006 

As a Plymouth resident, a longstanding Plymouth business owner,
and former member and chairman of the Plymouth Board of
Selectmen, I take a much different view than the article
[''Calls for Pilgrim fees rise," Globe South, Feb. 9] that
Pilgrim owes Plymouth County communities.

Your article anticipates a loosely defined special tax scheme on
Pilgrim Station that would benefit some of Plymouth County,
which already receives many economic benefits from the existence
and operation of the facility.

Pilgrim provides in excess of $100 million in annual economic
activity in Plymouth County, has a permanent employment force in
excess of 500, which includes about 400 union members, uses
services of about 130 contractors, and purchases from over 75
Massachusetts companies. Most of the above have a direct
positive impact in the communities of Plymouth County.

In addition to the above, Entergy, the owner of Pilgrim, has
always supported educational, civic, and charitable activities.

The storage of spent fuel rods has been, and continues to be,
the federal government's responsibility. We the people clamor
for low-cost, clean power. Entergy delivers and the federal
government should live up to its end of the deal.

In this day of tight budgets and fiscal restraint for local
communities, of course Pilgrim would look like a cash cow to
some. My friends the state legislators and local officials may
better serve their communities by pressing their federal friends
for a final resolve to the waste problem.

I, however, am not naive enough to think that once the waste
problem becomes a nonissue that the same people looking for
Entergy to supplement their budgets won't be back with another
scheme.

William F. Nolan Sr. 

Plymouth [ /] © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. More: 
*****************************************************************
 72 PE.com: Lawmakers press for cleaner groundwater

| Inland Southern California | Inland News
 
BILL: Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Joe Baca seek removal of a
toxin from Inland wells. 

11:43 PM PST on Friday, February 24, 2006 

By LISA B. McPHERON and MICHELLE DeARMOND / The Press-Enterprise 

RIALTO - Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Joe Baca are teaming up
to get $50 million in federal money to remove a toxic
rocket-fuel chemical from California water, the pair announced
Friday. 

  Stan Lim / The Press-Enterprise   

  Sen. Dianne Feinstein sat by San Bernardino Mayor-elect Pat
Morris at the Inland Empire Economic Partnership luncheon
Friday. Feinstein announced she would combine her $58 million
rocket-fuel cleanup bill with Rep. Joe Baca's $50 million bill. 
 
The California lawmakers are pushing legislation that would get
the money to clean up groundwater contaminated by perchlorate, a
chemical used in rocket fuel, munitions and fireworks. 

At a news conference -- staged on the grounds of a well that
cost the city of Rialto $1 million to fit with a filter for the
harmful chemical -- Feinstein outlined her goal to bring federal
dollars to affected California communities. 

"We are standing on a 6 ½-mile plume of perchlorate
contamination," the California Democrat said. "The problem is
getting worse, not better." 

San Bernardino and Riverside counties have a number of
contaminated wells, including more than 20 in Colton, Fontana
and Rialto. 

Feinstein announced plans to combine the language of her $58
million legislation with Baca's perchlorate cleanup bill already
approved by the House of Representatives. 

The move puts Feinstein's legislation on a fast track, and it
could be approved this fall, Baca said. 

Baca's bill, H.R. 18, appropriates $50 million for groundwater
remediation in the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority areas,
which include San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties. 

"The federal government should take the responsibility for the
cleanup and not stick local communities with the bill," said
Baca, D-Rialto. 

Feinstein's bill would set aside $50 million for cleanup and an
additional $8 million for research and development of cleanup
measures. 

The language of the combined legislation has not been defined. 

Perchlorate in certain amounts can block the absorption of
iodide into the thyroid gland, interfering with production of
hormones that guide brain and nerve development in fetuses and
babies. Studies have found traces of perchlorate in women's
breast milk and lettuce. 

The chemical made its way into Inland soil and groundwater over
several decades from at least 20 companies, some of which were
U.S. Department of Defense contractors. 

The cost borne to Inland cities for the contamination has
reached into the millions. 

Rialto alone has spent about $12 million over several years to
manage the toxic chemical, said Rialto City Attorney Bob Owen.
The city must annually pay about $500,000 per well equipped to
filter the chemical, he said. 

San Bernardino County Supervisor Josie Gonzales, Rialto Mayor
Grace Vargas, Fontana Mayor Mark Nuaimi, Colton Mayor Deidre
Bennett, Sen. Nell Soto, D-Pomona, and Assemblyman Joe Baca,
Jr., D-Rialto, also attended the news conference and expressed
support for the legislation. 

Baca Jr. introduced AB 2628 this week that seeks to provide $5
million to $10 million in state matching funds for the federal
bill. 

A San Bernardino environmentalist welcomed news of the bills by
Feinstein and Baca, but said that $50 million will only make a
dent in the problem. 

In Rialto alone, it will cost $150 million to $200 million to
clean up the contamination, said Davin Diaz, director of
Pathways for A Safe Environment Campaign with the Center for
Community Action and Environmental Justice. 

"I would like to see both the Congress and the Senate put more
emphasis on ensuring the polluters are paying for the cleanup,"
Diaz said. 

Reach Lisa B. McPheron at (909) 806-3064 or  lmcpheron@PE.comand
Michelle DeArmond at (951) 368-9441 or  mdearmond@PE.comMore

2006, The Press-Enterprise Company                 
*****************************************************************
 73 The Signal: Officials Asking for $50M to Clean Up

Sunday, February 26 2006   

Bill would also urge EPA to set national standard for perchlorate.

Adam Clark Signal Staff Writer
 					
Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Joe Baca are calling on
Congress to pass legislation to authorize $50 million for
perchlorate cleanup in California.

    If passed, the bill would authorize $50 million in grants
for cleanup and remediation of perchlorate in various water
sources and groundwater wells. It would also provide $8 million
for research and development of new, cheaper, and more efficient
perchlorate cleanup technologies.

    It is unknown just how much of those funds, if approved, 
would go toward cleanup in the Santa Clarita Valley, however,
the priority for the grant would fall to the most affected
areas, some of which include San Bernardino and Riverside
counties.

    Santa Clarita’s most heavily contaminated region is the old
Whittaker-Bermite site, some 1,000 acres of land south of Saugus
Speedway that were once used for the manufacture of rocket fuel
and fireworks. Perchlorate is only one of several toxins found
on the area.

    Several wells around the former Whittaker-Bermite site were
found to be contaminated with perchlorate and shut down in 1997.
A Valencia Water Co. well dubbed “Q2” didn’t show a positive
reading until April 2005.

    One area of concern the pending legislation proposes to
remedy is that of a national standard for perchlorate. The bill
urges the Environmental Protection Agency to promptly set a
national standard for perchlorate.

    While no such standard currently exists, the state of
California says the amount should not exceed 4 parts per billion.

    One part per billion would be about equal to a grain of sand
in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

    In early 2005, tests from Q2 showed an average perchlorate
presence of 9.8 parts per billion.

    The well has been shut down since then and undergoing a
cleansing process known as ion exchange.

    “If we don’t take action now, perchlorate contamination will
make the groundwater for hundreds of thousands of people in the
Inland Empire undrinkable,” Feinstein said in a statement. “It
could put at risk the health and safety of mothers, kids and
unborn children. We’ve got to act now. Today, we’re proposing
$50 million in federal funding for cleanup efforts. We may need
more. But this is a good first step.”   				 			

©2005 The-Signal.com - Site powered with DynamicBase by
ActiveQuest, Inc.      
*****************************************************************
 74 Guardian Unlimited: Problem Halts Tenn. Uranium Tank Project
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday February 25, 2006 2:01 AM

By DUNCAN MANSFIELD 

Associated Press Writer 

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Reinforcing steel was missing or not
installed as designed in some concrete walls and floors in a
$350 million storehouse that will hold the nation's largest
inventory of bomb-grade uranium, according to federal
inspectors. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the
nation's nuclear weapons program, could not immediately say how
significant the problems were at the construction site within
the Y-12 nuclear weapons complex in Oak Ridge, about 20 miles
west of Knoxville. 

But the discovery has forced suspension of most work on the new
uranium facility since Feb. 3, according to the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, an independent agency that oversees
nuclear weapons programs. 

``Since that time they have evaluated a number of those
things,'' Bill Wilburn, spokesman for Department of Energy
managing contractor BWXT, said Friday. ``We have resumed some
limited scope work, and we are looking to make a further
decision in the next few days.'' 

The construction problems raise questions about the structural
integrity of a building to store a dangerous cache that lies
within a region of periodic but mild earthquake activity. 

When completed, the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility
will resemble a concrete fortress as big as four football
fields. Construction began in 2002 as part of a major
modernization of the Y-12 plant, which makes parts for every
warhead in the country's nuclear weapons arsenal. 

The storehouse is supposed to be completed next year and in
operation by 2008. 

A Feb. 3 report by the safety board released Thursday said
reinforcing steel was missing from some concrete slabs or
incorrectly placed. 

The board's engineering experts said blueprint requirements
apparently were incorrectly translated from BWXT's drawings to
the construction contractor. 

--- 

Y-12 nuclear weapons plant: http://www.y12.doe.gov/ 
		 	 	   

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 75 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / Lab faulted in plutonium accidents / 
Private contractor already fined for problems affecting 5 workers
 
[San Francisco Chronicle] 

Saturday, February 25, 2006
 				
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was to a large degree to
blame for a series of accidents in 2004 that resulted in five
workers inhaling radioactive plutonium and revealed "the need
for significant improvement in (the lab's) nuclear safety
culture," federal investigators say. 

The U.S. Department of Energy, which in December had fined a
private contractor for misconduct in the case, said in a report
obtained by The Chronicle on Friday that Livermore lab was also
culpable in the accidents -- and deserving of a far stiffer fine
than the contractor. 

Livermore officials apologized Friday for their role. 

"Quite honestly," lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton said, "we
should take responsibility for anything that happens on our
site. At the time we did not -- and we are now." 

The plutonium accidents occurred from April to August 2004
inside a mobile plutonium packaging and shipment facility based
at Livermore lab but operated by contractor Washington TRU
Solutions, which is assigned to package and transport
radioactive waste from the lab to a salt mine in New Mexico for
disposal. 

The Chronicle reported in December that three Washington TRU
employees were exposed to plutonium and as a result might face a
lifetime of medical scrutiny. Initially, Houghton denied that
any employees of Livermore lab were affected and said the lab
had no responsibility in the case. Later, she called The
Chronicle to say she had erred and that Livermore employees were
involved, but she had no details at that time. After the latest
report, she confirmed that two lab employees had been exposed to
plutonium. 

Houghton said five personnel -- two of them lab employees --
were found by investigators to have had plutonium in their
noses. Their medical condition is fine, she said, because the
radiation exposure was "well below the acceptable worker dose
limits." 

She also stressed that lab officials have learned their lesson
from the mishaps. 

"The lesson we have learned from this is: Safety is a process --
it's not an end result. ... Quite honestly, we had not done a
good job of that." Now, though, "we 'get it' and we're moving
forward strongly" to improve safety. 

But in the Feb. 23 letter to lab director Michael Anastasio,
which accompanies the investigative report, the head of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the
nation's nuclear weapons labs for the U.S. Department of Energy,
charged that the case shows "the need for significant
improvement in LLNL's nuclear safety culture," referring to the
lab by its acronym. 

In the letter, Linton Brooks stressed that he is disappointed
and added that "without improvement, NNSA cannot have confidence
that all critical elements of LLNL's safety programs are being
effectively implemented." The fact that lab failures occurred
repeatedly in the case "casts significant doubt on the
Laboratory's ability to effectively analyze and correct
performance problems." 

Brooks' letter also cited "long-standing radiological protection
program, quality assurance, and safety basis deficiencies" at
Livermore and said the accidents could have been worse. 

The lab maintained "workplace controls (that) were not
adequate," Brooks wrote. The lab also showed "a lack of an
appropriate response to the more hazardous workplace conditions"
during the accidents. 

The accompanying report cites instances of Livermore's role in
failing to prevent the accidents. For example, it notes that
contrary to regulations, lab officials "failed to establish
effective physical and administrative controls to ensure that
workers were not exposed to airborne radiation while performing
work at the (mobile lab) without respirators." 

Under normal circumstances the lab would have been fined by the
Department of Energy $588,500 for the mishaps, said the federal
investigator's report. However, the fine is being waived
because, Houghton said, the University of California -- which
manages the lab for the Energy Department -- is contractually
exempt from the fine because of its nonprofit status. 

The lab has been fined six times since 1988 for various reasons,
but it never had to pay any of them for that reason, she said. 

Meanwhile, in December the Energy Department fined Washington
TRU $192,500 for violations that led to and compounded the
plutonium accidents. At that time, the firm said it wouldn't
appeal the fine. 

E-mail Keay Davidson at .                               
Page B - 1
 			
The San Francisco Chronicle] 
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************