*****************************************************************
03/09/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.58
*****************************************************************
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 [NYTr] Non-Aligned Nations: Keep Iraq Nuke Issue in IAEA
2 [NYTr] Moscow opposed to sanctions for Iran
3 [NYTr] Targeting Iran: NATO AWACs Exercise in Israel
4 [progchat_action] Iran threatens US with 'pain' if sanctions
5 [southnews] Full text of NAM's statement on Iran's nuclear
6 IPS-English CHINA: Uneasy Over US Nuclear Policies in Iran and
7 Guardian Unlimited: US demands drastic action as Iran nuclear row es
8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Pushes U.N. for Strong Iran Statement
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Referral to U.N. As 'Unjust'
10 AF: Iran digs in for confrontation with United States -
11 AFP: US to seek 'strong' UN statement against Iran - White House -
12 AFP: Iran undeterred as nuclear crisis escalates
13 AFP: Iran number one challenge to US - Rice
14 AFP: Jordan, Pakistan urge diplomacy in Iran nuclear row
15 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Leaders Call U.N. Referral Unjust
16 [NYTr] N.Korea won't return to talks under US duress
17 UPI: Analysis: N. Korea seeks sanctions talks
18 [southnews] US pushes for UN Security Council action against
19 US: Countercurrents.org: Dick Cheney's Time-Release Poison
20 Rediff: Nuclear authorities endorse India-US N-deal
21 US: Guardian Unlimited: Passage Urged for $91B War Spending Bill
22 1960's Brits helped Israel make the A-bomb
23 [NYTr] Russian Nuke Research Offer Ruffles West
24 NS Exculsive: UK helped Israel to make Nuclear Weapons
25 [southnews] UK supplied Israel with plutonium in 1966
26 BBC: How are we doing on renewables?
27 BBC: Tories defeated over energy call
28 Green Building Press: Decentralised Energy Cheaper, Cleaner, Safer.
NUCLEAR REACTORS
29 US: [du-list] We Must Expand Our Nuclear Power Program If We're To
30 JAMAICAOBSERVER.COM: Brazil to build seven nuclear plants -
31 US: Columbian.com: Demolition to Fell Cooling Tower
32 RIA Novosti: Russia to provide nuclear fuel for Bulgarian plant unti
33 US: Platts: APS says Palo Verde-1 to shut for six weeks for repairs
34 Platts: Baltic utilities to study new nuclear
35 US: Platts: Virginia House approves energy plan bill in 74-21 vote
36 US: Hanford News: PGE prepares to take down nuclear plant cooling to
37 US: El Paso Times: Reactor shutdown to cost EP
38 The Citizen: Koeberg facing safety rating downgrade - DA CAPE TOWN
39 US: Rutland Herald: Yankee holds at 105% while it studies noise
40 US: Rutland Herald: Towns back Yankee evacuation plan
41 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Joseph M. Farley Nuclea
42 US: NRC: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impa
43 US: Hudson Valley News: NRC chief will order independent safety revi
44 US: kgw.com: PGE to take down Trojan nuclear cooling tower
45 AK - News: Russia's nuclear power plants rose energy generation.
46 US: Cape Cod Online: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Timeline
47 US: Cape Cod Online: Public Pilgrim review begins
48 US: NRC: Speech - 007 - “Lessons from Sergeant Schultz”
49 US: Corvallis Gazette-Times: PGE prepares to take down nuclear plant
50 Deccan Herald: Govt moots more N-plants; 8 under construction -
51 Guardian Unlimited: Mexico's Only Nuclear Plant Shuts Reactor
52 UPI: Analysis: The EU energy landscape
53 Whitehaven News: Report’s solution to Thorp riddle
54 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria's Nuclear Fuel Supplies Guaranteed Unti
55 India times: NTPC eyes experts for nuclear foray
56 The Herald: Squabbles over energy must not leave us in the dark
57 US: Platts: EC's energy paper leaves renewables, nuclear groups want
NUCLEAR SECURITY
58 BBC: Secret sale of UK plutonium
59 BBC: US warns of challenge from Iran
60 Guardian Unlimited: Security Council Prepares Iran Response
61 Scotsman.com News: UK supplied Israel with plutonium
62 US: IEER: Missing Plutonium - Index
NUCLEAR SAFETY
63 [du-list] Lawmakers demand more wartime funds for
64 [du-list] Take Action Against Depleted Uranium!
65 US: [du-list] letter to rep. Herseth on du impacts
66 [du-list] Depleted Uranium: email to Australian senators
67 [du-list] insight into the pro-DU psyche
68 US: thedesertsun.com: Salton Sea area to be swept for bombs
69 Xinhua: Bikini islanders to sue US over nuclear tests
70 Yokwe Net: Marshall Islands' President Calls for Full Settlement
71 Pacific Magazine: MARSHALL ISLANDS: Nuclear-Test Affected Islands Ge
72 US: [rense.com]: Depleted Uranium - US Lung Cancer Rates Soar
73 US: Bradenton Herald: Community health survey planned, not yet funde
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
74 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca Mountain construction won't start for 5 years,
75 RIA Novosti: Russia does not import nuclear waste - IAEA expert
76 Ecodefense”: an echelon with German nuclear waste is coming to Russi
77 reviewjournal.com: 'Fix' vowed for Yucca
78 The Australian: Waste fears at uranium mine
79 US: The Dispatch: The Editor Board: Goal Too High
80 American Spectator: Take One for the Team
81 ForUm: SNF storage to be built in Ukraine
82 OnPoint: Energy Secretary Bodman outlines plans on Yucca, nuclear wa
83 US: Boston Globe: Starmet Corp. site cleanup progress lauded by envi
84 US: KUTV: PFS Chairman Says Utah Can't Stop Nuclear Storage
85 St. Paul Pioneer Press: Yucca site won't help at Monticello
86 UPI: Germany to build nuke waste storage site
87 ForUm: President addresses nuclear waste issue
88 US: Deseret News: PFS chief says foes can't stop nuclear waste
89 US: The Signal: City: Site Cleanup of Perchlorate to Start This Mont
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
90 Hanford News: Lawmaker rejects vit plant's budget; Congressman claim
91 Hanford News: Steam may be used to rid last of sodium from FFTF
92 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern
93 lamonitor.com: LANL pit production role to grow
94 UPI: Sessions may slash DOE nuke budget
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [NYTr] Non-Aligned Nations: Keep Iraq Nuke Issue in IAEA
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 01:28:56 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Xinhua - Mar 8, 2006
http://english.people.com.cn/200603/08/eng20060308_249016.html
Iran's nuclear issue should be kept within IAEA: NAM
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) said on Wednesday that the Iranian nuclear
issue should be kept within the framework of the UN nuclear watchdog.
"NAM strongly believes that diplomacy and dialogue must continue in order to
find a long-term peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. To this
end, NAM is of the view that engagement of other UN bodies at this juncture
should be avoided," said a statement by the group of developing countries.
The NAM statement was read out at Wednesday's International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) board meeting by Malaysian ambassador to the IAEA, Rajmah
Hussain.
"NAM recognizes the IAEA as the sole competent authority for verification
and expresses its full confidence in the professionalism and impartiality of
the IAEA. In this regard, NAM strongly believes that all issues on
safeguards and verification, including those of Iran, should be resolved
only by the agency, within its framework, and be based on technical and
legal grounds, " said the statement.
"NAM further emphasizes that the agency continues its work to resolve the
Iranian nuclear issue within its mandate under the IAEA Statute."
NAM urged all parties concerned to exercise patience and restraint and not
to "resort to any action which may escalate into a tense situation and
create unnecessary confrontation."
The statement was delivered as the IAEA board was discussing the Iranian
nuclear issue on the basis of a report by IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei.
The NAM statement emphasized the point in the ElBaradei report that the
agency had not seen any proof of Iran conducting prohibited activities.
It said substantial progress had been made in terms of access to Iranian
sites, documents and individuals.
"In this regard, NAM is optimistic that the remaining issues will be
promptly resolved."
The ElBaradei report deplored the fact that insufficient information
provided by Iran had impeded the agency's verification work.
The statement also emphasized the right of every member state of the IAEA to
develop research, production and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes
"without discrimination and in conformity with their respective legal
obligations."
NAM's position was in sharp contrast with that of the United States, which
insists that Security Council involvement is necessary.
In a statement delivered to the board meeting, U.S. ambassador Gregory
Schulte said the ElBaradei report showed that Iran had not cooperated with
the IAEA since Feb. 4, when the IAEA board decided to report Iran's case to
the Security Council.
"The time has now come for the Security Council to act," he said. He argued
that the involvement of the Security Council would widen the authority of
the IAEA.
He made it clear, however, that Washington had not abandoned hopes for a
diplomatic solution. "This new phase of diplomacy is intended more
forcefully to convince Iran to turn back from its nuclear weapons
ambitions," he said.
Source: Xinhua
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
2 [NYTr] Moscow opposed to sanctions for Iran
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 01:28:37 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
MSNBC - Mar 8, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11724558/from/RSS/
Official says Moscow opposes Iran sanctions
Statement comes as momentum builds to refer Tehran to Security Council
MSNBC News Services
UNITED NATIONS - Russias foreign minister suggested Wednesday that Moscow
would oppose sanctions on Iran because such measures rarely achieve their
intended goals.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters that the International Atomic
Energy Agency must stay in the lead on Iran and be allowed to keep working
inside the country. It was a clear indication that Russia does not want the
U.N. Security Council heavily involved in the Iran issue.
Asked if Russia would consider approving sanctions against Iran, Lavrov
said: I dont think sanctions as a means to solve a crisis have ever
achieved a goal in the recent history, so ... we must rely on the
professional advice of the IAEA, the watchdog of the nonproliferation
regime.
The United States, France and Britain have pushed for the Security Council
to take a tough line on Iran, starting with a series of small steps that
could lead to sanctions. But any such measures would have to get by Russia
and China, which also have veto power in the council.
'No military solution' Lavrov, who had met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
Annan just moments before, also ruled out military action against Iran,
saying Russia was convinced that there is no military solution to this
crisis.
Lavrovs comments hours after Iran threatened the United States with harm
and pain for its role in hauling Tehran before the Security Council.
The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain but it is also
susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wishes to choose that
path, let the ball roll, it said in a statement obtained by Reuters on the
sidelines of a U.N. nuclear watchdog board meeting in Vienna.
But the United States and its European allies said Irans nuclear
intransigence left the world no choice but to ask for Security Council
action. The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting in Vienna to focus on Tehrans
refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
At the United Nations, Lavrov responded to questions about whether the
Security Council should raise the possibility of sanctions after the IAEA
board sends the 15-nation U.N. body its latest report on Iran by saying the
situation reminded him of the councils consideration of whether Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led 2003 invasion.
It looks so deja vu, you know, he said. ... I dont believe we should
engage in something which might become self-fulfilling prophecy.
The United States and Britain led the invasion of Iraq without Security
Council authorization after arguing that Baghdad was concealing weapons of
mass destruction, but no nuclear, biological or chemical arms were later
found.
Russia has been at the forefront of the Iranian nuclear talks over the past
few months with a proposal to host Irans uranium enrichment program. The
United States and the European Union back the idea, but Iran has demanded
the right to conduct small-scale uranium enrichment at home.
U.S.: Statements further isolate Iran The White House dismissed the rhetoric
out of Tehran on Wednesday.
I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran
from the rest of the world, White House press secretary Scott McClellan
told reporters traveling with President Bush to hurricane-affected states in
the Gulf Coast. And the international community has spelled out to Iran
what it needs to do.
Americas ambassador to the United Nations and the chief architect of U.S.
policy in the Security Council once it takes up the Iran issue said Irans
comments reflected the menace it poses.
Their threats show why leaving a country like that with a nuclear weapon is
so dangerous, John Bolton told the Associated Press in a phone call from
Washington.
He classified the Iranian comments as reflecting their determination to
acquire weapons.
On Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney warned Tehran that Iran would face
consequences if it persisted in defying the international community.
Iran has accused Washington of helping to engineer an IAEA board vote a
month ago to report Tehrans atomic project to the Security Council.
An Iranian collision course with the council looked more likely after Tehran
brushed aside what EU diplomats said was a Russian offer to let it do some
atomic research if it refrained from enriching uranium on an industrial
scale for 7-9 years.
The United States and its key European Union allies Britain, France and
Germany also rebuffed the idea because they said it would not have
prevented Iran perfecting bomb technology via enrichment research.
Iran denies Western suspicions it is secretly trying to build atomic bombs,
saying it seeks only nuclear-generated electricity.
'Oil weapon' worries Tehran also said Wednesday it would have to review its
oil export policy if world pressure mounted over its disputed atomic work.
Asked whether Iran would use an oil weapon as the worlds fourth largest
crude oil exporter, Javad Vaeedi, deputy secretary of Irans Supreme
National Security Council, told Reuters: We will not (do so now), but if
the situation changes, we will have to review our oil policies.
Irans chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, had said on Sunday that
Tehran was not keen to use oil as a weapon in its escalating row with the
West but if conditions change it could affect our decision.
He did not specify what he meant by a change in conditions.
Iran is the fourth biggest oil exporter in the world and the second largest
in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. There is broad
international concern that isolating Iran could drive up already high oil
prices.
The IAEA meeting is in effect the last step before the Security Council
begins to consider Irans nuclear plans, which could lead to possible
sanctions. Irans president said earlier Wednesday that his country will not
back down from plans to enrich uranium domestically.
France, Germany and Britain, which spearheaded the Feb. 4 IAEA resolution
clearing the path for Security Council action, warned that what is known
about Irans enrichment program could represent only the tip of the
iceberg.
We believe that the time has ... come for the U.N. Security Council to
reinforce the authority of the IAEA and its board, said a draft statement
by the three European countries.
Austria, which holds the EU presidency, expressed regret at Irans decisions
to withhold voluntary cooperation from IAEA inspectors and resume uranium
enrichment, which can be part of a process to make nuclear weapons.
The Austrian comments were made in a statement prepared for delivery on
behalf of the European Union and nearly a
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
3 [NYTr] Targeting Iran: NATO AWACs Exercise in Israel
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 12:17:05 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by mart
Targeting Iran: NATO AWACS Conduct Exercise In Israel
["Jones was answering a question from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about what
NATO was doing regarding a potential Iranian nuclear threat to Israel."
Interesting and bizarre (but also, totally to be expected) that the Israeli
'Jewish Telegraphic Agency' would write of, as though it were a matter of
fact the - quote - "Iranian nuclear threat to Israel", when it is in fact
Israel that has, (illegally by the way too, with secret help from the U.S.,
Britain and the former apartheid regime in South Africa), developed and
possesses nuclear weapons (Iran has none) - and it is Israel that has
already publicly threatened to strike at and destroy, legal, Iranian,
'civilian use', nuclear electrical generating plants, if Iran continues work
on them! Who is the "nuclear threat" in the region, who possess nuclear
weapons, and who is threatening whom, again???? -mart]
Jewish Telegraphic Agency - March 7, 2006
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=1693
NATO spy planes fly in Israel
NATO spy planes conducted an exercise in Israel,
apparently as a signal to Iran.
"We've had NATO AWACS deployed to do some demonstrations in Israel, and we
do have an active dialogue with the Israeli defense force in terms of
interoperability, and particularly as it regards the security of the
Mediterranean basin at sea," Gen. James Jones, the U.S. general who is the
supreme allied commander in Europe, said Tuesday in Senate testimony.
Jones was answering a question from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about what
NATO was doing regarding a potential Iranian nuclear threat to Israel.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
4 [progchat_action] Iran threatens US with 'pain' if sanctions
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 02:03:08 -0600 (CST)
Iran threatens US with 'pain' if sanctions begin
By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 09 March 2006
Iran threatened America with "harm and pain" if sanctions were imposed as
Tehran was finally referred to the UN Security Council for action over its
suspected nuclear weapons programme.
A senior Iranian official warned: "The United States may have the power to
cause harm and pain but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the
United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll."
The official, Javad Vaeedi, was speaking on the sidelines of a board meeting
of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, which wound up
yesterday by seeking formal action by the Security Council, after months of
delay because of resistance from Russia and China. Asked whether the Islamic
Republic would use an "oil weapon", Mr Vaeedi said: "We will not [do so
now], but if the situation changes, we will have to review our oil
policies."
The warning drew a strong response from the White House spokesman Scott
McClellan, who said: "Provocative statements and actions only further
isolate Iran from the rest of the world." Amid the escalating war of words,
in which Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in Washington that Iran
"directly threatens vital American interests", the IAEA director general,
Mohamed ElBaradei urged both the West and Iran to adopt a "cool-headed
approach, to lower the rhetoric".
The US representative in Vienna, Gregory Schulte, called for the Security
Council to "emphasise that Iran will face consequences" if it fails to
comply with international demands laid down by the IAEA and which will be
considered by the council next week.
The European Union's statement made it clear that Tehran had failed to
satisfy the agency. "Indicators of a possible military dimension to Iran's
programme continue to be a legitimate source of intense concern," said
Thomas Stelzer, the Austrian delegate, on behalf of the EU.
Although the Security Council is empowered to order sanctions, European and
US diplomats hope that, as a first step, a consensus can be reached in the
15-member council for a formal demand that Tehran returns to a freeze on
sensitive nuclear-related activities and co-operates fully with the IAEA.
British diplomats said that the UN demands would include a deadline for
compliance, but China and Russia - which both hold veto power on the
Security Council - are likely to balk at such a suggestion.
Yesterday's decision by the IAEA further intensifies the pressure on Iran
which provoked a crisis in January by reopening facilities capable of
enriching uranium to weapons-grade strength. Russian compromise proposals
were not accepted by Iran in time for the three-day IAEA meeting despite
intensive negotiations. A senior analyst warned that the outcome of next
week's council discussions were unpredictable, notably because of open
opposition from Russia and China to sanctions.
Both countries have strong economic ties to Iran, which insists that its
nuclear intentions are purely peaceful and maintains that it has a treaty
right to enrich uranium on its own soil. "The Russians have agreed to go to
the council, but up to what point is still not clear," said a European
diplomat.
There is also some concern about the mixed messages emanating from the Bush
administration - including warnings from Vice-President Dick Cheney and the
UN ambassador, John Bolton, of possible military action - which could prove
counter-productive. "The Americans are giving the impression they favour
regime change. That is not an incentive for the Iranians to comply," the
senior analyst said.
The EU left open the door to a diplomatic solution, and Mr ElBaradei said
future negotiations with Europe should also include the US on the issue of
security guarantees for Iran.
Diplomats said Iran felt confident it could ride out the storm despite
facing international isolation because Iranian public opinion stands firmly
behind the hardline President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the nuclear issue.
The country's economic influence has meanwhile been enhanced by the strong
oil prices.
Iran threatened America with "harm and pain" if sanctions were imposed as
Tehran was finally referred to the UN Security Council for action over its
suspected nuclear weapons programme.
A senior Iranian official warned: "The United States may have the power to
cause harm and pain but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the
United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll."
The official, Javad Vaeedi, was speaking on the sidelines of a board meeting
of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, which wound up
yesterday by seeking formal action by the Security Council, after months of
delay because of resistance from Russia and China. Asked whether the Islamic
Republic would use an "oil weapon", Mr Vaeedi said: "We will not [do so
now], but if the situation changes, we will have to review our oil
policies."
The warning drew a strong response from the White House spokesman Scott
McClellan, who said: "Provocative statements and actions only further
isolate Iran from the rest of the world." Amid the escalating war of words,
in which Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in Washington that Iran
"directly threatens vital American interests", the IAEA director general,
Mohamed ElBaradei urged both the West and Iran to adopt a "cool-headed
approach, to lower the rhetoric".
The US representative in Vienna, Gregory Schulte, called for the Security
Council to "emphasise that Iran will face consequences" if it fails to
comply with international demands laid down by the IAEA and which will be
considered by the council next week.
The European Union's statement made it clear that Tehran had failed to
satisfy the agency. "Indicators of a possible military dimension to Iran's
programme continue to be a legitimate source of intense concern," said
Thomas Stelzer, the Austrian delegate, on behalf of the EU.
Although the Security Council is empowered to order sanctions, European and
US diplomats hope that, as a first step, a consensus can be reached in the
15-member council for a formal demand that Tehran returns to a freeze on
sensitive nuclear-related activities and co-operates fully with the IAEA.
British diplomats said that the UN demands would include a deadline for
compliance, but China and Russia - which both hold veto power on the
Security Council - are likely to balk at such a suggestion.
Yesterday's decision by the IAEA further intensifies the pressure on Iran
which provoked a crisis in January by reopening facilities capable of
enriching uranium to weapons-grade strength. Russian compromise proposals
were not accepted by Iran in time for the three-day IAEA meeting despite
intensive negotiations. A senior analyst warned that the outcome of next
week's council discussions were unpredictable, notably because of open
opposition from Russia and China to sanctions.
Both countries have strong economic ties to Iran, which insists that its
nuclear intentions are purely peaceful and maintains that it has a treaty
right to enrich uranium on its own soil. "The Russians have agreed to go to
the council, but up to what point is still not clear," said a European
diplomat.
There is also some concern about the mixed messages emanating from the Bush
administration - including warnings from Vice-President Dick Cheney and the
UN ambassador, John Bolton, of possible military action - which could prove
counter-productive. "The Americans are giving the impression they favour
regime change. That is not an incentive for the Iranians to comply," the
senior analyst said.
The EU left open the door to a diplomatic solution, and Mr ElBaradei said
future negotiations with Europe should also include the US on the issue of
security guarantees for Iran.
Diplomats said Iran felt confident it could ride out the storm despite
facing international isolation because Iranian public opinion stands firmly
behind the hardline President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the nuclear issue.
The country's economic influence has meanwhile been enhanced by the strong
oil prices.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article350101.ece
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
*****************************************************************
5 [southnews] Full text of NAM's statement on Iran's nuclear
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 02:44:10 -0600 (CST)
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) representatives at the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors on Wednesday March 8
issued a statement on Iran's nuclear program.
The full text of the statement by the NAM countries, which was delivered
by Ambassador and Resident Representative of Malaysia to the IAEA,
Rajmah Hussain, is as follows:
"Agenda item 5 (b): Report by the director general on the implementation
of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Mr chairman,
I have the honor to make this statement on behalf of the Vienna chapter
of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
NAM expresses its appreciation to the director general for his
comprehensive report on the "implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran" as contained in document
GOV/2006/15 dated February 27, 2006 as well as for his introductory
statement. In this regard, NAM calls upon member states and the agency
to respect the confidentiality of the documents issued for our
consideration in order to protect the integrity of the agency and the board.
NAM expresses its appreciation to the director general and the agency
and encourages them to continue their work and efforts in resolving all
the issues pertaining to the Iran nuclear program.
NAM strongly reiterates the basic and inalienable right of all member
states, as stipulated in the Statute of the IAEA, to develop research,
production and use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, without any
discrimination and in conformity with their respective legal
obligations. Therefore nothing should be interpreted in a way as
inhibiting or restricting this right of member states to develop atomic
energy for peaceful purposes. NAM further more reaffirms that member
states' choices and decisions in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear
technology and its fuel cycle policies must be respected.
NAM reiterates its principled position that non-proliferation and
peaceful uses of nuclear technology must be addressed in a balanced and
non-discriminatory manner. NAM reaffirms its strong conviction that the
total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee
against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
NAM also believes that the efforts of the international community aimed
at nuclear disarmament should be equal and simultaneous to the efforts
aiming at nuclear non-proliferation.
NAM would like to emphasize that it is fundamental to make a clear
distinction between legal obligations of member states to their
respective safeguards agreements and their voluntary commitments. This
is required to ensure that voluntary commitments of member states will
not be turned into legal safeguards obligations. NAM is of the view that
member states should not be penalized for not adhering to their
voluntary commitments.
NAM is pleased to note that all the declared nuclear material in Iran
has been accounted for, and that the agency has not seen any diversion
of such material to prohibited activities. NAM is aware that corrective
actions have been taken by Iran and that no new failures were
identified. NAM notes that the verification of the correctness and
completeness of Iran's respective declarations is ongoing. NAM also
recognizes that any rightful activity under the agency's safeguard does
not constitute any concern.
NAM is also pleased to note that substantial progress has been made that
was key in resolving the issues pertaining to the implementation of
Iran's safeguards agreements, including the agreement by Iran for the
agency to visit defence and other nuclear related sites, permitting
interviews with certain individuals as well as providing the necessary
documents and information relating to the nuclear issue. In this regard,
NAM is optimistic that the remaining issues will be promptly resolved.
NAM expresses its appreciation to Iran's continuing cooperation, even
beyond its legal obligations, and welcomes the initiatives of Iran
aiming at a greater degree of transparency. NAM encourages Iran to
continue its cooperation with the agency to resolve remaining issues
especially with regard to the full scope and nature of Iran's nuclear
program.
NAM concurs with the assessment by the director general in his report
that the process of drawing a conclusion with regard to the absence of
undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran is a time-consuming
process even with an Additional Protocol in force. In this regard, NAM
recognizes that through continued cooperation, the agency would be able,
without undue pressure, to conclude its verification work in Iran.
NAM wishes to emphasize the role of the agency and the director general
in ensuring the safe and peaceful development and use of nuclear
technologies. It is in this regard that both the agency and its director
general were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2005. NAM recognizes the
IAEA as the sole competent authority for verification and expresses its
full confidence in the professionalism and impartiality of the IAEA led
by the director general. In this regard, NAM strongly believes that all
issues on safeguards and verification, including those of Iran, should
be resolved only by the agency, within its framework, and be based on
technical and legal grounds. NAM further emphasizes that the agency
continues its work to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue within its
mandate under the IAEA Statute.
NAM strongly believes that diplomacy and dialogue must continue in order
to find a long-term peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. To
this end, NAM is of the view that engagement of other UN bodies at this
juncture should be avoided. All parties concerned must exercise patience
and restraint and should not resort to any action which may escalate
into a tense situation and create unnecessary confrontation.
In encouraging an environment of cooperation to find a mutually
acceptable solution to this issue, NAM appreciates all initiatives aimed
at facilitating the speedy conclusion of the Iranian nuclear issue
within the IAEA. NAM welcomes the continued discussion between the
Russian federation and Iran with the view to finding a solution to the
uranium enrichment program.
Thank you mr chairman."
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************
6 IPS-English CHINA: Uneasy Over US Nuclear Policies in Iran and
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:50:09 -0800
ROMAIPS AP WD DV IF IP NU=20
CHINA: Uneasy Over US Nuclear Policies in Iran and India
Analysis by Antoaneta Bezlova=20
BEIJING , Mar 9 (IPS) - With the dispute over Iran's controversial nucle=
ar programme moving this week to the United Nations Security Council (UNS=
C), the stage is set for a perilous confrontation between the Islamic rep=
ublic and the international community -- a showdown that not only Tehran =
but also world powers like China and Russia have fought to avoid.
While reporting Tehran to the UNSC is being executed in the
name of preventing nuclear proliferation, China has voiced fears that the=
whole non-proliferation system has been destabilized by the freshly inke=
d nuclear deal between the United States and India.
=94The United States' making an exception to accommodate India, driven by=
geo-political considerations, has sent repercussions through the
international non-proliferation infrastructure,=94 Hu Shisheng, a fellow =
of South Asian Studies at the China Institute of Contemporary Internation=
al Relations wrote in the China Daily Mar. 7.
=94The double standards will very likely complicate the nuclear issues of=
Iran
and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea all the more,=94 he argued.=
=94Now, the international community is presented with a big question: ho=
w can the effectiveness and binding power of the non-proliferation system=
be
guaranteed?=94
The official line from Beijing on the nuclear cooperation agreement signe=
d
between Washington and New Delhi, last week, has been more restrained but=
the Chinese foreign ministry has questioned the gains for the global nuc=
lear non-proliferation efforts.
Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said the deal came at a time when the=
international community was working to enhance the authority and effecti=
veness of the international non-proliferation regime. Nuclear cooperation=
between the United States and India must conform to the rules of the glo=
bal non-proliferation regime, he emphasised.
Speaking of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Qin Gang said: =94=
As a signatory country, China hopes non-signatory countries will join it =
as soon as possible as non-nuclear weapons states, thereby contributing t=
o strengthening the international non-proliferation regime.=94
The remark was clearly aimed at New Delhi, which without signing the NPT =
has now been given the rights enjoyed by the members of the Nuclear Suppl=
iers Group, and also the five nuclear powers.
Under the deal sealed between U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian P=
rime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi, India retained the right to d=
eny U.N. inspectors access to its fast-breeder reactors capable of produ=
cing weapons-grade fissile material.
As India didn't agree to cap its production, it means there could be
unlimited expansion of its nuclear arsenal, sparking fears this could lea=
d to a new regional arms race.
Critics of the deal have charged the U.S. with gambling away its chances =
of success in the global campaign to limit the spread of nuclear weapons =
for the questionable benefit of counterbalancing China.
It was a point emphasised in an editorial in the Chinese Communist Party'=
s flagship publication, the People's Daily this week: =94The United State=
s, accustomed to view problems with Cold War mentality and from the persp=
ective of geopolitics,=94 said the editorial, =94saw the power of India''=
as being able to ''help it achieve balance among powers in Asia.''
The paper went on to warn that there could be consequences for the =94two=
deadlocked nuclear talks (with Iran and North Korea) and the
non-proliferation system=94.
Over the past two years China has been trying to prevent both its allies =
Iran and North Korea from being referred to the UNSC but has found it inc=
reasingly hard as all major world powers from France to Japan had started=
thinking aloud about the consequences of allowing Iran to build a nuclea=
r weapon.
Although China has huge oil stakes in the Middle Eastern country, in rece=
nt months Beijing has sided with the U.S. and Europe in their combined ef=
forts to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Chinese foreign ministry officials have called on Tehran to observe all o=
bligations that go with the NPT so that the crisis can be resolved withou=
t moving it to the UNSC.=20
China, which has the veto power in the UNSC, would be forced to make an u=
ncomfortable choice between its international standing and economic inter=
ests should developments at the council lead to a vote on sanctions again=
st Tehran.
Agreeing to U.N. sanctions would potentially destroy the value of many in=
vestments Beijing has made. In Iran, where U.S. companies are prohibited =
=66rom investing more than 20 million US dollars annually, Chinese compan=
ies have signed long-term contracts valued at 200 billion dollars, making=
China Iran's biggest oil and gas customer.
But encouragement of Tehran in its controversial nuclear programme would =
make China appear an outcast in the eyes of the White House, and the inte=
rnational community.
Hoping to avoid clear-cut choices, Beijing has argued vigorously that
continued negotiations are best, if not the only way to resolve the
nuclear dispute in Iran, as well as the one involving North Korea.
A similar appeal came just hours before the International Atomic Energy A=
gency (IAEA) ended its meeting on the Iranian nuclear programme in Vienna=
, sending the file to the UNSC in New York.
=94The Iranian nuclear issue is at a critical juncture,=94 Zhang Yan, dir=
ector of the arms control department of the Chinese foreign ministry, tol=
d the IAEA board members. There exists both a risk of deterioration and c=
hances of improvement, he said.
=94The key is whether all concerned parties choose dialogue instead of
confrontation. China believes that the continuation of the diplomatic
efforts remains the wise option for the solution of the Iranian nuclear i=
ssue,=94 Zhang concluded. (END/IPS/AP/WD/NU/IP/DV/IF/AB/RDR/06)
=20
=3D 03091641 ORP007
NNNN
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited: US demands drastic action as Iran nuclear row escalates
Ian Traynor in Vienna
Thursday March 9, 2006
The Guardian
The US called for extraordinary action to get to the bottom of
Iran's nuclear programme yesterday as Tehran and Washington moved
into confrontational mode in the long-running dispute.
The American ambassador to the International Atomic Energy
Agency, Greg Schulte, called for "special inspections" by the UN
nuclear teams in Iran, in effect giving them carte blanche in
their detective work, at the Vienna meeting of the IAEA board
that is reporting Iran to the UN security council. The mechanism
has been used only once before, unsuccessfully, in North Korea 13
years ago.
Capping a long campaign to take the nuclear row to the security
council, Mr Schulte said: "The time has now come for the security
council to act ... It should emphasise that Iran will face
consequences if it does not meet its obligations."
Iran reacted furiously, squaring up to the US and making
implicit threats to use oil as a weapon against it.
"Let the ball roll," said Javad Vaeidi, the deputy head of
Iran's national security council, using the words used against
Iran at the weekend by the US hawk and ambassador to the UN,
John Bolton.
"The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain.
But it is also susceptible to harm and pain," he said.
Despite talk all week of a compromise brokered by the Russians
which could have allowed all sides to save face and resume
negotiations, the IAEA meeting ended with positions more
entrenched - the Iranians determined to retain the uranium
enrichment programme at the core of the dispute, and the
Americans calling the shots in what is decided by the security
council.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said yesterday that
imposing sanctions on Iran would not convince it to curb its
nuclear ambitions.
While the Europeans and the Americans said the security council
would proceed cautiously, diplomats predicted that the dispute
could escalate rapidly when it moves to New York next week.
Mr Schulte said Iran had 85 tonnes of uranium stockpiled for
enrichment - enough for 10 nuclear bombs - and that it was bent
on building the capacity to process the material.
A statement by Britain, France and Germany said action by the
security council was inevitable. There was "no credible civil
use" for the stockpile of uranium gas that can be processed into
fissile material.
Resorting to special inspections would be "much more intrusive"
than the IAEA's ongoing inspections in Iran, said a diplomat.
But was up to the IAEA to decide.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Pushes U.N. for Strong Iran Statement
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday March 10, 2006 12:01 AM
AP Photo NYSF106
By NICK WADHAMS
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. Security Council must deliver a
strong statement that ``gets the Iranians' attention'' when it
addresses Tehran's disputed nuclear weapons program for the
first time in the coming days, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said
Thursday.
Bolton and other senior U.S. officials suggested that if the
Security Council doesn't take tough action, the United States
might look elsewhere to punish Iran - possibly by rallying its
allies to impose targeted sanctions.
``We're going to press for as vigorous a response in the council
as we can get and hope that that gets the Iranians' attention,''
Bolton told reporters. ``If the Iranians do not back off from
their continued aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons, we'll
have to make a decision of what the next step will be.''
Bolton spoke as the United States and the other four permanent
members of the council weighed proposals for an initial response
to the Iran nuclear crisis. The council's first step will likely
be a nonbinding presidential statement, but the contents of even
that are highly disputed.
Officials in Washington have raised the possibility of a
Security Council resolution backed by the threat of military
force that would demand Iran abandon uranium enrichment and
answer outstanding questions about its nuclear program. The
United States also wants the statement to include some
condemnation of Iran.
At a Senate hearing on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice suggested that the international community
could impose visa restrictions and an asset freeze. She said
that investors may take ``a second look at whether investments
in Iran are really a good idea under the circumstances.''
Britain, also a proponent of tough action, has proposed asking
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed Elbaradei to
report back in two weeks on Iran's compliance with IAEA
resolutions.
Yet Russia and China are opposed to sanctions and would almost
certainly block any effort for the council to impose such
measures. Underscoring Russia's reluctance to condemn Iran,
Ambassador Andrey Denisov said even the British proposal for
Elbaradei to come back in two weeks with a new report on Iran's
compliance didn't give Tehran enough time.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in London that the
international community is united in its view of Iran's nuclear
activities.
``Obligations that are entered into in the international
community should be kept and if they aren't that's a serious
situation and that's the reason for this discussion at the
moment and the report to the Security Council,'' Blair said.
The five permanent members of the council - Britain, China,
France, Russia and the United States - planned to met again
Friday to keep talking about a presidential statement. The full
council will likely discuss Iran next week - possibly Monday or
Tuesday.
The deliberations were early signs of growing international
efforts to persuade Iran to give up uranium enrichment and clear
up questions about its nuclear energy program. Iran insists its
program is for peaceful purposes, while the United States
contends that Tehran is working toward a nuclear weapon.
On Wednesday, the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors wrapped up
a meeting in Vienna and sent a Feb. 27 report on Iran's
activities to the council. That action formally cleared the way
for the Security Council to take up the Iran issue.
Some nations, particularly China and Russia, fear that tough
council action will lead Iran to abandon the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty for good and expel IAEA inspectors.
On Thursday, Iran's leaders warned that the West will suffer
more than Iran if it takes action against its nuclear program,
rejecting Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council as
unjust.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Referral to U.N. As 'Unjust'
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday March 9, 2006 12:46 PM
AP Photo XHS101
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Thursday it won't be bullied into
abandoning its nuclear program, rejecting its referral to the
U.N. Security Council as ``unjust.''
``The people of Iran will not accept coercion and unjust
decisions by international organizations,'' President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by Iranian television during a
visit to Iran's western province of Lorestan. ``Enemies cannot
force the Iranian people to relinquish their rights.''
``The era of bullying and brutality is over,'' he added.
The statements came a day after Iran threatened the United
States with ``harm and pain'' as the 35-nation board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency ended a three-day meeting in
Vienna, Austria, over Iran's nuclear program, formally opening
the path to Security Council action.
The Security Council, whose action could range from a mild
statement urging compliance to sanctions or even military
measures, was expected to debate the issue next week.
The IAEA had put the council on alert over the issue last month
but delayed any action to give more time for diplomacy under an
agreement by the United States, Russia, China, France and
Britain - the five permanent Security Council members that wield
veto power.
The five countries met in New York on Wednesday to discuss a
first response to the crisis.
Washington is seeking harsh measures against Iran, but economic
and political sanctions are unlikely because of opposition from
Russia and China, which have strategic and commercial ties with
Tehran.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns suggested Wednesday
that America would push for sanctions if appeals and demands
failed.
But Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov indicated that Moscow
would not support sanctions and he ruled out military action.
Wednesday's IAEA meeting featured an intense debate over a
critical report on Iran's nuclear program. Soon after the
meeting ended, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said he would send
the report to the Security Council within 24 hours.
ElBaradei, however, cast Security Council involvement as a
continuation of diplomacy with Iran. He suggested Washington
might need to talk to Iran directly if negotiations reach the
stage of focusing on security guarantees to Tehran in exchange
for concessions on its nuclear program.
ElBaradei's report accused Iran of withholding information,
possessing plans linked to nuclear weapons and refusing to
freeze uranium enrichment - a possible pathway to nuclear arms.
Tehran's newspapers published news of the decision on their
front pages Thursday. The official Persian-language daily Iran
called the move ``a message of weakness and failure'' by the
nuclear agency.
Iran claims its nuclear program is peaceful and only aimed at
generating electricity, but an increasing number of countries
have come to share the U.S. view that Tehran is seeking to
develop atomic weapons.
The U.S. and its European allies want Iran to give up uranium
enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear
fuel or materials for a nuclear bomb.
Iran has rejected the demand, saying it will never give up its
right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich
uranium and produce nuclear fuel.
---
Associated Press writer George Jahn contributed to this report
in Vienna, Austria.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
10 AF: Iran digs in for confrontation with United States -
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's hardline regime was digging in for a
confrontation with arch-enemy the United States, with its
supreme leader vowing not to halt a disputed nuclear drive
despite looming UN Security Council action.
"Today, the Iranian people and the officials of the Islamic
republic of Iran, more powerful than before and like steel, will
stand against any pressure or conspiracy," a defiant Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei said.
He vowed that Iran, "relying on God and using wisdom and
rationale and by maintaining unity, will continue on the path to
advanced technology, including nuclear technology."
Describing the stand-off as a "matter of destiny" after a
quarter of a century of tensions with Washington, Khamenei also
urged Iranians to brace for "possible pain and trouble".
The International Atomic Energy Agency on Wednesday opened the
way for Security Council action against Iran, which despite its
denials is suspected of using an atomic energy drive as a mask
for weapons development.
Envoys of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States
-- the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the Council --
have already discussed the issue and could formally take up the
case in the course of next week.
Unlike the IAEA, the Security Council has enforcement powers and
can impose punitive measures, including sanctions. The aim is to
force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment work, which can provide
the fuel for civilian reactors but also material for atomic
weapons.
"If the Iranian people and the government retreats from its
right to nuclear technology, the (American) adventure will not
end and the Americans will come up with another pretext,"
Khamenei said.
"We should stand firm on the matter, and... by enduring possible
pain and trouble will be victorious."
Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also struck a defiant
tone, declaring that "the time for bullying is over" and that
the West "can not do a damn thing" against Iran.
"Some powers think that if they sit in a session, they can force
the Iranian people to retreat. But all the Iranian nation, young
or old, urban dweller or villager and farmer or factory worker
are all saying one thing: nuclear energy is our undeniable
right," he said.
Although Tehran has proposed suspending industrial-scale
enrichment, it is refusing to halt enrichment research -- but
the Western powers argue that even this would allow the clerical
regime to acquire nuclear weapons know-how.
"Iran will not give up its right to research and development,"
senior national security official Abdol Reza Rahmani-Fazli, the
deputy of top Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani, told state media.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to cooperate with the
IAEA in order to achieve its rights, but will not accept the
politicisation of the nuclear case," he said.
Iran's Assembly of Experts, an 86-member council of top clerics,
also issued a statement warning the country's opponents of a
"heavy price" if tensions escalate further. The previous day,
another Iranian official also threatened the US with "harm and
pain".
The only voice of dissent was from reformist president Mohammad
Khatami, who warned the country could face "great problems".
IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei has said a political settlement
is possible, and urged all sides to "lower the rhetoric" to
achieve this.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Thursday Iran had
become the focus of US action on the world stage as she sought
Congress' backing for a package to promote democracy in the
Islamic republic.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than
from Iran, whose policies are directed at developing a Middle
East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East we
would like to see develop," Rice told the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Russian
television that President George W. Bush had assured him of
Washington's "prudence" in handling the affair during their
meeting in Washington Tuesday.
"When... I met President Bush he told me explicitly that on
future action over Iran it was necessary to be very prudent," he
told Rossia television in Moscow.
Moscow has been trying to broker a compromise under which Iran
could enrich uranium in Russia. Beijing has also advocated a
negotiated solution.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: US to seek 'strong' UN statement against Iran - White House -
Thu Mar 9, 2:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States will seek a "strong"
statement by the UN Security Council against Iran" /> Iranwhen it
starts debating the Iran nuclear crisis next week, the White
House said.
US presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said the United States
still wants a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's
nuclear programme, which Washington believes is hiding efforts
to develop an atomic bomb.
US officials have said they expect the UN Security Council to
start debating Iran next week, after a report by the
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency(IAEA) was referred to the world body.
"What we have said is that we are pursuing a diplomatic
resolution to the nuclear issue when it comes to Iran,"
McClellan told reporters.
He reaffirmed that "the first step in the Security Council will
not be looking at sanctions, it will be looking at the
possibility of a strong presidential statement laying out very
clearly for the regime what it needs to do and calling on the
regime to take certain steps."
US officials have already laid out a strategy which would take
gradual steps toward sanctions, in a bid to get greater
international support for any UN action taken.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
12 AFP: Iran undeterred as nuclear crisis escalates
Thu Mar 9, 5:26 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranvoiced gritty determination to
pursue its controversial nuclear programme, with the Islamic
regime unfazed by looming UN Security Council action and warning
the West of a "heavy price".
"The time for bullying is over. The Iranian people are not
bullies and will not be bullied," hardline President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad declared in a speech while touring the west of the
country.
"Some powers think that if they sit in a session, they can force
the Iranian people to retreat. But all the Iranian nation, young
or old, urban dweller or villager and farmer or factory worker
are all saying one thing: nuclear energy is our undeniable
right," he said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agencyon Wednesday opened the way for Security Council
action against Iran, suspected of using an atomic energy drive
as a mask for weapons development.
Envoys of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States
-- the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the Council --
could formally take up the case in the course of next week.
Unlike the IAEA, the Security Council has enforcement powers and
can impose punitive measures, including sanctions. The aim is to
force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment work, which can provide
the fuel for civilian reactors but also material for atomic
weapons.
"Iran will not give up its right to research and development,"
senior national security official Abdol Reza Rahmani-Fazli, the
deputy of top Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani, told state media.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to cooperate with the
IAEA in order to achieve its rights, but will not accept the
politicisation of the nuclear case," he said.
Although Tehran has proposed suspending industrial-scale
enrichment, it is refusing to halt enrichment research -- and
critics of the country argue that even this would allow the
clerical regime to acquire nuclear weapons know-how.
"The principle of negotiations as a way to answer all questions
is considered open," said Rahmani-Fazli, even though the
regime's unwillingness to freeze all uranium enrichment work
appears to leave little room for more talks.
Iran's Assembly of Experts, an 86-member clerical body which
selects the supreme leader and supervises his activities, also
struck a defiant tone.
"The Iranian nation is determined to guard this great national
asset with all its power, and if the aggressors do not stop
their interference to the undeniable right to our nation, they
will pay a heavy price," the body said in a statement, the day
after another Iranian official threatened the US with "harm and
pain".
The nuclear issue, it said, was "at the centre of the
psychological war against the Islamic regime" -- echoing a
sentiment within the regime that the United States and Israel"
/> Israelare merely out to get the Islamic republic.
But Iran's former reformist president Mohammad Khatami" />
Mohammad Khatamiwarned the Islamic republic could face "great
problems".
"If we cannot interact with the world community while
maintaining our national interests, then we will have great
problems in the future," Khatami was quoted as saying by the
ISNA news agency.
"We have to do our best not to reach that point," he said, when
asked of the risk of sanctions.
IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei has said a political settlement
is possible, and urged all sides to "lower the rhetoric" to
achieve this.
The White House says Iran had deepened its international
isolation with its threats.
"I think that provocative statements and actions only further
isolate Iran from the rest of the world," White House spokesman
Scott McClellan told reporters during a trip by President George
W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushto New Orleans.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, said in New
York there was no military solution to the row and cast doubt on
the effectiveness of any sanctions against Tehran.
Moscow has been trying to broker a compromise under which Iran
could enrich uranium in Russia.
"The situation is very serious," China's UN envoy Wang Guangya
told reporters. "But I think all the measures must not aggravate
the situation. We must find a way out of this."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
13 AFP: Iran number one challenge to US - Rice
Thu Mar 9, 11:10 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranis the biggest challenge facing
the United States, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" />
Condoleezza Ricesaid in urging Congress to adopt a package aimed
at promoting democracy in the Islamic republic.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than
from Iran, whose policies are directed at developing a Middle
East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East we
would like to see develop," Rice told the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
"This is a country that is determined, it seems, to develop a
nuclear weapon in defiance of the international community which
is determined that they should not get one."
Rice accused Tehran of being "the central banker for terrorism"
and of backing terrorist activites in Iraq" /> Iraq, the
Palestinian territories and in Lebanon.
Her comments came as Iran's hardline regime vowed not to abandon
the country's nuclear program despite the possibility of
sanctions by the UN Security Council.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: Jordan, Pakistan urge diplomacy in Iran nuclear row
[Maaruf Bakhit]
AMMAN (AFP) - Jordan and Pakistan called for a negotiated
settlement of Iran's nuclear crisis with the West and agreed to
boost efforts against terrorism.
"We would like to see the nuclear issue solved in a diplomatic
matter. We have enough problems in the region," Jordanian Prime
Minister Maaruf Bakhit told reporters at a joint news conference
with Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
"All stake holders should sit around and use all their
diplomatic skills to solve this issue," said Advertisement
[ src=] Aziz, who was on a one-day visit to Amman.
He added however that countries have the right to use nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes.
The two countries also signed agreements to scrap double
taxation, promote tourism and boost consultations on major world
developments.
Bakhit said they examined means to take bilateral ties "to a
higher level" and establish "a strategic dialogue" that would
include political, economic, military and security issues.
"Pakistan and Jordan share a common sense of purpose in fighting
terrorism," Aziz said.
Aziz also dismissed Afghan accusations that his country was
harbouring pro-Taliban militants.
"The question of any country harbouring people who are
conducting activities prejudicial to the security of that
country are very unfounded," he said.
Aziz, who also held talks with Jordan's King Abdullah II, said
that Amman and Islamabad agreed to unite forces to narrow the
gap between the Western and Muslim world and promote
"inter-faith understanding".
"The recent issue of the blasphemous caricatures have hurt the
sentiment of the Muslim community everywhere. We need to explain
to the world that Islam is a faith that practices peace,
inter-faith harmony and moderation," Aziz said.
"We talked about the need to project Islam in its true light.
The Muslim 'ummah' (nation) needs 'ittihad' (unity). The Muslim
ummah needs its voice to be heard," Aziz said.
Violent protests swept Pakistan in recent weeks after the
publication in Denmark of cartoons deemed offensive to Prophet
Mohammed.
Thursday, March 9, 2006. (AP Photo/Am- AP
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
15 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Leaders Call U.N. Referral Unjust
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday March 9, 2006 6:31 PM
AP Photo XHS102
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's supreme leader and its president said
Thursday that Tehran would not abandon its nuclear program and
rejected its referral to the U.N. Security Council as unjust.
Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in all state
matters, told a group of clerics that Iran would not drop its
nuclear ambitions, state television reported.
``Authorities are obliged to continue toward achieving advanced
technology, including nuclear energy,'' he said. ``The people
and the government will resist any force or conspiracy.''
He charged that Washington was looking for an excuse to continue
what he called a psychological war against his country.
``This time, they have used nuclear energy as an excuse. If Iran
quits now, the case will not be over. The Americans will find
another excuse,'' he said.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was similarly defiant in the face
of mounting international pressure on Iran over its nuclear
program. He warned that the West will suffer more than Iran if
it takes action against its nuclear program.
``They know that they are not capable of causing the least harm
to Iranian people,'' Ahmadinejad said during a visit to Iran's
western province of Lorestan, according to the ISNA news agency.
``They will suffer more.''
Just a day earlier, Iran threatened the United States with
``harm and pain'' as the 35-nation board of the International
Atomic Energy Agency ended a three-day meeting in Vienna,
Austria, over Iran's nuclear program, formally opening the path
to Security Council action.
The Security Council, whose action could range from a mild
statement urging compliance to sanctions or even military
measures, was expected to debate the issue next week.
The IAEA put the council on alert over the issue last month but
delayed any action to give more time for diplomacy under an
agreement by the United States, Russia, China, France and
Britain - the five permanent Security Council members that wield
veto power.
The five countries met in New York on Wednesday to discuss a
first response to the crisis.
Washington is seeking harsh measures against Iran, but economic
and political sanctions are unlikely because of opposition from
Russia and China, which have strategic and commercial ties with
Tehran.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns suggested Wednesday
that America would push for sanctions if appeals and demands
failed.
But Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov indicated that Moscow
would not support sanctions, and he ruled out military action.
Wednesday's IAEA meeting featured an intense debate over a
critical report on Iran's nuclear program. Soon after the
meeting ended, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said he would send
the report to U.N. headquarters in New York within 24 hours.
ElBaradei cast Security Council involvement as a continuation of
diplomacy. He suggested Washington might need to talk to Iran
directly if negotiations reach the stage of focusing on security
guarantees to Tehran in exchange for concessions on its nuclear
program.
ElBaradei's report accused Iran of withholding information,
possessing plans linked to nuclear weapons and refusing to
freeze uranium enrichment - a possible pathway to nuclear arms.
Enrichment can produce fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile
material for an atomic bomb.
Tehran's newspapers published news of the IAEA decision on their
front pages Thursday. The official Persian-language daily Iran
called the move ``a message of weakness and failure'' by the
nuclear agency.
A senior British official said Thursday that Iran could acquire
the know-how to build a nuclear bomb within a year, but it would
take much longer than that to construct a weapon.
The government official, who briefed reporters on condition of
anonymity in keeping with government policy, called a year ``a
realistic period'' to get the technology.
The official did not outline how the government reached its
assessment of how long Iran might need to construct the weapon.
The official said that even if Tehran is able to develop the
technology, it was still uncertain whether Iran would eventually
be able to construct a bomb given international efforts to
prevent it from acquiring the necessary equipment.
A total of 195 Iranian lawmakers, meanwhile, issued a statement
urging authorities to implement a law passed last year requiring
the government to block intrusive inspections of Iran's nuclear
facilities if it is referred to the Security Council.
They also asked the government to resume suspended nuclear
activities, including uranium enrichment. Tehran already has
restarted that program on a small-scale.
Iran claims its nuclear program is peaceful and only aimed at
generating electricity, but an increasing number of countries
have come to share the U.S. view that Tehran is seeking to
develop atomic weapons.
The U.S. and its European allies want Iran to give up uranium
enrichment.
Iran has rejected the demand, saying it will never give up its
right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich
uranium and produce nuclear fuel.
---
Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna, Austria, and
Beth Gardiner in London contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
16 [NYTr] N.Korea won't return to talks under US duress
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 02:42:23 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Reuters - Mar 8, 2006
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T143817Z_01_TKV002479_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH-TALKS.xml
N.Korea says won't return to talks under US duress
By Jon Herskovitz
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea cannot return to six-way talks on its nuclear
programs unless the United States ends its financial crack down on
Pyongyang's assets, Yonhap news agency quoted a senior North Korean official
as saying.
The comments from Ri Gun, North Korea's deputy chief envoy to the talks,
reiterated rather than hardened North Korea's stance but came as pressure
builds for Pyongyang to return to the table.
North Korea has previously said it would be unthinkable to do so unless
Washington ends its crack down on firms it suspects of aiding Pyongyang in
illicit activities such as counterfeiting that it says help fund the North's
nuclear programs.
"As long as pressure continues, our position remains unchanged that we can't
return to the six-party talks," Yonhap quoted Ri as saying in New York on
Tuesday.
A South Korean official in Seoul played down the remarks, which came after
Ri met U.S. Treasury officials.
"We didn't think Ri would go over there and break up the field," the
government official said by telephone.
U.S. President George W. Bush's former top Asia adviser took a similar line
in assessing the latest twist. Financial markets watch North Korea
developments but did not react unduly to Ri.
"If the North Koreans said they are not coming back, I'm skeptical," said
Michael Green, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies think tank.
The New York meeting came as momentum was starting to build on a possible
resumption of the talks among the two Koreas, host China, Japan, Russia and
the United States.
South Korea's new chief nuclear envoy will travel to China on Thursday for
discussions on pushing forward the stalled nuclear talks, Seoul's foreign
ministry said.
NO ONE WANTS TO BREAK UP TALKS
Ri's visit had raised hopes among some South Korean officials and analysts
that the North may be poised to return to the six-party talks aimed at
ending its nuclear programs.
They did not expect a breakthrough in New York but believed the meeting
could pave the way for a face-saving gesture that would hasten a resumption
of the nuclear discussions. The last round of talks was held in November
2005.
"Nobody will try to be the one to break up the talks, not the North and not
the United States," said Paik Hak-soon, who heads North Korea studies at
Sejong Institute south of Seoul.
Ri said the meeting was positive because "the two sides could find out about
the other's position", Yonhap said.
The U.S. State Department said the atmosphere of the New York talks was
"constructive and business-like".
"The U.S. side reiterated its commitment to the six-party talks," said
spokeswoman Darla Jordan, adding Washington was committed to resuming the
talks without preconditions.
Ri said North Korea presented U.S. officials with Pyongyang's plans to solve
the problem, but did not elaborate.
Participants in a discussion Ri had with former U.S. officials and experts
on Monday said Pyongyang wanted normalized U.S.-North Korean financial
transactions so North Koreans could use credit cards and participate in the
banking system.
Washington, Seoul and others have said the crackdown is separate from the
nuclear talks and urged Pyongyang to return to the table quickly. North
Korea has denied the U.S. charges. It says the crackdown is a U.S. attempt
to topple its leaders.
The U.S. Treasury said officials had briefed North Korean representatives on
the U.S. designation last year of Banco Delta Asia on charges the
Macau-based bank laundered money and backed other illegal activities by
North Korean firms.
(With additional reporting by Jack Kim in Seoul, Carol Giacomo in Washington
and Washington bureau)
) Reuters 2006.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
17 UPI: Analysis: N. Korea seeks sanctions talks
United Press International - Intl. Intelligence -
3/9/2006 1:44:00 PM -0500
By JONG-HEON LEE UPI Correspondent
SEOUL, March 9 (UPI) -- North Korea's proposal to open a new
channel with the United States to discuss financial sanctions
was largely welcomed in South Korea, as it purports to remove
the obstacle that has stalled talks on the communist nation's
nuclear program.
But suspicions have also arisen that the North's move is aimed
at buying time to diffuse U.S.-led pressure over its alleged
financial illegalities, such as counterfeiting of U.S. bills and
money-laundering.
South Korean officials have urged Pyongyang to take actual moves
to prove its claim of innocence.
In a rare meeting with U.S. officials in New York, a senior
North Korean diplomat proposed the establishment of a joint body
for consultations with the United States on the financial
sanctions, South Korea's Hankyoreh Shinmun daily reported
Thursday.
The newspaper quoted Li Gun, the North Korean Foreign Ministry's
head of North American affairs, as saying that he presented the
idea of exchanging information about financial illegalities and
jointly mapping out countermeasures through a negotiation
framework established separately from the current six-nation
nuclear talks.
"If such a consultative body opens, we can exchange information
on financial crimes and prepare countermeasures," Li said in an
interview with the South's pro-unification newspaper after the
New York meeting.
"If Washington provides information (on North Korea's
involvement in counterfeiting), Pyongyang would confiscate the
machine, paper and ink, and notify the U.S. Treasury Department
(of the seizure)," Li said. "(The U.S. side) said it would study
it," he added.
Last September, the United States slapped restrictions on Banco
Delta Asia, a Macau-based bank accused of laundering money for
North Korea. The U.S. Treasury Department labeled the bank as a
"primary money-laundering concern."
Under the U.S. measure, BDA has cut off transactions with North
Korea. The U.S. administration has also frozen the U.S.-based
assets of eight North Korean companies.
North Korea interpreted the U.S. actions as "financial
sanctions," and declared that it would not return to the
six-party nuclear talks until the sanctions were lifted.
Washington has dismissed the demand, saying that the financial
issues have nothing to do with the nuclear standoff.
North Korea has denied any government involvement in the alleged
illegal activities, and said it was a "victim" of counterfeiting
and money-laundering operations. Pyongyang also said it has
ordered its embassies and trading entities to stay away from any
kind of illegal activities in an attempt to dispel allegations.
During the New York meeting, Li said North Korea was forced to
use only cash due to Washington's blockage of financial
transactions. "So I asked my U.S. counterparts about the
possibility of opening an account in a U.S. bank," he told
Hankyoreh.
Li's proposal of creating a new consultation body on the
financial issue was largely seen as a concession on the part of
the North in Seoul since it complies with the U.S. position that
the financial issue should be separated from the nuclear issue.
Chun Young-woo, South Korea's chief delegate to the six-way
nuclear talks, described the New York meeting as "useful,"
expressing hope that the contact would pave the way for the
resumption of the nuclear talks.
"It is expected to serve as a starting point for the resumption
of the nuclear talks as they had useful discussions to
understand each other's position," Chun told reporters before
leaving for Beijing to meet Chinese officials to discuss ways to
revive the nuclear talks.
"We have to wait until the United States finishes its study on
the proposal because it was something that has not been in the
mind of Washington," Chun said. "If the United States can't
accept it, Washington could try to search other countermeasures
that can satisfy the North's demand in another way."
Chun also called for North Korea to take actions to dispel the
allegations that it has counterfeited U.S. dollars and
circulated them through the Macau bank.
"North Korea should diffuse all suspicions on the alleged
illicit activities linked with the Banco Delta Asia," Chun said.
"In order to resolve the BDA issue, at least, North Korea should
present how it will get rid of the suspicions."
Another government official said it would take "several weeks"
for North Korea and the United States to reach a compromise,
indicating the six-nation talks could not be resumed before late
April.
Government officials pinned high hopes on the planned trip by
Chinese President Hu Jintao to Washington -- slated for April --
to provide momentum for global efforts to end the North's
nuclear ambitions.
"We are making efforts to resume the six-way talks through
diplomatic steps we can take," Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said
in a recent briefing, adding that active measures will be taken
immediately for resolving the nuclear issue once negotiations
begin.
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
18 [southnews] US pushes for UN Security Council action against
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 02:44:06 -0600 (CST)
A United Nations (UN) report on Iran's nuclear program is being
forwarded to the UN Security Council for consideration of possible
punitive action.
US pushes for UN Security Council action against Iran
ABC News Thursday, March 9, 2006. 11:27am (AEDT)
By Europe correspondent Rafael Epstein and wires
A United Nations (UN) report on Iran's nuclear program is being
forwarded to the UN Security Council for consideration of possible
punitive action.
The UN's nuclear watchdog took the decision after debating it in the
Austrian city of Vienna.
A United States representative in Vienna, Greg Schulte, says the US
wants Security Council action.
"Their defiance has increasingly united the international community,
leaving them increasingly isolated and increasingly at risk of Security
Council action," he said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) delivered a report in
Vienna, saying there remained unanswered questions about Iran's nuclear
program.
The report also says while there is no proof of military intentions, it
is possible Iran's military has a role in the program.
If the Security Council does take action, its first step is likely to be
a demand that Iran stop certain activities.
It may then issue further warnings, before considering sanctions.
In response, Iran has promised harm and pain for the US.
"The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain but it is
also susceptible to harm and pain," Iranian security official Javad
Vaidi said.
"So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll."
Mr Vaidi reiterated that Iran would press on with small-scale enrichment
work despite the IAEA's calls to halt this activity.
"We will continue to exercise our R and D activities based on our
right," mr Vaidi said, referring to research and development.
One veto-wielding member of the Security Council is already ruling out
the prospect of sanctions.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has told reporters at the UN in
New York that sanctions have proved ineffectual in the past.
"We are convinced that there is no military solution to this crisis," he
said.
"The same I believe is the position of the United Kingdom, Germany, as
publicly stated by their ministers and I don't think sanctions, as a
means to solve a crisis, have ever achieved a goal."
-ABC/AFP
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1587258.htm
) 2006 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************
19 Countercurrents.org: Dick Cheney's Time-Release Poison
By Irving Wesley Hall
09 March, 2006
Did you read the story about 1st Lt. William Eddie Rebrook IV
whose arm was shattered and artery severed by a roadside bomb in
Iraq? The Army discharged him because of his injuries. But the
Pentagon refused to allow him to go home until he paid $700 for
his blood-soaked body armor discarded on the battlefield by the
evacuating medics.
The Charleston Gazette quoted his mother as saying, Its
outrageous, ridiculous and unconscionable. I wanted to stand on
a street corner and yell through a megaphone about this.
That's how I feel after researching this series about Dick
Cheney, deadly depleted uranium, and its effects on our troops.
In 1991, then Secretary of Defense Cheney authorized the first
massive use of depleted uranium munitions by our forces. As a
consequence the lives of almost 2/3rds of the men and women who
served in the Gulf War have been destroyed. Their families have
been ripped apart, and their children are being born with tragic
deformities. Does the same fate await most of the one million
troops who served in Afghanistan and Iraq? Read on and judge for
yourself.
This series was inspired by National Guard Major Matt Tully, a
local attorney, whom I've never met but deeply respect. On 9/11,
he was working as a brokerage firm paralegal in the World Trade
Center and was almost killed. He changed into uniform and served
for three days as the No. 2 National Guardsman providing
security for the crash site. He subsequently returned to law
school and set up practice in our area of central New York.
Despite the post 9/11 anti-Arab hysteria, Tully defended Joe
Mansour, a Lebanese American working in a federal prison.
Mansour began receiving derogatory e-mails and death threats
after 9/11. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
awarded Matt Tully its 2005 Pro-Bono Attorney of the Year. Tully
also spoke out against the looming war in Iraq that the Bush
Administration was hyping on a false connection between 9/11 and
the government of Iraq.
Matt Tully is an active member of the American Bar Association,
Fraternal Order of Police, Knights of Columbus, National Rifle
Association, Reserve Officers Association, American Legion, and
Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Given Tully's 9/11 experience, pro bono work, and earlier
opposition to the war, I was troubled to read last year that
Tully had been called to duty in Iraq. Tully was quoted as
saying, "I was very vocal in my opposition to the war in Iraq,"
and adding that he believed President Bush's policy of
pre-emptive strikes to be un-American and that the United States
should not invade another country unless it commits an act of
war upon America.
Unlike the young draftees of the Vietnam War era, 40% of those
serving in Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's war are National Guard,
and Army Reserves. Theyre our neighbors. They leave behind
families, mortgage payments, and vital jobs serving our
community.
As a former professor of political science I completely agreed
with Tully on the illegality of a war of aggression against a
country that posed no threat to the United States. I cannot
imagine a lawyer and member of the American Bar Association
taking any other position. After all, American jurists played a
key role in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals that
began in October 1945. The German defendants were charged not
only with the systematic murder of millions of people, but also
with planning and carrying out the war in Europe. The court
sentenced twelve Nazi officials to be hanged, three to life in
prison, and four to serve prison sentences of 10-20 years.
The Nuremberg Tribunal prompted subsequent expansion of
international law that condemns the waging of aggressive war as
the "supreme" war crime that inevitably leads to crimes such as
the slaughter of civilians and mistreatment and torture of
prisoners.
Mr. Tully's opposition to the war also struck a personal chord.
I was a draft counselor during the Vietnam War. Like Mr. Tully's
legal position against the Iraq War, my opposition to the
Vietnam War was not only moral. It was political. As a high
school teacher at the time, I had studied the disastrous
Japanese and later French colonial wars against the Vietnamese.
I knew that the American war against a popular guerrilla
resistance was not winnable. It would turn out to be a meat
grinder for America's youth and all Vietnamese. And it would
waste billions of dollars needed at home for education, health
care, and eradicating poverty.
For years after the war ended, men would approach me on the
street to thank me for saving their lives, and, equally
important, for empowering them to refuse to serve in a war of
aggression against a people who posed to no threat to the United
States.
I agonized over Major Tully's particular dilemma when his
National Guard division was called. Unlike the individual
civilians I counseled in the 1960s, Tully was a commissioned
officer with loyalty to his unit, the famous Rainbow Division of
the New York State National Guard.
The heroic life of a man I didn't know prompted me to set aside
a few days a week from the comic novel, We're Not In Kansas
Anymore! I've almost finished about Pat Robertson-type
Christianity. I wanted to learn about the men and women of the
Rainbow Division stationed in Forward Operating Base Camp Danger
in Saddam Hussein's former palace in Tikrit on the desert banks
of the Tigris River.
I was in the middle of drafting my first piece on the Rainbow
Division when I watched George W. Bush's October 13, 2005
choreographed teleconference on the eve of Iraq's constitutional
referendum. The Camp Danger base commander had ordered ten of
his soldiers to feed the president and the American citizens a
fairy tale scripted by chickenhawk Republican operatives in
Washington.
I knew that the words the troops had been ordered to mouth on
camera were misleading, false, and designed to present a rosy
picture of the rapidly deteriorating military and political
situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
As an informed citizen I was outraged. So I changed the focus of
my piece to contrast the fictional script concocted by Bush's
stateside propagandists with the facts on the ground, including
quotations on the growing resistance to the occupation by the
base commander Army Maj. Gen. Joseph Taluto.
The Rainbow Division Guardsmen have now served the first of
three possible six-month tours of duty. Most, including Matt
Tully, have arrived home safely. When the local paper reported
his return last month, I was in for a second shock. On his way
home, Tully had been co-opted into a meeting with Vice-President
Dick Cheney.
I had been researching Gulf War Illness for a decade so I knew
about Cheney's responsibility for the greatest tragedy to strike
the United States military since the Civil War. I knew that
depleted uranium contamination was the wild card in every
returning vet's deck, one that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the
Pentagon dont want them or us to know about.
Dick Cheney and Matt Tully!
Here was the man who helped destroy one generation of American
citizen soldiers enlisting a local hero to help take down the
next!
Depleted uranium is deadly. 697,00 men and women served in the
1991 Operation Desert Storm. The Gulf War on the ground lasted
only 100 hours. Few troops spent more than three months near the
battle zone during and after the war.
Nevertheless 518,000 Gulf War era vets are now receiving medical
disability according government figures. That's more than 70% of
all Army, Navy and Air Force veterans, even though not all the
disabled served in the Middle East. For purposes of comparison,
many more years after the wars in which they served, the
disabled from World War II total 8.6%; 5% from the Korean War,
and 9.6% from the Vietnam War.
More than 320 tons of depleted uranium munitions were used in
the Gulf War. Ten times that tonnage has so far been used in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5
billion years. Some of the radioactive particles are as small as
bacteria. They cannot be filtered so they permeate the air,
water, soil, vegetation, and animal life. Our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan are inhaling and ingesting them every day. They
accumulate throughout the body like time-release poison, so the
symptoms often develop years later.
The substance is so deadly that, before the war, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Erik K. Shenseki ordered the posting of
elaborate regulations for handling contaminated clothing,
munitions, and equipment. But how many active duty soldiers or
vets reading this have even heard of those regulations?
320 tons in a 100-day war in 1991 produced almost a 2/3rds
casualty rate. Since 2003, more than 3000 tons have been used in
this current war without end. The typical tour of duty in the
present conflict is six months. Many regular, National Guard and
Reserve troops are serving second and third tours.
What percentage of the million troops who've served will
eventually be stricken? You do the math. Iraq War vets are
already getting sick, dying, and producing children with
horrible birth deformities.
The Iraq War is Cheney's war. He was the point man fabricating
the string of lies that persuaded Congress and the American
people to support the unprovoked war on Iraq. Even though he
knew all his "intelligence" was phony, he created and
perpetuated the lie that linked Saddam Hussein to the 9/11
attack in order to manipulate our patriotism and mislead our
troops.
Cheney is also the driving force behind an unprovoked nuclear
attack against Iran that, according to all intelligence
estimates, is years away from developing a nuclear weapon and is
abiding by international law. We now face the frightening
prospect of a nuclear attack on Iran that will send a
radioactive cloud over the Middle East.
This will doubly contaminate the 136,000 American serving in the
area as well as those who will have to be deployed when all hell
breaks loose after the attack on a third Muslim country.
Depleted uranium contaminates the air, soil, and water so that
the men and women of the Rainbow Division took radioactive
showers during their six months in Camp Forward Danger, but
never knew it. D.U. attacks the body and the symptoms are
diverse. There is no treatment and no cure. However, there are
practical tips that troops can take in the field to avoid some
of the exposure, and there are some do's and don't's to lessen
contaminating their homes when they return.
This is an abridged version of the first in a comprehensive
series on depleted uranium to appear on the website "We're Not
in Kansas Anymore."
www.notinkansas.us.
Copyright 2006 Irving Wesley Hall.
WWW www.countercurrents.org
*****************************************************************
20 Rediff: Nuclear authorities endorse India-US N-deal
March 10, 2006 01:40 IST
The country's nuclear authorities on Thursday endorsed India-US
nuclear deal, saying that without compromising her national
security the deal opens the gateway to securing India's energy
independence to power her economic growth in a big way.
Assuring that there would be no reduction in India's strategic
nuclear programme, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Dr Anil
Kakodkar said the deal while raising the comfort level of the
international community would pave the way for the country to
enhance her nuclear power generation capacity through external
cooperation in a big way.
India has offered to place 14 of the 22 thermal power reactors
under IAEA safeguards in a phased manner between 2006-14, Dr
Kakodkar told a media conference, adding the agreement would not
affect the country's strategic programme in any respect.
"No constraint has been placed on our right to construct new
facilities for strategic purposes. The integrity of our nuclear
doctrine and our ability to sustain a credible minimal nuclear
deterrent is adequately protected," he maintained.
At the same time, the AEC Chairman said Nuclear Power
Corporation of India was going very fast in constructing nuclear
thermal power plants, adding it would be more than doubling
India's nuclear power generation from the current 3300 MW to
7200 MW in the next two to three years.
NPCIL was now constructing eight nuclear power plants, the
largest by any country in the world at present, he said, adding
the Corporation was now taking just about five years to build a
plant which, he added, was commendable by global standards.
But Dr Kakodar said India's energy requirement was rising in a
big way and the country would require 12-fold increase by
2052.Presently there was a shortfall of 29 per cent and entering
into civil nuclear agreements with supplier nations could bridge
this. Companies from US, France, Russia and Britain had already
made offers to set up nuclear power plants in India. Dr Kakodkar
said if the India-US agreement, a "win-win" deal for the
country, was approved by the US Congress it would accelerate the
growth in nuclear power sector, paving the way for energy
independence.
Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
21 Guardian Unlimited: Passage Urged for $91B War Spending Bill
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday March 9, 2006 9:46 AM
AP Photo JLS104
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Top military and foreign affairs leaders are
making a rare joint appearance on Capitol Hill to urge swift
passage of an $91 billion emergency spending bill they say is
critical to continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The bill's future has been threatened by a move in the House to
block a Dubai-owned company from taking control of some U.S.
port operations. President Bush has said he would veto the bill
if such a proposal was included.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was expected to tell the
Senate Appropriations Committee that the spending bill is needed
to pay for helping U.S. allies develop effective anti-terrorism
forces.
Nearly $6 billion is in the bill to continue developing security
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Scheduled to testify with Rumsfeld were Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace
and Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command.
It would be the first time those four leaders have appeared
together in front of Congress since Rice joined the Cabinet in
January 2005.
Questions about a variety of issues awaited the witnesses:
-Military plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
-How the religious strife in Iraq is impeding efforts to build a
unified government.
-The standoff with Iran over concerns it is seeking to develop
nuclear weapons.
The emergency spending bill includes about $65 billion for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as about $20 billion
for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. Additional money would
go to the State Department and intelligence agencies for
international operations and classified activities.
The House Appropriations Committee approved the bill on a voice
vote late Wednesday, after voting 62-2 to include a provision
prohibiting DP World, which is run by the government of Dubai in
the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at
U.S. ports.
The State Department has said that Rice and the Pentagon leaders
were appearing jointly before the committee, led by Sen. Thad
Cochran, R-Miss., to show they are part of a common war
strategy.
Cochran wants to know whether the spending measure ``is
sufficient to sustain success in Iraq and Afghanistan,''
spokeswoman Jenny Manley said. ``But the conversation could be
broad and not limited'' to the bill.
Some lawmakers have been critical that the war is not being
funded in the regular budget.
``This administration has decided to fund this war and all of
its implications through emergency requests, even though we have
known about the costs of the war for years,'' said Sen. Patty
Murray, D-Wash. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the
emergency spending bill ``is designed to address the incremental
costs that are associated with the conduct of combat,'' and is
``crucial to our ability to continue our combat operations in
the global war on terror.''
The Senate is not expected to vote on the bill until sometime in
April. The House could vote next week.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
22 1960's Brits helped Israel make the A-bomb
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:49:54 -0600 (CST)
If I were interested on more digging I would be asking among graduate
students at eg Columbia; there was a flow of info in early 60's academia
about relevant science being passed around. (Computer science, physics,
nuke engineering ? )
==============
http://www.newstatesman.com/200603130011
BRITAIN'S DIRTY SECRET
New Statesman (London) Monday 13th March 2006
by Meirion Jones
Secret papers show how Britain helped Israel make the A-bomb in the
1960s, supplying tons of vital chemicals including plutonium and
uranium. And it looks as though Harold Wilson and his ministers knew
nothing about it. By Meirion Jones
Mirage jets swoop from the sky to destroy the Egyptian air force
before breakfast; tanks race across the desert to the Suez Canal;
Moshe Dayan, the defence minister, poses with eyepatch after the
Jerusalem brigade has fought its way into the Old City. These are the
heroic images of the Six Day War and they defined Israeli daring: here was
a people who, it seemed, risked everything on a throw of the dice.
Years later the world discovered that there was an insurance policy.
They had a secret weapon - two, to be precise. In the weeks before
Israel took on the Arab world in June 1967 it put together a pair of
crude nuclear bombs, just in case things didn't go as planned. Making
them required not only Israeli ingenuity but also plenty of help from
abroad. It has been known for some time that the French helped build
Israel's reactor and reprocessing plant at Dimona, but over the past
year our research team at BBC Newsnight has unearthed something no
less astonishing and much closer to home - top-secret files which show how
Britain helped Israel get the atomic bomb.
We can reveal that while Harold Wilson was prime minister the UK
supplied Israel with small quantities of plutonium despite a warning
from British intelligence that it might "make a material contribution to
an Israeli weapons programme". This, by enabling Israel to study the
properties of plutonium before its own supplies came on line, could
have taken months off the time it needed to make a weapon.
Britain also sold Israel a whole range of other exotic chemicals,
including uranium-235, beryllium and lithium-6, which are used in atom
bombs and even hydrogen bombs. And in Harold Macmillan's time we
supplied the heavy water that allowed Israel to start up its own
plutonium production facility at Dimona - heavy water that British
intelligence estimated would enable Israel to make "six nuclear
weapons a year".
After we exposed the sale of the heavy water on Newsnight last August, the
government assured the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that
all Britain did was sell some heavy water back to Norway. Using the
Freedom of Information Act, we have now obtained previously
top-secret papers which show not only that Norway was a mere cover for the
Israel deal, but that Britain made hundreds of other secret
shipments of nuclear materials to Israel in the 1950s and 1960s.
Tony Benn became technology minister in 1966, while the plutonium deal was
going through. Though the nuclear industry was part of his brief, nobody
told him we were exporting atomic energy materials to Israel.
"I'm not only surprised," he says, "I'm shocked." Neither he nor his
predecessor Frank Cousins agreed to the sales, he insists, and though he
always suspected civil servants of doing deals behind his back, "it never
occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the
policy of the government".
The documentary evidence is backed by eyewitness testimony. Back in
August 1960, when covert photographs of a mysterious site at Dimona in
Israel arrived at Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) in Whitehall, a
brilliant analyst called Peter Kelly saw immediately that they showed a
secret nuclear reactor. Today Kelly, physically frail but mentally acute,
lives in retirement on the south coast, and as he leafs through the "UK
Eyes Only" reports he wrote about Israel for MI5 and MI6, he smiles. "I
was quite perceptive," he says. Kelly recognised that the Dimona reactor
was a French design, and he very soon discovered where the heavy water
needed to operate it had come from. When we explain that the government
has told the IAEA that Britain thought it was selling the heavy water to
Norway he laughs heartily.
What really happened was this: Britain had bought the heavy water from
Norsk Hydro in Norway for its nuclear weapons programme, but found it was
surplus to requirements and decided to sell. An arrangement was indeed
made with a Norwegian company, Noratom, but crucially the papers
show that Noratom was not the true buyer: the firm agreed to broker a
deal with Israel in return for a 2 per cent commission.
Israel paid the top price - 1m pounds - to avoid having to give
guarantees that the material would not be used to make nuclear weapons,
but the papers leave no doubt that Britain knew all along that Israel
wanted the heavy water "to produce plutonium". Kelly discovered
that a charade was played out, with British and Israeli delegations
sitting in adjacent rooms while Noratom ferried contracts between
them to maintain the fiction that Britain had not done the deal with
Israel.
The transaction was signed off for the Foreign Office by Donald Cape,
whose job it was to make sure we didn't export materials that would
help other countries get the atom bomb. He felt it would be
"overzealous" to demand safeguards to prevent Israel using the
chemical in weapons production. Cape is 82 now, tall, clear-headed and
living in Surrey. He told us the deal was done because "nobody
suspected the Israelis hoped to manufacture nuclear weapons", but his own
declassified letters from March 1959 suggest otherwise. They show, for
example, that the Foreign Office knew Israel had pulled out of a deal to
buy uranium from South Africa when Pretoria asked for safeguards
to prevent it being used for making nuclear weapons. It also knew the
CIA was warning that "the Israelis must be expected to try and establish
a nuclear weapons programme". Just weeks later, however, Britain
started shipping heavy water direct to Israel: the first shipment left in
June 1959 and the second in June 1960.
There was another problem: the Americans. There was no US-Israeli
alliance in those days and Washington was determined to prevent
nuclear weapons proliferation. If Britain told the Americans about the
Israeli deal they would stop it. Donald Cape decided on discretion: "I
would rather not tell the Americans." When Newsnight told Robert
McNamara - John F Ken nedy's defence secretary - about this he was
amazed. "The fact Israel was trying to develop a nuclear bomb should not
have come as a surprise, but that Britain should have supplied it with
heavy water was indeed a surprise to me," he said.
Kelly's reports for the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) on "secret
atomic activities in Israel" show that Britain's defence and espionage
establishment had no doubt about what was going on in Israel. Kelly
wrote of underground galleries at the Dimona complex; there were such
galleries. He correctly described the French role in the project. He
identified the importance of the heavy water: with 20 tons of this
material, he estimated, Israel could have a reactor capable of
producing "significant quantities of plutonium". British intelligence
also knew about the reprocessing facility at Dimona and stated: "The
separation of plutonium can only mean that Israel intends to produce
nuclear weapons." Kelly even discovered that an Israeli observer had
been allowed to watch one of the first French nuclear tests in
Algeria.
Kelly and his colleagues, however, found their views were being
challenged. Chief of the challengers was Michael Israel Michaels (such was
his middle name, literally), who was a senior official at the science
ministry under Lord Hailsham during the Macmillan government, and went
on to serve at the technology ministry under Benn. He was also Britain's
representative at the IAEA.
In 1961 Michaels was invited to Israel by the Israeli nuclear chief
Ernst David Bergmann, and while there was given VIP treatment. He met not
only Bergmann but Shimon Peres, the deputy defence minister, and David
Ben-Gurion, the prime minister - the three fathers of the Israeli
atomic bomb. Peter Kelly had warned his superiors that Israel might use
the Michaels trip as part of a disinformation campaign to show
"everything is above board", and this is what appears to have happened.
Michaels's report gave Israel the all-clear, and he handed it to
Hailsham at an important moment, two days before Ben-Gurion met Macmillan
at Downing Street. Kelly later took the report apart line by line and
concluded by offering his own prediction that Israel might have a
"deliverable warhead" by 1967.
In 1962 the Dimona reactor started operating (thanks to the heavy
water Britain had delivered), yet Michaels continued to protest
Israel's innocence. The Israelis, meanwhile, were allowing the US to
make inspection visits to Dimona once a year to demonstrate that it was
not being used for military purposes, but Kelly saw that this, too,
was a con. The tours were "heavily stage managed", he wrote in 1963,
and "important developments were concealed". He was right: we now know
that false walls screened parts of the plant from the inspectors.
Three years later, at the beginning of 1966, something extraordinary
happened. The UK Atomic Energy Authority made what it called a "pretty
harmless request" to the government: it wanted to export ten
milligrams of plutonium to Israel. The Ministry of Defence strongly
objected, with Defence Intelligence (Kelly's department) arguing that the
sale might have "significant military value". The Foreign Office duly
blocked it, ruling: "It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would
assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons." Michaels was
furious. He wrote "to protest strongly" against the decision, saying
that small quantities of plutonium were not important and anyhow if we
didn't sell it to the Israelis someone else would.
Michaels could be a bulldozer - he was short and bald, described as
pugnacious and hard-headed by colleagues - and he won his battle.
Eventually the Foreign Office caved in and the sale went ahead.
What is most surprising about the position adopted by Michaels is
that, as the new documents show, a few years earlier he had taken the
direct opposite view of the value of small quantities of plutonium. In
1961 he received a JIC report suggesting that Israel would take at
least three years to make enough plutonium and then another six months to
work out how to make a bomb. In the margin beside the claim about the
six months he wrote: "This surely is an understatement if the Israelis
have no plutonium on which to experiment in advance." Then it occurred to
him that a friendly power might give Israel a sample of plutonium to
speed up the process: "Perhaps the French have supplied a small quantity
for experimental purposes as we did to the French in like circumstances
some years ago" (see panel, above). What this shows is that Michaels, in
the full knowledge of how useful it could be for weapons development,
went on to persuade the British government to sell Israel a sample of
plutonium.
Today, Tony Benn can hardly believe that Michaels never referred the
nuclear sales to him. Going through his diaries, Benn finds dozens of
references to meetings with Michaels which show that he didn't trust him
even then. "Michaels lied to me. I learned by bitter experience that
the nuclear industry lied to me again and again." Kelly believes that
Michaels knew all along what Israel was doing, but since he died in 1992
we can't ask him. According to his son Chris, after Michaels retired from
the IAEA in 1971 the Israelis found him a job in London for a couple of
years.
The atomic files give details of hundreds more nuclear deals with
Israel. Many are small orders for compounds of uranium, beryllium and
tritium, as well as other materials that can be used for both innocent and
military purposes. In November 1959 someone at the Foreign Office allowed
through the export of a small quantity of uranium-235 to Israel,
apparently without realising that it was a core nuclear explosive
material just like plutonium.
Some materials may have been for advanced bombs. In 1966 UKAEA
supplied Israel with 1.25 grams of almost pure lithium-6. When
combined with deuterium, this material provides the fusion fuel for
hydrogen bombs. Britain also supplied two tons of unenriched lithium,
from which lithium-6 is extracted - enough for several hydrogen bombs.
Deuterium, incidentally, is normally extracted from heavy water,
which, of course, Britain had already shipped to Israel.
Throughout this period, Defence Intelligence repeatedly complained
that Israel was the only country getting nuclear export licences "on the
basis of the meaningless phrase 'scientific and research
purposes'". The Department of Trade tried to exempt Israeli deals
completely on the grounds that these were government-to-government
transactions, but DIS was outraged, saying such deals were meant only for
"people like most of our Nato partners who can be trusted . . .
Israel however is a very different kettle of fish." In August 1966 the
Israeli armed forces orater deal after it had gone through and
concluded that Israel was "preparing for a weapons programme".
Benn's initial reaction to whether Wilson knew about the atomic exports
to Israel was that it was "inconceivable". Then he hesitated, observing,
"Harold was sympathetic to Israel," but concluded that no, he probably did
not know. Benn believes that the exports were probably pushed through by
civil servants working with the nuclear industry.
There was no plausible civilian use for heavy water, plutonium, U235,
highly enriched lithium and many of the other materials shipped to Israel.
The heavy water allowed Israel to fire up Dimona and produce the plutonium
that enriched lithium and many of the other materials shipped to Israel.
The heavy water allowed Israel to fire up Dimona and produce the plutonium
that still sits in Israel's missile warheads today. The small sample of
plutonium could have shaved months off the development time of the Israeli
atomic bomb in the run-up to the Six Day War.
In a letter this year to Sir Menzies Campbell, the Foreign Office minister
Kim Howells has quietly conceded Britain knew the heavy water was going to
Israel. He has yet to find time to tell the IAEA that, or indeed to tell
it about the plutonium or the uranium-235 or the enriched lithium. Howells
and his boss, Jack Straw, are too busy telling the IAEA about the dangers
of nuclear proliferation in another corner of the Middle East.
Meirion Jones produced Michael Crick's report for Newsnight (BBC2) on the
Israeli nuclear sales, which is broadcast on 9 March
HOW WE HELPED THE FRENCH
In May 1954 the French were fighting and losing their colonial war against
Ho Chi Minh's armies in Vietnam. At home they were slowly establishing a
nuclear infrastructure, but the setbacks in Indochina convinced some that
they needed the atomic bomb and they needed it quickly.
On 6 May, therefore, as the final battle at Dien Bien Phu neared its
climax, France's nuclear bosses sent a request to the chairman of the
British Atomic Energy Authority. It was a shopping list of items that
would help them build nuclear weapons, including a sample quantity of
plutonium "soource says that when Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958
he personally thanked Harold Macmillan for the team's work.
There remained France's request for plutonium. In 1955 Britain agreed to
export ten grams but "we would not tell the US that we were going to
give the French plutonium nor about any similar cases". France
exploded its first atomic bomb in 1960.
*****************************************************************
23 [NYTr] Russian Nuke Research Offer Ruffles West
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 03:06:23 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Reuters - Mar 7, 2006
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060307/3/3z78f.html
Russian Nuke Research Offer to Iran Ruffles West
VIENNA (Reuters) - Russia has offered to let Iran do some atomic research
if it refrains from enriching uranium on an industrial scale for 7 to 9
years, diplomats said on Tuesday, cracking big-power unity on how to stop
Tehran getting the bomb.
Iran reacted coolly, with one diplomat saying Tehran could accept a
two-year moratorium on industrial atomic fuel production, but not longer,
in exchange for centrifuge research.
And he said Iran's idea of research entailed running nearly 3,000
enrichment centrifuges, which the West would consider industrial-scale and
could yield highly enriched uranium sufficient for one nuclear bomb per
year.
Washington rejected any concession to let Iran feed uranium gas into a
small cascade, or chain, of centrifuges, saying it would inevitably give
Tehran the know-how to make warheads.
Britain, Germany and France agreed with its U.S. ally, diplomats from the
EU trio said, and Berlin's IAEA ambassador said reports that Germany was
amenable to the idea were wrong.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the watchdog International Atomic Energy
Agency, alluded to Moscow's formula when he held out hope on Monday for a
deal soon to defuse the crisis without U.N. Security Council intervention
against Iran. A council debate on Iran looms after an IAEA board meeting
now in its second day.
"Any moratorium of more than two years and any suspension of nuclear
research activities (as the West demands) will make it difficult to reach
a deal. The face-saving solution is to enrich uranium on a limited scale
. during the two years," he said.
Iran says its nuclear programme aims solely at generating electricity. But
it concealed atomic research from the IAEA for 18 years and its calls for
Israel's destruction alarm the West.
"Russia has circulated a proposal to the (EU and U.S.) capitals that would
let Iran conduct limited enrichment research if it suspends
industrial-scale efforts for 7 to 9 years," said a diplomat from one of
the three EU powers.
He said the plan, still exploratory and only verbal, would also require
Tehran to ratify a protocol allowing snap IAEA inspections of its atomic
sites and accept a joint venture under which Russia would supply Tehran
with low-enriched uranium.
Like other officials, he asked not to be identified in exchange for
divulging details of the diplomatic manoeuvring.
Russian diplomats were expected to meet experts in the IAEA's secretariat
later this week to get a technical assessment as to what level of nuclear
research in Iran could be "safe" from the risk of diversion into a
military programme, he said.
Asked about the reports, a spokesman at Russia's Foreign Ministry said it
"needs more time" before it could comment.
BRIDGING IRAN-EU GAP
Moscow's reported package looked like an effort to bridge a gap between
Iran's previously expressed readiness to defer any firing up of thousands
of centrifuges for up to two years and the EU trio's demand for a 10-year
moratorium on all enrichment.
The diplomat close to Iran's negotiations said Tehran could discuss "more
intensive monitoring" of research activities with the IAEA within the
framework of a deal with Russia.
But Washington again ruled out letting Iran pursue any atomic fuel
development and predicted the Security Council would tackle Iran's case,
barring a sudden Iranian change of heart.
Russian and U.S. officials expected a frank airing of differences on Iran
when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meets U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice later on Tuesday.
"You can't have the regime pursuing enrichment on any scale," said State
Department spokesman Tom Casey, "because pursuing (that) allows them to
master the technology, complete the fuel cycle -- and then that technology
can easily be applied to a clandestine program for assembling nuclear
weapons."
But diplomats said Russia and ElBaradei see the gesture as a way to
restrain Iranian hardliners who say a disgruntled Iran might quit the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In defying calls to halt all enrichment-related work, Iran seems to be
counting on divisions in the Security Council over whether to resort to
sanctions mooted by the United States.
While Moscow and Beijing also do not want Iran to acquire atom bomb
technology, they want to protect big trade stakes with Tehran and could
use their council vetoes to block sanctions.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Washington, might try to
get EU allies and others join it in non-U.N. travel and financial
sanctions on Iran if Tehran proved obdurate.
Herbert Honsowitz, Germany's ambassador to the IAEA, denied reports Berlin
was warming to Russia's offer. "We have not accepted it or considered it
in any way," he told Reuters.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
24 NS Exculsive: UK helped Israel to make Nuclear Weapons
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:58:30 -0600 (CST)
Monday 13th March 2006
New Statesman
www.newstatesman.com
Cover story
Exculsive
Britain's dirty secret
Secret papers show how Britain helped Israel make the A-bomb in
the 1960s, supplying tons of vital chemicals including plutonium and
uranium. And it looks as though Harold Wilson and his ministers knew
nothing about it.
By
Meirion Jones
Mirage jets swoop from the sky to destroy the Egyptian air force before
breakfast; tanks race across the desert to the Suez Canal; Moshe Dayan, the
defence minister, poses with eyepatch after the Jerusalem brigade has fought
its way into the Old City. These are the heroic images of the Six Day War
and they defined Israeli daring: here was a people who, it seemed, risked
everything on a throw of the dice. Years later the world discovered that
there was an insurance policy.
They had a secret weapon - two, to be precise. In the weeks before Israel
took on the Arab world in June 1967 it put together a pair of crude nuclear
bombs, just in case things didn't go as planned. Making them required not
only Israeli ingenuity but also plenty of help from abroad. It has been
known for some time that the French helped build Israel's reactor and
reprocessing plant at Dimona, but over the past year our research team at
BBC Newsnight has unearthed something no less astonishing and much closer to
home - top-secret files which show how Britain helped Israel get the atomic
bomb.
We can reveal that while Harold Wilson was prime minister the UK supplied
Israel with small quantities of plutonium despite a warning from British
intelligence that it might "make a material contribution to an Israeli
weapons programme". This, by enabling Israel to study the properties of
plutonium before its own supplies came on line, could have taken months off
the time it needed to make a weapon. Britain also sold Israel a whole range
of other exotic chemicals, including uranium-235, beryllium and lithium-6,
which are used in atom bombs and even hydrogen bombs. And in Harold
Macmillan's time we supplied the heavy water that allowed Israel to start up
its own plutonium production facility at Dimona - heavy water that British
intelligence estimated would enable Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a
year".
After we exposed the sale of the heavy water on Newsnight last August, the
government assured the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that all
Britain did was sell some heavy water back to Norway. Using the Freedom of
Information Act, we have now obtained previously top-secret papers which
show not only that Norway was a mere cover for the Israel deal, but that
Britain made hundreds of other secret shipments of nuclear materials to
Israel in the 1950s and 1960s.
Tony Benn became technology minister in 1966, while the plutonium deal was
going through. Though the nuclear industry was part of his brief, nobody
told him we were exporting atomic energy materials to Israel. "I'm not only
surprised," he says, "I'm shocked." Neither he nor his predecessor Frank
Cousins agreed to the sales, he insists, and though he always suspected
civil servants of doing deals behind his back, "it never occurred to me they
would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government".
The documentary evidence is backed by eyewitness testimony. Back in August
1960, when covert photographs of a mysterious site at Dimona in Israel
arrived at Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) in Whitehall, a brilliant
analyst called Peter Kelly saw immediately that they showed a secret nuclear
reactor. Today Kelly, physically frail but mentally acute, lives in
retirement on the south coast, and as he leafs through the "UK Eyes Only"
reports he wrote about Israel for MI5 and MI6, he smiles. "I was quite
perceptive," he says. Kelly recognised that the Dimona reactor was a French
design, and he very soon discovered where the heavy water needed to operate
it had come from. When we explain that the government has told the IAEA that
Britain thought it was selling the heavy water to Norway he laughs heartily.
What really happened was this: Britain had bought the heavy water from Norsk
Hydro in Norway for its nuclear weapons programme, but found it was surplus
to requirements and decided to sell. An arrangement was indeed made with a
Norwegian company, Noratom, but crucially the papers show that Noratom was
not the true buyer: the firm agreed to broker a deal with Israel in return
for a 2 per cent commission. Israel paid the top price - #1m - to avoid
having to give guarantees that the material would not be used to make
nuclear weapons, but the papers leave no doubt that Britain knew all along
that Israel wanted the heavy water "to produce plutonium". Kelly discovered
that a charade was played out, with British and Israeli delegations sitting
in adjacent rooms while Noratom ferried contracts between them to maintain
the fiction that Britain had not done the deal with Israel.
The transaction was signed off for the Foreign Office by Donald Cape, whose
job it was to make sure we didn't export materials that would help other
countries get the atom bomb. He felt it would be "overzealous" to demand
safeguards to prevent Israel using the chemical in weapons production. Cape
is 82 now, tall, clear-headed and living in Surrey. He told us the deal was
done because "nobody suspected the Israelis hoped to manufacture nuclear
weapons", but his own declassified letters from March 1959 suggest
otherwise. They show, for example, that the Foreign Office knew Israel had
pulled out of a deal to buy uranium from South Africa when Pretoria asked
for safeguards to prevent it being used for making nuclear weapons. It also
knew the CIA was warning that "the Israelis must be expected to try and
establish a nuclear weapons programme". Just weeks later, however, Britain
started shipping heavy water direct to Israel: the first shipment left in
June 1959 and the second in June 1960.
There was another problem: the Americans. There was no US-Israeli alliance
in those days and Washington was determined to prevent nuclear weapons
proliferation. If Britain told the Americans about the Israeli deal they
would stop it. Donald Cape decided on discretion: "I would rather not tell
the Americans." When Newsnight told Robert McNamara - John F Kennedy's
defence secretary - about this he was amazed. "The fact Israel was trying to
develop a nuclear bomb should not have come as a surprise, but that Britain
should have supplied it with heavy water was indeed a surprise to me," he
said.
Kelly's reports for the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) on "secret atomic
activities in Israel" show that Britain's defence and espionage
establishment had no doubt about what was going on in Israel. Kelly wrote of
underground galleries at the Dimona complex; there were such galleries. He
correctly described the French role in the project. He identified the
importance of the heavy water: with 20 tons of this material, he estimated,
Israel could have a reactor capable of producing "significant quantities of
plutonium". British intelligence also knew about the reprocessing facility
at Dimona and stated: "The separation of plutonium can only mean that Israel
intends to produce nuclear weapons." Kelly even discovered that an Israeli
observer had been allowed to watch one of the first French nuclear tests in
Algeria.
Kelly and his colleagues, however, found their views were being challenged.
Chief of the challengers was Michael Israel Michaels (such was his middle
name, literally), who was a senior official at the science ministry under
Lord Hailsham during the Macmillan government, and went on to serve at the
technology ministry under Benn. He was also Britain's representative at the
IAEA.
In 1961 Michaels was invited to Israel by the Israeli nuclear chief Ernst
David Bergmann, and while there was given VIP treatment. He met not only
Bergmann but Shimon Peres, the deputy defence minister, and David
Ben-Gurion, the prime minister - the three fathers of the Israeli atomic
bomb. Peter Kelly had warned his superiors that Israel might use the
Michaels trip as part of a disinformation campaign to show "everything is
above board", and this is what appears to have happened. Michaels's report
gave Israel the all-clear, and he handed it to Hailsham at an important
moment, two days before Ben-Gurion met Macmillan at Downing Street. Kelly
later took the report apart line by line and concluded by offering his own
prediction that Israel might have a "deliverable warhead" by 1967.
In 1962 the Dimona reactor started operating (thanks to the heavy water
Britain had delivered), yet Michaels continued to protest Israel's
innocence. The Israelis, meanwhile, were allowing the US to make inspection
visits to Dimona once a year to demonstrate that it was not being used for
military purposes, but Kelly saw that this, too, was a con. The tours were
"heavily stage managed", he wrote in 1963, and "important developments were
concealed". He was right: we now know that false walls screened parts of the
plant from the inspectors.
Three years later, at the beginning of 1966, something extraordinary
happened. The UK Atomic Energy Authority made what it called a "pretty
harmless request" to the government: it wanted to export ten milligrams of
plutonium to Israel. The Ministry of Defence strongly objected, with Defence
Intelligence (Kelly's department) arguing that the sale might have
"significant military value". The Foreign Office duly blocked it, ruling:
"It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the
production of nuclear weapons."
Michaels was furious. He wrote "to protest strongly" against the decision,
saying that small quantities of plutonium were not important and anyhow if
we didn't sell it to the Israelis someone else would. Michaels could be a
bulldozer - he was short and bald, described as pugnacious and hard-headed
by colleagues - and he won his battle. Eventually the Foreign Office caved
in and the sale went ahead.
What is most surprising about the position adopted by Michaels is that, as
the new documents show, a few years earlier he had taken the direct opposite
view of the value of small quantities of plutonium. In 1961 he received a
JIC report suggesting that Israel would take at least three years to make
enough plutonium and then another six months to work out how to make a bomb.
In the margin beside the claim about the six months he wrote: "This surely
is an understatement if the Israelis have no plutonium on which to
experiment in advance." Then it occurred to him that a friendly power might
give Israel a sample of plutonium to speed up the process: "Perhaps the
French have supplied a small quantity for experimental purposes as we did to
the French in like circumstances some years ago". What this shows is that
Michaels, in the full knowledge of how useful it could be for weapons
development, went on to persuade the British government to sell Israel a
sample of plutonium.
Today, Tony Benn can hardly believe that Michaels never referred the nuclear
sales to him. Going through his diaries, Benn finds dozens of references to
meetings with Michaels which show that he didn't trust him even then.
"Michaels lied to me. I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear
industry lied to me again and again." Kelly believes that Michaels knew all
along what Israel was doing, but since he died in 1992 we can't ask him.
According to his son Chris, after Michaels retired from the IAEA in 1971 the
Israelis found him a job in London for a couple of years.
The atomic files give details of hundreds more nuclear deals with Israel.
Many are small orders for compounds of uranium, beryllium and tritium, as
well as other materials that can be used for both innocent and military
purposes. In November 1959 someone at the Foreign Office allowed through the
export of a small quantity of uranium-235 to Israel, apparently without
realising that it was a core nuclear explosive material just like plutonium.
Some materials may have been for advanced bombs. In 1966 UKAEA supplied
Israel with 1.25 grams of almost pure lithium-6. When combined with
deuterium, this material provides the fusion fuel for hydrogen bombs.
Britain also supplied two tons of unenriched lithium, from which lithium-6
is extracted - enough for several hydrogen bombs. Deuterium, incidentally,
is normally extracted from heavy water, which, of course, Britain had
already shipped to Israel.
Throughout this period, Defence Intelligence repeatedly complained that
Israel was the only country getting nuclear export licences "on the basis of
the meaningless phrase 'scientific and research purposes'". The Department
of Trade tried to exempt Israeli deals completely on the grounds that these
were government-to-government transactions, but DIS was outraged, saying
such deals were meant only for "people like most of our Nato partners who
can be trusted . . . Israel however is a very different kettle of fish." In
August 1966 the Israeli armed forces ordered advanced radiation dosimeters.
The Foreign Office said yes and overruled the strong objections of the
British MoD that they were obviously for use by troops. DIS wanted to know
why Israel was always given special treatment, adding: "We feel quite
strongly about all this."
Tony Benn wonders whether these deals could have gone ahead without the
knowledge of the British prime ministers of the time, Macmillan, Sir Alec
Douglas-Home and Wilson. The evidence is unclear. The newly declassified
papers show that in 1958 a member of the board of UKAEA said he was going to
refer the heavy-water deal to the authority's executive, which reported
directly to Macmillan, but there is no record that this happened. We know
that Lord Hailsham learned about the heavy-water deal after it had gone
through and concluded that Israel was "preparing for a weapons programme".
Benn's initial reaction to whether Wilson knew about the atomic exports to
Israel was that it was "inconceivable". Then he hesitated, observing,
"Harold was sympathetic to Israel," but concluded that no, he probably did
not know. Benn believes that the exports were probably pushed through by
civil servants working with the nuclear industry.
There was no plausible civilian use for heavy water, plutonium, U235, highly
enriched lithium and many of the other materials shipped to Israel. The
heavy water allowed Israel to fire up Dimona and produce the plutonium that
still sits in Israel's missile warheads today. The small sample of plutonium
could have shaved months off the development time of the Israeli atomic bomb
in the run-up to the Six Day War.
In a letter this year to Sir Menzies Campbell, the Foreign Office minister
Kim Howells has quietly conceded Britain knew the heavy water was going to
Israel. He has yet to find time to tell the IAEA that, or indeed to tell it
about the plutonium or the uranium-235 or the enriched lithium. Howells and
his boss, Jack Straw, are too busy telling the IAEA about the dangers of
nuclear proliferation in another corner of the Middle East.
Meirion Jones produced Michael Crick's report for Newsnight (BBC2) on the
Israeli nuclear sales, which is broadcast on 9 March
How we helped the French
In May 1954 the French were fighting and losing their colonial war against
Ho Chi Minh's armies in Vietnam. At home they were slowly establishing a
nuclear infrastructure, but the setbacks in Indochina convinced some that
they needed the atomic bomb and they needed it quickly.
On 6 May, therefore, as the final battle at Dien Bien Phu neared its climax,
France's nuclear bosses sent a request to the chairman of the British Atomic
Energy Authority. It was a shopping list of items that would help them build
nuclear weapons, including a sample quantity of plutonium "so we can take
the steps preparatory to the utilisation of our own plutonium". Britain knew
about these things: it had exploded its own bomb less than two years
earlier.
Before the letter even arrived the French had lost the battle and the war.
Later that year the French prime minister, Pierre Mendes France, made the
formal decision to build the atomic bomb. It took another year to negotiate
the deal, but in the end Britain agreed to supply nuclear materials,
including enriched uranium. Among the most important parts of the agreement
was an arrangement for the British to check the blueprints and construction
of French plutonium production reactors.
According to one source, this not only helped the French get their military
plutonium reactor at Marcoule into operation quickly but it also averted a
disaster, for the British found defects which could have caused a
catastrophic explosion at the Rhone Valley site. The same source says that
when Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958 he personally thanked Harold
Macmillan for the team's work.
There remained France's request for plutonium. In 1955 Britain agreed to
export ten grams but "we would not tell the US that we were going to give
the French plutonium nor about any similar cases". France exploded its first
atomic bomb in 1960.
==========
http://www.newstatesman.com/200603130011
==========
*****************************************************************
25 [southnews] UK supplied Israel with plutonium in 1966
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:33:35 -0600 (CST)
Britain secretly supplied Israel with plutonium in 1966 despite warnings
from military intelligence that it could allow them to develop a nuclear
bomb.
BBC2's Newsnight reports that the deal was recorded in top secret
documents obtained under freedom of information laws.
Along with 10 milligrammes of plutonium, the UK supplied hundreds of
shipments of other materials which could have helped a nuclear weapons
programme, including compounds of uranium, lithium, beryllium and
tritium, as well as heavy water, according to Newsnight.
The deals took place as Israel developed its secret Dimona nuclear
reactor, which is believed to have allowed the country to acquire
nuclear weapons by the time of the Six Day War in 1967.
Newsnight uncovered documents last year which suggested Britain supplied
heavy water during the premiership of Conservative Prime Minister Harold
Macmillan, allowing Israel to start up production of plutonium at Dimona.
____________________
Secret sale of UK plutonium to Israel
By Meirion Jones
BBC Newsnight
The UK supplied Israel with quantities of plutonium while Harold Wilson
was prime minister, BBC Newsnight can reveal.
The sale was made despite a warning from British intelligence that it
might "make a material contribution to an Israeli weapons programme".
Under Wilson, Britain also sold Israel tons of chemicals used to make
boosted atom bombs 20 times more powerful than Hiroshima or even
Hydrogen Bombs.
In Harold Macmillan's time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy
water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production
plant at Dimona - heavy water which British intelligence estimated would
allow Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".
All export licensing of materials associated with civil nuclear
programmes went through stringent checks across Whitehall
Foreign Office
Last August on BBC Newsnight we revealed the first British/Israeli deal,
the sale of the heavy water, but the government responded by telling the
International Atomic Energy Agency the UK was not a party to any sale to
Israel and that all it did was sell some heavy water back to Norway.
Hundreds of shipments
Using Freedom of Information, Newsnight has obtained top secret papers.
They show Foreign Minister Kim Howells misled the IAEA and that Britain
made not one, but hundreds of secret shipments of nuclear materials to
Israel.
Tony Benn became Minister of Technology in 1966 while the plutonium deal
was going through. The nuclear industry was part of his "white heat of
technology" brief but no one told him that we were exporting atomic
energy materials to Israel.
"I'm not only surprised, I'm shocked," he says, adding that neither he
nor his predecessor Frank Cousins, who was a member of CND, agreed to
the sales.
Benn says he always suspected civil servants were doing deals behind his
back but he never thought they would sell plutonium to Israel. "It never
occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the
policy of the government."
Dimona
Back in August 1960 covertly taken photos of a mysterious site at Dimona
in Israel arrived at Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) in Whitehall. A
brilliant analyst called Peter Kelly immediately realized they showed a
secret nuclear reactor and he alerted the rest of British intelligence.
Kelly recognized it was a French reactor and soon discovered where the
heavy water to run it had come from.
Britain had bought heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Norway for its
nuclear weapons programme but found it was surplus to requirements and
needed a buyer. The papers obtained by Newsnight show that a company
called Noratom acted as a consultant and arranged the deals in return
for a 2% commission.
Britain knew all along that Israel wanted the heavy water "to produce
plutonium" and Israel paid the full military price - #1 million - to
avoid safeguards to stop the plutonium being used to make nuclear weapons.
Kelly discovered a charade was played out with the UK and Israeli
delegations sitting in adjacent rooms while Noratom ferried separate
contracts to and fro so Britain could say they hadn't signed a deal with
Israel.
Cover story
Once the press heard about Dimona in December 1960 there was an
international outcry. Israel put out a cover story that it was a small
research reactor. This did not fool Kelly. Using the figure of 20 tons
of heavy water he estimated that Israel could build a reactor capable of
producing "significant quantities of plutonium".
British intelligence learnt there was also a reprocessing plant and
concluded "the separation of plutonium can only mean that Israel intends
to produce nuclear weapons". Kelly even discovered that an Israeli
observer had been allowed to watch one of the first French nuclear tests
in Algeria.
Kelly and his colleagues in intelligence soon found their views about
Israel were being challenged by Britain's representative at the IAEA
Mike Michaels, who worked for one of the main figures in Harold
Macmillan's Cabinet - Lord Hailsham.
Michaels received a JIC report early in 1961 estimating Israel would
take at least three years to make enough plutonium and then another six
months to work out how to make a bomb.
But it occurred to him that a friendly power might give Israel a small
sample of plutonium to speed up the process. "Perhaps the French have
supplied a small quantity for experimental purposes as we did to the
French in like circumstances some years ago," he noted in the margin of
the report. A few years later Michaels persuaded the UK to sell Israel a
small sample of plutonium when he was aware - as this note shows - that
this might cut months off the time it took them to get the Bomb.
Invitation
The Israeli nuclear chief, Ernst David Bergmann, personally invited
Michaels to Israel. Kelly warned Israel might use Michaels as part of a
disinformation campaign to show "everything is above board". Michaels
was given VIP treatment. He met not only Bergmann but Shimon Peres and
Prime Minister David Ben Gurion - the three fathers of the Israeli Bomb.
As Kelly suspected, Michaels' report gave Israel the all clear and he
handed it to Hailsham at a crucial time, two days before Ben Gurion met
Harold Macmillan at Downing Street.
In 1962 the Dimona reactor started turning uranium into plutonium,
thanks to the heavy water Britain had delivered, but Michaels continued
to protest Israel's innocence.
Then at the beginning of 1966 UK Atomic Energy Authority made what they
remarkably called a "pretty harmless request". They wanted to export 10
milligrammes of plutonium to Israel. The MoD strongly objected and
Defence Intelligence wrote directly to say the sale might have
"significant military value".
The Foreign Office told UKAEA "It is HMG's policy not to do anything
which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons" and
therefore they blocked the sale.
Sale
Michaels wrote angrily "to protest strongly" against the decision. Five
years earlier he had noted such a sale could speed up the Israeli bomb
programme, now he was powerfully advocating just that. He said small
quantities of plutonium were not important and anyhow if we didn't sell
it to the Israelis someone else would. The Foreign Office gave in and
the sale went ahead. Kelly believes Mike Michaels knew all along that
Israel was after the Bomb. He died in 1992.
Tony Benn is incredulous that Michaels never referred the Israeli
nuclear sales to him or Frank Cousins. They were after all the ministers
in charge of Britain's nuclear industry including imports and exports.
"Michaels lied to me. I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear
industry lied to me again and again".
The atomic files, which have been classified until now, detail hundreds
of nuclear deals with Israel flagged up as sensitive.
Benn's initial reaction to whether Harold Wilson knew about atomic
exports to Israel was "it's inconceivable". Then he muses: "Harold was
sympathetic to Israel," before concluding that this was probably a
conspiracy by civil servants and the nuclear industry to flout HMG policy.
This report can be seen on Newsnight on Thursday, 9 March, 2006.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4789832.stm
Published: 2006/03/09 18:50:19 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4789832.stm
_______________________
Britain's dirty secret
Cover story - New Statesman- Monday 13th March 2006
Meirion Jones
Exculsive - Secret papers show how Britain helped Israel make the A-bomb
in the 1960s, supplying tons of vital chemicals including plutonium and
uranium. And it looks as though Harold Wilson and his ministers knew
nothing about it. By Meirion Jones
Mirage jets swoop from the sky to destroy the Egyptian air force before
breakfast; tanks race across the desert to the Suez Canal; Moshe Dayan,
the defence minister, poses with eyepatch after the Jerusalem brigade
has fought its way into the Old City. These are the heroic images of the
Six Day War and they defined Israeli daring: here was a people who, it
seemed, risked everything on a throw of the dice. Years later the world
discovered that there was an insurance policy.
They had a secret weapon - two, to be precise. In the weeks before
Israel took on the Arab world in June 1967 it put together a pair of
crude nuclear bombs, just in case things didn't go as planned. Making
them required not only Israeli ingenuity but also plenty of help from
abroad. It has been known for some time that the French helped build
Israel's reactor and reprocessing plant at Dimona, but over the past
year our research team at BBC Newsnight has unearthed something no less
astonishing and much closer to home - top-secret files which show how
Britain helped Israel get the atomic bomb.
We can reveal that while Harold Wilson was prime minister the UK
supplied Israel with small quantities of plutonium despite a warning
from British intelligence that it might "make a material contribution to
an Israeli weapons programme". This, by enabling Israel to study the
properties of plutonium before its own supplies came on line, could have
taken months off the time it needed to make a weapon. Britain also sold
Israel a whole range of other exotic chemicals, including uranium-235,
beryllium and lithium-6, which are used in atom bombs and even hydrogen
bombs. And in Harold Macmillan's time we supplied the heavy water that
allowed Israel to start up its own plutonium production facility at
Dimona - heavy water that British intelligence estimated would enable
Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".
After we exposed the sale of the heavy water on Newsnight last August,
the government assured the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
that all Britain did was sell some heavy water back to Norway. Using the
Freedom of Information Act, we have now obtained previously top-secret
papers which show not only that Norway was a mere cover for the Israel
deal, but that Britain made hundreds of other secret shipments of
nuclear materials to Israel in the 1950s and 1960s.
Tony Benn became technology minister in 1966, while the plutonium deal
was going through. Though the nuclear industry was part of his brief,
nobody told him we were exporting atomic energy materials to Israel.
"I'm not only surprised," he says, "I'm shocked." Neither he nor his
predecessor Frank Cousins agreed to the sales, he insists, and though he
always suspected civil servants of doing deals behind his back, "it
never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against
the policy of the government".
The documentary evidence is backed by eyewitness testimony. Back in
August 1960, when covert photographs of a mysterious site at Dimona in
Israel arrived at Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) in Whitehall, a
brilliant analyst called Peter Kelly saw immediately that they showed a
secret nuclear reactor. Today Kelly, physically frail but mentally
acute, lives in retirement on the south coast, and as he leafs through
the "UK Eyes Only" reports he wrote about Israel for MI5 and MI6, he
smiles. "I was quite perceptive," he says. Kelly recognised that the
Dimona reactor was a French design, and he very soon discovered where
the heavy water needed to operate it had come from. When we explain that
the government has told the IAEA that Britain thought it was selling the
heavy water to Norway he laughs heartily.
What really happened was this: Britain had bought the heavy water from
Norsk Hydro in Norway for its nuclear weapons programme, but found it
was surplus to requirements and decided to sell. An arrangement was
indeed made with a Norwegian company, Noratom, but crucially the papers
show that Noratom was not the true buyer: the firm agreed to broker a
deal with Israel in return for a 2 per cent commission. Israel paid the
top price - #1m - to avoid having to give guarantees that the material
would not be used to make nuclear weapons, but the papers leave no doubt
that Britain knew all along that Israel wanted the heavy water "to
produce plutonium". Kelly discovered that a charade was played out, with
British and Israeli delegations sitting in adjacent rooms while Noratom
ferried contracts between them to maintain the fiction that Britain had
not done the deal with Israel.
The transaction was signed off for the Foreign Office by Donald Cape,
whose job it was to make sure we didn't export materials that would help
other countries get the atom bomb. He felt it would be "overzealous" to
demand safeguards to prevent Israel using the chemical in weapons
production. Cape is 82 now, tall, clear-headed and living in Surrey. He
told us the deal was done because "nobody suspected the Israelis hoped
to manufacture nuclear weapons", but his own declassified letters from
March 1959 suggest otherwise. They show, for example, that the Foreign
Office knew Israel had pulled out of a deal to buy uranium from South
Africa when Pretoria asked for safeguards to prevent it being used for
making nuclear weapons. It also knew the CIA was warning that "the
Israelis must be expected to try and establish a nuclear weapons
programme". Just weeks later, however, Britain started shipping heavy
water direct to Israel: the first shipment left in June 1959 and the
second in June 1960.
There was another problem: the Americans. There was no US-Israeli
alliance in those days and Washington was determined to prevent nuclear
weapons proliferation. If Britain told the Americans about the Israeli
deal they would stop it. Donald Cape decided on discretion: "I would
rather not tell the Americans." When Newsnight told Robert McNamara -
John F Ken-nedy's defence secretary - about this he was amazed. "The
fact Israel was trying to develop a nuclear bomb should not have come as
a surprise, but that Britain should have supplied it with heavy water
was indeed a surprise to me," he said.
Kelly's reports for the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) on "secret
atomic activities in Israel" show that Britain's defence and espionage
establishment had no doubt about what was going on in Israel. Kelly
wrote of underground galleries at the Dimona complex; there were such
galleries. He correctly described the French role in the project. He
identified the importance of the heavy water: with 20 tons of this
material, he estimated, Israel could have a reactor capable of producing
"significant quantities of plutonium". British intelligence also knew
about the reprocessing facility at Dimona and stated: "The separation of
plutonium can only mean that Israel intends to produce nuclear weapons."
Kelly even discovered that an Israeli observer had been allowed to watch
one of the first French nuclear tests in Algeria.
Kelly and his colleagues, however, found their views were being
challenged. Chief of the challengers was Michael Israel Michaels (such
was his middle name, literally), who was a senior official at the
science ministry under Lord Hailsham during the Macmillan government,
and went on to serve at the technology ministry under Benn. He was also
Britain's representative at the IAEA.
In 1961 Michaels was invited to Israel by the Israeli nuclear chief
Ernst David Bergmann, and while there was given VIP treatment. He met
not only Bergmann but Shimon Peres, the deputy defence minister, and
David Ben-Gurion, the prime minister - the three fathers of the Israeli
atomic bomb. Peter Kelly had warned his superiors that Israel might use
the Michaels trip as part of a disinformation campaign to show
"everything is above board", and this is what appears to have happened.
Michaels's report gave Israel the all-clear, and he handed it to
Hailsham at an important moment, two days before Ben-Gurion met
Macmillan at Downing Street. Kelly later took the report apart line by
line and concluded by offering his own prediction that Israel might have
a "deliverable warhead" by 1967.
In 1962 the Dimona reactor started operating (thanks to the heavy water
Britain had delivered), yet Michaels continued to protest Israel's
innocence. The Israelis, meanwhile, were allowing the US to make
inspection visits to Dimona once a year to demonstrate that it was not
being used for military purposes, but Kelly saw that this, too, was a
con. The tours were "heavily stage managed", he wrote in 1963, and
"important developments were concealed". He was right: we now know that
false walls screened parts of the plant from the inspectors.
Three years later, at the beginning of 1966, something extraordinary
happened. The UK Atomic Energy Authority made what it called a "pretty
harmless request" to the government: it wanted to export ten milligrams
of plutonium to Israel. The Ministry of Defence strongly objected, with
Defence Intelligence (Kelly's department) arguing that the sale might
have "significant military value". The Foreign Office duly blocked it,
ruling: "It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would assist Israel
in the production of nuclear weapons."
Michaels was furious. He wrote "to protest strongly" against the
decision, saying that small quantities of plutonium were not important
and anyhow if we didn't sell it to the Israelis someone else would.
Michaels could be a bulldozer - he was short and bald, described as
pugnacious and hard-headed by colleagues - and he won his battle.
Eventually the Foreign Office caved in and the sale went ahead.
What is most surprising about the position adopted by Michaels is that,
as the new documents show, a few years earlier he had taken the direct
opposite view of the value of small quantities of plutonium. In 1961 he
received a JIC report suggesting that Israel would take at least three
years to make enough plutonium and then another six months to work out
how to make a bomb. In the margin beside the claim about the six months
he wrote: "This surely is an understatement if the Israelis have no
plutonium on which to experiment in advance." Then it occurred to him
that a friendly power might give Israel a sample of plutonium to speed
up the process: "Perhaps the French have supplied a small quantity for
experimental purposes as we did to the French in like circumstances some
years ago" (see panel, above). What this shows is that Michaels, in the
full knowledge of how useful it could be for weapons development, went
on to persuade the British government to sell Israel a sample of plutonium.
Today, Tony Benn can hardly believe that Michaels never referred the
nuclear sales to him. Going through his diaries, Benn finds dozens of
references to meetings with Michaels which show that he didn't trust him
even then. "Michaels lied to me. I learned by bitter experience that the
nuclear industry lied to me again and again." Kelly believes that
Michaels knew all along what Israel was doing, but since he died in 1992
we can't ask him. According to his son Chris, after Michaels retired
from the IAEA in 1971 the Israelis found him a job in London for a
couple of years.
The atomic files give details of hundreds more nuclear deals with
Israel. Many are small orders for compounds of uranium, beryllium and
tritium, as well as other materials that can be used for both innocent
and military purposes. In November 1959 someone at the Foreign Office
allowed through the export of a small quantity of uranium-235 to Israel,
apparently without realising that it was a core nuclear explosive
material just like plutonium.
Some materials may have been for advanced bombs. In 1966 UKAEA supplied
Israel with 1.25 grams of almost pure lithium-6. When combined with
deuterium, this material provides the fusion fuel for hydrogen bombs.
Britain also supplied two tons of unenriched lithium, from which
lithium-6 is extracted - enough for several hydrogen bombs. Deuterium,
incidentally, is normally extracted from heavy water, which, of course,
Britain had already shipped to Israel.
Throughout this period, Defence Intelligence repeatedly complained that
Israel was the only country getting nuclear export licences "on the
basis of the meaningless phrase 'scientific and research purposes'". The
Department of Trade tried to exempt Israeli deals completely on the
grounds that these were government-to-government transactions, but DIS
was outraged, saying such deals were meant only for "people like most of
our Nato partners who can be trusted . . . Israel however is a very
different kettle of fish." In August 1966 the Israeli armed forces
ordered advanced radiation dosimeters. The Foreign Office said yes and
overruled the strong objections of the British MoD that they were
obviously for use by troops. DIS wanted to know why Israel was always
given special treatment, adding: "We feel quite strongly about all this."
Tony Benn wonders whether these deals could have gone ahead without the
knowledge of the British prime ministers of the time, Macmillan, Sir
Alec Douglas-Home and Wilson. The evidence is unclear. The newly
declassified papers show that in 1958 a member of the board of UKAEA
said he was going to refer the heavy-water deal to the authority's
executive, which reported directly to Macmillan, but there is no record
that this happened. We know that Lord Hailsham learned about the
heavy-water deal after it had gone through and concluded that Israel was
"preparing for a weapons programme".
Benn's initial reaction to whether Wilson knew about the atomic exports
to Israel was that it was "inconceivable". Then he hesitated, observing,
"Harold was sympathetic to Israel," but concluded that no, he probably
did not know. Benn believes that the exports were probably pushed
through by civil servants working with the nuclear industry.
There was no plausible civilian use for heavy water, plutonium, U235,
highly enriched lithium and many of the other materials shipped to
Israel. The heavy water allowed Israel to fire up Dimona and produce the
plutonium that still sits in Israel's missile warheads today. The small
sample of plutonium could have shaved months off the development time of
the Israeli atomic bomb in the run-up to the Six Day War.
In a letter this year to Sir Menzies Campbell, the Foreign Office
minister Kim Howells has quietly conceded Britain knew the heavy water
was going to Israel. He has yet to find time to tell the IAEA that, or
indeed to tell it about the plutonium or the uranium-235 or the enriched
lithium. Howells and his boss, Jack Straw, are too busy telling the IAEA
about the dangers of nuclear proliferation in another corner of the
Middle East.
Meirion Jones produced Michael Crick's report for Newsnight (BBC2) on
the Israeli nuclear sales, which is broadcast on 9 March
How we helped the French
In May 1954 the French were fighting and losing their colonial war
against Ho Chi Minh's armies in Vietnam. At home they were slowly
establishing a nuclear infrastructure, but the setbacks in Indochina
convinced some that they needed the atomic bomb and they needed it quickly.
On 6 May, therefore, as the final battle at Dien Bien Phu neared its
climax, France's nuclear bosses sent a request to the chairman of the
British Atomic Energy Authority. It was a shopping list of items that
would help them build nuclear weapons, including a sample quantity of
plutonium "so we can take the steps preparatory to the utilisation of
our own plutonium". Britain knew about these things: it had exploded its
own bomb less than two years earlier.
Before the letter even arrived the French had lost the battle and the
war. Later that year the French prime minister, Pierre Mendes France,
made the formal decision to build the atomic bomb. It took another year
to negotiate the deal, but in the end Britain agreed to supply nuclear
materials, including enriched uranium. Among the most important parts of
the agreement was an arrangement for the British to check the blueprints
and construction of French plutonium production reactors.
According to one source, this not only helped the French get their
military plutonium reactor at Marcoule into operation quickly but it
also averted a disaster, for the British found defects which could have
caused a catastrophic explosion at the Rhone Valley site. The same
source says that when Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958 he
personally thanked Harold Macmillan for the team's work.
There remained France's request for plutonium. In 1955 Britain agreed to
export ten grams but "we would not tell the US that we were going to
give the French plutonium nor about any similar cases". France exploded
its first atomic bomb in 1960.
Read more from the latest issue of the New Statesman
This article first appeared in the New Statesman. For the latest in
current and cultural affairs subscribe to the New Statesman print edition.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200603130011
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************
26 BBC: How are we doing on renewables?
Last Updated: Thursday, 9 March 2006
We have decided that Scotland shoul aspire to generate 40% of its
electricity from renewable sources by 2020
Three years ago, Scotland's Environment Minister Ross Finnie
announced an ambitious new target for electricity generation in
Scotland.
He had previously stated that 18% of electricity would be
generated from wind, wave, hydro, biomass and landfill gas by
2010.
The addition of wind farms to existing hydro projects has pushed
the Scottish Executive well on the way to the first target.
As Scotland's nuclear and coal-fired power stations reach the
end of their life, will renewables be able to plug the gap in 14
years' time?
DEPUTY MINISTER FOR ENTERPRISE ALLAN WILSON
We are confident that through a mix of energy sources and
improved energy efficiency, we will resolve any potential energy
gap in the future. An energy review at UK level is currently
looking at the best way this can be done.
The intention to extend the life of both Longannet and
Hunterston B will be a significant boost to Scotland's energy
capacity and increasing numbers of wind and hydro projects are
coming on stream.
Scotland also has the potential to be a world leader in marine
energy and I look forward to seeing how wave and tidal projects
develop in the future.
SNP ENERGY SPOKESMAN RICHARD LOCHHEAD
The SNP supports policies that will turn Scotland into a
renewables powerhouse and a centre of excellence for clean
technologies.
Scotland is an energy rich nation that can not only be
self-sufficient in secure and clean energy but can gain enormous
economic and environmental benefits.
There is no need for new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
They are unwanted given that nuclear is dangerous, dirty and
expensive. And new nuclear stations are not needed to meet our
energy needs.
Over and above emerging technologies such as solar, biomass and
tidal energy, we can now use our massive gas and coal reserves
cleanly.
It is very exciting to see new developments in the pipeline such
as the proposal for a hydrogen power station in Peterhead
producing carbon free electricity, an offshore windfarm in the
Moray Firth and the life-extension of Longannet, Scotland's
electricity workhorse, with the installation of clean
technologies.
To make this vision a reality, the Scottish Parliament needs the
energy powers to ensure energy rich Scotland is able to reap the
full benefits of our potential to eliminate fuel poverty and
reap the economic and environmental benefits.
SCOTTISH TORY ENERGY SPOKESMAN ALEX JOHNSTONE
We envisage a diverse mix of energy production to best answer
Scotland's future energy needs - and a balanced energy policy
means that no one existing or potential resource should be
ignored.
However, the concerns of climate change and CO2 emissions mean
that some modifications will have to be made. That could include
increasing our reliance on emission-free nuclear or changing the
technology to deal with resources, such as clean coal.
Renewables must also play their part. However, with the current
restrictions they pose due to intermittency and their impact on
the environment, we suspect that at present this will only be in
a limited, supportive role.
But perhaps if the Scottish Executive and the UK Government
revisited their renewable energy policy, this would change.
Firstly, by providing proper planning guidance on the siting of
wind farms for local authorities, communities and developers.
Secondly, by reviewing the Renewables Obligation Certificate
(ROC) system, to encourage entrepreneurs to develop the next
generation of renewable energy providers that will provide
reliable and constant emission-free energy, like wave and tidal
power, and energy from biomass and fuel cells technology.
GREEN MSP CHRIS BALLANCE
The Scottish Green Party wants to see greatly increased use of
renewable energy in Scotland. It is vital that we move towards a
low carbon and nuclear-free economy to tackle climate change and
pollution.
The full range of renewable power sources should be used. Wave
and tidal power, biomass, hydro, onshore and offshore wind,
solar, geothermal heat, combined heat and power and
microrenewable energy - all these and more, aided by reduced
energy use through energy efficiency measures - can easily
provide for Scotland's needs.
The Scottish Executive needs to provide many more incentives to
these industries so that Scotland can also gain thousands of
jobs and clean economic development.
Nuclear power is an unsustainable, uneconomic technology from
the past that is not wanted and not needed. A bright future lies
ahead in renewable energy and energy efficiency if only the
political will was there to do it properly.
*****************************************************************
27 BBC: Tories defeated over energy call
Last Updated: Thursday, 9 March 2006
[Hunterston power station]
The Tories are concerned about future nuclear provision
A Scottish Tory call for ministers to give a clear lead on
Scotland's energy policy has been rejected by MSPs.
The Conservative motion called for the Scottish Executive to
start planning immediately for replacing or renewing coal-fired
and nuclear power stations.
It was defeated by 61 votes to 41 in favour of an executive
amendment which endorsed its current policy.
An SNP amendment saying there was no case for building new
nuclear stations fell, as did a Green amendment.
Renewable energy
It had noted poll findings which showed that a "small minority"
of Scots supported new nuclear power.
The Labour-Lib Dem coalition executive's position is that it will
not supply further development of nuclear power while the
question of managing waste remains unresolved.
During a Holyrood debate, Tory energy spokesman Alex Johnstone
said the executive could not reconcile Labour's pro-nuclear
policy with the Liberal Democrats' anti-nuclear stance.
Ministers have set a target of 40% of Scotland's energy supplies
to come from renewable energy sources by 2020.
Mr Johnstone told MSPs there were too many people neglecting how
the remaining 60% could be generated.
He said it was time to make a decision on the future of the
country's nuclear power stations.
It looks like that at the ne election in Scotland, these are
going to be the two parties going into that election with a
pro-nuclear policy Richard Lochhead SNP
There was a risk that new stations would not be ready in time, he
said.
However, Deputy Enterprise Minister Allan Wilson urged against
"knee-jerk" energy reactions.
Mr Wilson said the best way to satisfy Scotland's long-term
energy needs was through an "energy mix".
SNP energy spokesman Richard Lochhead said it appeared that a
"nuclear treaty" had been signed between Labour and the Tories.
"It looks like that at the next election in Scotland, these are
going to be the two parties going into that election with a
pro-nuclear policy," he said.
Scottish Green co-convener Shiona Baird said the Sustainable
Development Commission spent a year examining the case for
nuclear power and the role it could play in a low carbon economy.
"It concluded that nuclear power isn't the answer for five main
reasons - waste, economics, inflexibility, security, and the
distraction from more effective energy strategies," she said.
"This isn't knee-jerk polemics from environmental ideologues, but
a carefully studied and well-reasoned analysis."
*****************************************************************
28 Green Building Press: Decentralised Energy Cheaper, Cleaner, Safer.
[Promoting energy efficient, healthy and sustainable building]
As the government's Energy Review veers ever closer to the
conclusion that nuclear power is the only answer to climate
change, a new report by non-profit research agency the World
Alliance for Decentralised Energy (WADE)shows that a
decentralised system would provide the UK with enormous benefits
over the nuclear option.
The report, Decentralising UK Energy, studies several possible
future UK energy scenarios based on the key criteria of cutting
carbon emissions; security of supply; and cost (both of
production and to domestic customers).
In particular the report compares models of two possible future
scenarios: centralised generation using nuclear power, and a
decentralised system, in which energy is predominantly produced
close to its point of use using renewables and combined heat and
power.
The report points out that a centralised model is vulnerable to
an attack or natural catastrophe. It's also extremely
inefficient; over 60% of the energy going into a power station
(whether fuelled by oil, gas, coal or nuclear) is wasted as
heat, while another 3.5% is lost as the electricity travels
round the national grid. So all in all, over two-thirds of all
energy going into a power station is wasted.
Overall, WADE reports that the decentralised solution is far
superior, being:
*cleaner - CO2 emissions are 17% lower than in the nuclear
scenario.
*cheaper - overall capital costs are over Ł1 billion lower than
in the nuclear scenario and the retail costs of electricity to
the end user are lower too. The model doesn't include the cost
of managing nuclear waste, so in reality the cost advantage will
be much greater than the Ł1bn. Recent estimates of the existing
nuclear waste cost are as high as Ł70 billion.
*more secure - UK gas consumption is 14% lower than in the
nuclear scenario.
And it's not just theory - in the Netherlands, 40% of
electricity is created using decentralised systems. In Finland,
over 90% of Helsinki is heated by community heat networks. And
here in the UK more than 1,000 hospitals, leisure centres and
homes already use decentralised energy and utilities systems.
Woking Borough Council has reduced emissions from its own
buildings by an astonishing 77% through use of renewable
technologies and its own local grid system.
Green Building Press
10 March 2006
/www.newbuilder.co.uk
*****************************************************************
29 [du-list] We Must Expand Our Nuclear Power Program If We're To
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:55:21 -0800
We Must Expand Our Nuclear Power Program If We're To
Realize Our Dream Of Superhero Mutants
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46035
By T.J. Prima
March 6, 2006 | Issue 42•10
As the search for alternative energy sources
continues, many decry nuclear energy as an unsafe and
irresponsible option. Admittedly, dangers exist, but
innovation always involves risk, for the best ideas
often result from happy accidents. Indeed, perhaps a
catastrophic meltdown would be the best thing that
could happen. To abandon nuclear energy is to risk
something far greater than another Chernobyl. It is to
risk the loss of future superpowered, costumed heroes.
If we fail to encourage our scientists to get trapped
in a malfunctioning reactor as warning klaxons ring
across the facility, and menacing numbers on a nearby
wall-screen count down to zero, their frail human
physiologies will never receive the massive doses of
radiation necessary to transform them into glowing
metallic-chrome beings with nuclei-and-electron
symbols emblazoned on their muscular chests. As our
country takes on the innumerable challenges of the
21st century, we need—now more than ever—cosmic,
glowing superbeings capable of harnessing the power of
the atom to fight crime.
While we possess the technology to irradiate common
household insects in educational experiments gone
awry, we inexplicably have not yet done so. Not one
high-school student has been exposed to the bite of
such a radioactive insect and developed spider-like
powers.
Without swift, even reckless expansion of our domestic
nuclear-energy program, scientists will never be
exposed to the new and unique radiation poisonings
from which the most powerful superheroes are
generated. We need to see radioactive canisters
spilled from the backs of trucks, hitting small boys
in the eyes, blinding them, and giving them the
heightened senses and radar-like superpowers of
rooftop-jumping gymnastic avengers.
Without research into Gamma Bombs, how will an
idealistic young scientist be forced to run out onto
the test site at the last minute to save a reckless
teen, only to be mutated into a giant, green,
rampaging force for justice?
These are not easy questions, but they are questions
we must face.
We say we are committed to science, but where are the
halls of justice, filled with governing councils of
serum-created superpatriots, part-android teenagers,
and scantily clad femaliens sworn to protect us?
We say we are committed to providing our youth with
the best in education, but where are the schools for
gifted youngsters, children of the next wave of
evolution, training new Homo superior mutants to
protect humanity? Where is the holographic-room
technology needed to sharpen their battle skills?
For all the lip service paid to the ongoing struggle
against terrorism, I certainly see no international
espionage organization run from nuclear-powered flying
aircraft carriers. Those of every political stripe can
agree that we desperately need a gruff, eye-patched,
cigar-chomping superagent to coordinate our response
to all threats, foreign or domestic—be they ninja,
cyborg, or psionic.
Among all the federal, state, and local authorities in
place today to protect the public, there is not one
individual who is undersea-adapted, animal-bred, or
high-tech-archery-themed. Not one agency devoted to
the public interest is staffed by a genetic mutant.
Even the utility belts we equip our police officers
with lack bat-radio-transceiver technology.
We can no longer deny the facts: We need code-named
heroes to fight the super-villains of tomorrow. Unless
our government prioritizes scientific research and its
resulting freak accidents, we have no one but
ourselves to blame when we are unable to protect
ourselves from robot executioners, giant creatures
from the Earth's core, or invasions from the Skrull
Empire.
___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
30 JAMAICAOBSERVER.COM: Brazil to build seven nuclear plants -
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) - Brazil's plan to build up to
seven new atomic plants drew protests yesterday from
environmentalists, who said nuclear energy was dirty and
obsolete.">
AP Thursday, March 09, 2006
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) - Brazil's plan to build up to seven
new atomic plants drew protests yesterday from
environmentalists, who said nuclear energy was dirty and
obsolete.
The criticism followed Science and Technology Minister Sergio
Rezende's announcement that Brazil plans to expand its use of
nuclear power and reduce its dependence on hydroelectric power.
The government will complete the long-delayed Angra 3 plant near
Rio de Janeiro and build a new plant every two or three years,
Rezende told the BBC's Brazilian service on Tuesday during an
official visit to London.
Brazil plans to use nuclear power for around five per cent of
its energy needs, up from one to two per cent today, he said.
"Nuclear energy has to be part of the Brazilian energy matrix,"
Rezende said. "It can't be seen anymore as the ugly duckling."
But the environmental group Greenpeace opposed the plan.
"The situation is exactly the same as it was 10 or 20 years
ago," Guilherme Leonardi, coordinator of the group's nuclear
energy campaign, said by telephone from Sao Paulo. "Nuclear
energy is expensive, dirty, with an inherent risk of terrorism,
and abandons our great potential for alternative energy."
Brazil has two nuclear power plants in the coastal resort city
of Angra dos Reis, 180 kilometers (110 miles) southwest of Rio.
Today, Brazil and Germany are negotiating new energy agreements
that will exclude nuclear power, in line with Germany's policy
of phasing out its 19 nuclear reactors by 2021.
But Brazil wants to expand its nuclear program said Rezende.
Under a new National Nuclear Energy Plan, expected to be
approved this year, two atomic plants will be built in the arid
northeast, one of Brazil's poorest regions, Rezende said.
Part of the fuel will come from a new uranium enrichment centre
in Resende, near the Angra nuclear plants, that is to be
inaugurated next month, he said.
The plan must still be approved by Congress and President Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva. Nuclear energy critics in the government
include the Mines and Energy Ministry and Silva's Chief of
Staff, Dilma Rousseff.
Copyright© 2000-2001 Jamaica Observer. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 Columbian.com: Demolition to Fell Cooling Tower
Serving Clark County, Washington
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Destined to die at age 34, the Trojan Nuclear Plant cooling
tower lives out its last days as plans are devised for its
demolition on May 21. Implosion will be accomplished in part by
dynamiting some of the towers 88 40-inch-diameter supporting
columns. (JEREMIAH COUGHLAN/The Columbian)
By THOMAS RYLL, Columbian staff writer
RAINIER, Ore -- On a single day in the 1980s, Mark Loizeaux
destroyed a blast furnace and steel mill in Buffalo, N.Y.; his
brother flattened a slaughterhouse in Brisbane, Australia; and
his father executed a coup de grace on industrial chimneys in
Cape Town, South Africa.
Only one project is on the list for May 21, 2006, and it will be
a don't-miss event for local residents whose Sunday morning
won't be complete until they've seen what 2,500 sticks of
dynamite can do to a 499-foot-tall nuclear plant cooling tower.
The Trojan Nuclear Plant, which began producing power in 1976,
has been stilled for 13 years, and owner Portland General
Electric has been decommissioning the site since 1996. Nuking
the cooling tower will be the work of Loizeaux's Maryland-based
company, Controlled Demolition Inc.
The tower, at a bend in the Columbia River northwest of Kalama,
stands as a symbol of an idea that seemed good at the time but
ultimately proved to be a white elephant herd. Trojan was
Oregon's first nuclear plant, and there was no second. Its 16
years of commercial operation ended in January 1993 after PGE
faced hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrading expenses to
replace the facility's steam turbines.
PGE is now restoring the 634-acre site, with a future use yet
unknown. To reintroduce the area to Loizeaux's work (CDI is best
known for pulverizing the Kingdome in March 2000), PGE officials
invited reporters to visit the cooling tower on Wednesday.
"Today is your last chance to see Trojan and the Trojan tower up
close," said spokesman Scott Simms. Few media events of any type
in this area can draw even a dozen reporters, photographers,
graphic artists and TV-truck operators from Washington and
Oregon. Wednesday's show was an unqualified success, luring 30
camera- and notebook-toting visitors to the wind-swept site.
While not denying the appeal of watching the tower yield to
explosives-assisted gravity, PGE officials have already begun
begging would-be spectators to resist the temptation to see what
they can see by dawn's early light on May 21. Officials want
people to glue themselves to TVs instead of binoculars. "We'd
really like folks to watch us on TV," said Simms.
Traffic on U.S Highway 30 in Oregon, Interstate 5 and the
Columbia River will be stopped. The air space near the tower
will be closed, with specifics yet to come from the Federal
Aviation Administration. While the time is not yet set, it will
be in the neighborhood of 7 a.m. Wind and rain won't delay the
show, but lightning or heavy fog would.
Loizeaux, who dethroned the Kingdome without harming a hair on a
century-old building 90 feet away, predicts noise amounting to
the rumble of thunder, imperceptible vibration and no more than
a light dusting of the Trojan area as the tower's concrete is
obliterated.
CDI has ruined bridges, buildings and towers on every continent
except Antarctica. The count to date, going back to the late
1940s when Loizeaux's father began by rupturing chimneys, now
runs to 7,000. (Loizeaux admits that the figure is somewhat
inflated due to the industry habit of tallying each bridge
abutment, for example, as a "structure.")
Even though CDI has collapsed dozens of nuclear plant cooling
towers in Europe, Africa and the United States, Trojan's is
unique, "orders of magnitude" larger and stronger than any
other, said Loizeaux.
The tower is one huge lampshade, a corsetted tube that is 385
feet wide at the base and 250 feet across at the top. Its 41,000
tons of concrete are equivalent to the weight of 1,000 loaded
semis a 15-mile-long queue.
Bolstered to withstand the region's earthquake hazard, the tower
is a "double mat" construction, reinforced with two concentric
layers of steel reinforcing bar inside the concrete.
The tower sits on 88 concrete columns, each one 40 inches in
diameter. CDI workers will be Swiss-cheesing those columns and
strategic locations throughout the tower body, known as a veil,
in order to place 1,500 to 2,000 pounds of dynamite.
Like chain-sawing the legs on Grandma's antique dinner table
just to watch it fall, the CDI plan is to knock the tower off
its feet. "It's going to do what it wants to do," said Loizeaux.
"The tower wants to sit down. We're going to cajole it."
The goal is to make the tower fall slightly off-axis, as far to
the southeast as possible. Doing so, said Loizeaux, will enhance
the destruction of the 41,000 tons of concrete. CDI has the
contract to pulverize the tower's remains and recycle its
reinforcing steel, so the more it breaks up on the morning of
May 21, the less work will be needed in the aftermath.
Each stick of dynamite, an inch and a half thick and eight
inches long, will be slid into a slightly larger hole and wired
with blasting cap and cord. The cooling tower veil varies in
thickness from 10 inches (the middle) to 18 inches (top) to 45
inches (the bottom), so the dynamite holes will vary in depth.
Expanding foam the same type used to weatherize homes, dispensed
from aerosol cans will hold each stick in place.
Even though there isn't much for any errant blown debris to
damage, mats of chain-link fence and geotextile fabric will be
laid over the dynamite-loaded holes to contain the shattered
concrete.
In its day the Trojan plant was a bustling facility with 1,200
employees. Now there are 20. At peak capacity the plant produced
nearly one megawatt of electricity for each and every worker.
Those megawatts 1,130 would have been more than enough to handle
Clark County's greatest power demand, 1,063 megawatts on a
winter day some years ago.
Now the facility looks more like an understaffed and barely
maintained minimum-security prison, weather-beaten and mossy.
Even the toilets in the spacious restrooms of the site's newest
structure, the 1980s "central building," which is not slated for
demolition, have been decommissioned. They are lined up,
upside-down, along one wall.
"When this plant was running you could eat off the floor in this
room," said PGE's Jon Vingerud, showing reporters a dark, dank
and dingy space in the pipe-stuffed turbine building. Now he's
the demolition project manager, but during the plant's heyday he
was in the maintenance department.
On Wednesday, media visitors lined up at a security station to
sign documents promising, among other things, that they would
not photograph the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation,
34 concrete casks that house the only radioactive material still
at the Trojan site. Minutes later, reporters were promptly
handed press packets with a crisp color photo showing the casks
and the two barbed-wire-topped chain-link fences surrounding
them.
The spent fuel is not expected to be entirely moved off the site
until 2024, and likely longer than that. But the casks reside
hundreds of feet north of the tower, no part of which ever came
into contact with radioactive materials. "I couldn't hit them if
I wanted to," said Loizeaux.
He described the Kingdome as "part of the social fabric" of
Seattle, and said its demolition signified a beginning.
As for the cooling tower, it marks an ending. "This is like a
huge, silent sentinel. It has done its job," he said. The
ultimate destruction "is a quiet sigh: 'OK, we're not going to
look at me anymore.' "
To that end, he said, "We don't blow up buildings, we euthanize
them. We put them out of their misery."
As for what he does on the weekend, "Flowers. I love flowers. I
planted 2,000 bulbs last year."
©2006 Columbian.com. All Rights Reserved - Use of this site
*****************************************************************
32 RIA Novosti: Russia to provide nuclear fuel for Bulgarian plant until 2020
09/ 03/ 2006
MOSCOW, March 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will provide nuclear fuel
for a Soviet-designed nuclear power plant in Bulgaria until
2020, a Russian supplier said Thursday.
"When Kozloduy [plant] Director General Ivan Ivanov visited
Russia, an additional agreement was signed to extend the
contract for nuclear fuel supplies" for four out of the plant's
six reactors, said the TVEL corporation, which provides fuel for
the Balkan state's NPP.
Built in 1974, Kozloduy is the only operating NPP in Bulgaria.
Its four reactors generate about 40% of the country's power
output, part of which goes to Turkey. The other two reactors
were shut down in 2002.
The Kozloduy issue is very sensitive for Bulgaria, whose
long-awaited accession to the European Union has been scheduled
for 2007. However, it could be delayed if the former eastern
bloc country fails to set an exact deadline for the closure of
its aging NPP. This condition was set by the EU, which says the
facility located two miles away from the Danube River does not
meet modern ecological safety requirements.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
33 Platts: APS says Palo Verde-1 to shut for six weeks for repairs
Washington (Platts)--8Mar2006
Palo Verde-1 will be shut for six weeks for repairs this month
and next, Arizona Public Service said late yesterday in a filing
with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. APS will take the
unit out of service for one week starting March 18 to prepare for
the repairs and will then take it offline for five weeks starting
in June. The problem centers on vibrations in one of the unit's
shutdown cooling lines, APS said.
APS said it will spend about $60 million to buy replacement
power, including during the unit 1 shutdown and from a period
starting December 25, 2005, when the unit began running at about
25% capacity. APS said it will seek to recover its replacement
power costs from ratepayers under a mechanism that allows for 90%
cost recovery.
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
34 Platts: Baltic utilities to study new nuclear
Marseilles (Platts)--8Mar2006
The chief executives of the three Baltics states' power companies
- Lietuvos Energija, Eesti Energija and Latvenergo - signed a
memorandum of understanding March 8 to conduct a feasibility
study to build a new nuclear reactor in Lithuania.
The feasibility study, which is to be completed by November
2006, "is aimed at evaluating the technological, environmental,
legal and economic aspects of the project," said Rymantas
Juozaitis, director general of Lietuvos Energija, in a press
statement. "It will assist us in reaching the most acceptable
decision for all three countries to ensure electricity supply in
the region and development of diversified electricity generation
sources in the future."
The MOU comes hard on the heels of an agreement signed late
last month by the prime ministers of Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania, in which they gave their backing to building new
nuclear capacity to replace Lithuania's existing nuclear plant,
Ignalina.
Lithuania committed to shut down both 1.5-GW RBMK reactors
of its Soviet-designed plant by the end of 2009 as part of its EU
accession agreement. The first reactor was decommissioned at the
end of 2004.
The feasibility study will also evaluate a possible site
for the new nuclear power plant, assess financing options and the
possibilities of using EU funds for further research. Preliminary
estimates have put the cost of building a new nuclear power plant
at about Eur 3 billion ($3.6 billion).
For more information, take a trial to Nuclear Fuel at
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
35 Platts: Virginia House approves energy plan bill in 74-21 vote
Washington (Platts)--9Mar2006
Virginia's House of Delegates on Wednesday evening voted 74 to 21
to approve S.B. 262, a bill that will make it easier to develop
new nuclear plants and wind farms in the state.
The measure, which previously won state Senate approval in a
31-6 vote, calls for the development of a state energy plan, for
the State Corporation Commission to develop numerical "scoring
systems" to identify optimal sites for nuclear plants, wind farms
and liquefied natural gas facilities, and for state siting boards
to provide "one-stop permitting" for such projects.
S.B. 262 also includes an 0.85 cents/kWh grant or tax credit
for wind power production and directs state officials to push for
federal executive action and federal legislation that would give
Virginia "exclusive jurisdiction" over the development of
offshore wind farms.
After a quick return to the state senate to approve minor
amendments to the bill, S.B. 262 will go to Governor Tim Kaine.
The governor, a Democrat, has not indicated whether he will sign
the measure or seek further changes.
---Housley Carr, newsdesk@platts.com
For more information, take a trial to Nuclear News Flashes
at http://www.nuclearnews.platts.com.
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
36 Hanford News: PGE prepares to take down nuclear plant cooling tower
This story was published Thursday, March 9th, 2006
By Sarah Skidmore, Associated Press Writer
RAINIER, Ore. (AP) - Portland General Electric said Wednesday it
is almost ready to destroy the 499-foot cooling tower at Trojan
Nuclear Plant. The hourglass-shaped structure, scheduled for
implosion on May 21, is one of the most widely recognized icons
of Oregon's only nuclear power plant.
The power plant closed in 1993 after 17 years of operation.
Since then, PGE has gradually phased out the facilities at the
plant, located roughly 40 miles north of Portland on the
Columbia River. Trojan is the first large-scale commercial
nuclear plant to be decommissioned in the United States and the
cooling tower the largest to be destroyed.
Controlled Demolition, Inc., the Maryland-based contractor
handling the implosion, said it will take 8 seconds to bring
down the 41,000 tons of cement and steel. The company will place
roughly 2,000 tons of explosives at the base of the structure,
which is expected to tilt slightly sideways then collapse upon
itself.
The structure has already been stripped of all its machinery;
radioactive material was never contained in the tower.
PGE sent a letter to area residents and businesses Friday with
details of the upcoming event. The company said debris will be
primarily contained to the explosion area. Some fine dust may be
caught in the wind, but the company said it does not pose a
safety risk. The contractor said vibrations will only be felt in
the half-mile radius surrounding the building. The explosion is
expected to be no louder than a thunderclap.
"It's been done before but never this big," said Mark Loizeaux,
president of CDI, which also managed the destruction of the
Kingdome in Seattle.
The complete decommissioning of Trojan will not be complete
until 2024 but for area residents the most notable step was when
the plant closed in 1993.
The plant closed after a crack in the steam tube, which was
located in the containment building, released radioactive gas
into the air. PGE and regulators found the price of repairs
outweighed the cost of replacing the system.
Surrounding cities lost jobs, businesses and tax revenue after
the closure. For them, the tower is a bitter reminder of better
times, but many want it to stay.
"I hate to see the waste of money and potential," said Freeman
Ryder, 80, who owns an RV Park with his wife one mile south of
the plant. "There should be some way to see the facility
reused."
Others said it should be left as a piece of history of the
plant, which caused enormous controversy between
environmentalists and PGE. But most locals simply bemoan the
plant's demise.
"No one here cared," said Bob Burns, 68, who grew up in Rainier.
"It's all the (people) 60 to 80 miles up the river...Trojan was
probably one of the safest things we had around here."
The remaining buildings will be destroyed gradually through
2008. The final step in decommissioning the plant is the removal
of the spent fuel rods, which are the only remaining radioactive
material at Trojan. The rods are stored in concrete casks that
sit above ground there and will be moved to a federal
repository. The move has been delayed at the federal level and
is now scheduled for 2024.
CDI said the casks will not be affected by the explosion.
PGE, which has primary ownership of the facility and total
ownership of the land, said it has not finalized plans for the
property. The company said a new power plant could be put there
or a public park. The property cannot be sold until the
decommissioning process is complete.
There will be no public viewing areas for the demolition.
Highways and air space will be temporarily closed. Fog or
lightning storms could delay the implosion. No time has been set
for the event yet.
PGE has a $429 million decommissioning budget but would not
release the cost of the implosion. By the end of 2005, it has
used $300 million of the budget.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
37 El Paso Times: Reactor shutdown to cost EP
Thursday, March 9, 2006
Times staff and wire reports
Problems continue at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
which supplies about half of El Paso Electric's power.
Operators plan to shut down one of three reactor units at the
nuclear power plant for about five weeks beginning in early June
to fix a vibrating pipe, which has hampered electricity output
since December.
The unit also will be shut down for four or five days beginning
March 18 to make preparations for the repairs, said Jim
McDonald, a spokesman for Arizona Public Service. It owns 29.5
percent of the plant and operates it for a consortium of utility
companies in four states.
El Paso Electric, which owns 15.8 percent of Palo Verde, will
get less of the plant's very cheap power during the unit's
shutdown. That means it will have to rely on more expensive
sources to fill the gap.
El Paso Electric officials are compiling information on how the
unit shutdown will affect the company and its customers, said
Teresa Souza, a company spokeswoman. It isn't commenting on the
shutdown's effects until the information is compiled, she said.
El Paso Electric CEO Gary Hedrick in October estimated that a
weeklong shutdown of all three Palo Verde units cost the utility
about $750,000 a day in additional power costs. Those costs
eventually are passed onto customers through bill increases.
In its fourth-quarter earnings report last month, El Paso
Electric officials estimated the company would lose $2 million
to $3 million a month in profits for wholesale electric sales in
the first three months of this year because of reduced power
from the Palo Verde unit now scheduled to be repaired in June.
At that time, the company expected the unit's problems to be
fixed by April 1.
Arizona Public Service officials estimate it will cost that
utility $60 million to buy fuel and power to replace electricity
it will lose from Palo Verde. That estimate includes the total
cost from late December through the completion of the repair job.
"It will be costly," said Jeff Hatch-Miller, chairman of the
Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates Arizona's
utilities. "It's better than July and August, but it's still at
a time when I'd rather have Palo Verde."
The other two reactor units at the power plant, about 50 miles
west of downtown Phoenix, are expected to run at full tilt
during the repairs.
Copyright © 2006 El Paso Times, a
*****************************************************************
38 The Citizen: Koeberg facing safety rating downgrade - DA CAPE TOWN
Friday March 10/
The international safety rating of Cape Towns Koeberg atomic
power station was likely to be downgraded, the Democratic
Alliance said on Wednesday. This, following the problems at the
station in the past few months, DA MP Gareth Morgan said.
DA questions in todays minerals and energy portfolio committee
meeting with the National Nuclear Regulator revealed that
Koebergs International Atomic Energy Association safety ratings
are likely to be downgraded as a result of the problems
experienced there over the last few months.
Morgan said the DA was in favour of safe and environmentally
friendly nuclear power.
Eskom, the National Nuclear Regulator and the government must
now work together to return our nuclear facilities to a safety
rating on par with the very best nuclear power plants in France
and elsewhere in the developed world, Morgan said. Koebergs
recent problems include a loose bolt that has caused major damage
to a generator. Eskom and the NNR were not immediately available
for comment. - Sapa.
09/03/2006 16:30:41
© 2004 The Citizen ![Proudly South African]()
Weapons Plutonium in Los Alamos Soil and
Waste, November 29, 2005
Correspondence with officials:
+ IEER letter to Linton Brooks, Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration, December 19, 2005
+ Reply from Linton Brooks, NNSA, February 28, 2006
+ IEER letter to A.J. Eggenberger, Chairman, Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, December 13, 2005
+ Reply from DNFSB Chairman Eggenberger, January 30, 2006
+ IEER reply, February 8, 2006
+ Letter to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board from
27 organizations, January 26, 2006
+ IEER letter to Samuel Bodman, Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of
Energy, December 13, 2005
+ IEER letter to LANL Director Pete Nanos, August 10, 2004
IEER radio commentary, August 2004
DOE's Ever-Changing Estimates of Buried TRU
Waste, from SDA vol. 7 no. 2, January 1999
IEER report: Containing the Cold War Mess, October 1997
Guimond-Beckner DOE memo, "Plutonium in Waste
Inventories"January 30, 1996
Available at EggheadBooks: Plutonium: Deadly Gold of the Nuclear
Age(International Physicians Press, 1992)
Institute for Energy and Environmental ResearchComments to
Outreach Coordinator: ieer at ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA
Updated February 8, 2006
*****************************************************************
63 [du-list] Lawmakers demand more wartime funds for
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:01:37 -0800
March 07, 2006
Lawmakers demand more wartime funds for vets' health care
By Rick Maze
Times staff writer
On the eve of a House committee's passage of a $72.4 billion wartime
supplemental funding bill, about 90 members of Congress are demanding that
money be included to cover veterans' health care costs.
In a March 6 letter organized by Reps. John T. Salazar, D-Colo., and
Lane Evans, D-Ill., lawmakers ask for a minimum of $630 million to be added
to the supplemental for veterans programs, including $250 million for
mental health services, $200 million for direct medical care, $110 million
for prosthetics, $15 million for vocational rehabilitation and $55 million
to increase the number of people processing disability claims.
The request for extra money was sent to House Speaker Dennis Hastert,
R-Ill., who would influence the outcome. The House Appropriations Committee
plans to amend the administration's supplemental budget request on
Wednesday night. There is no money in the administration's request for the VA.
Salazar is the newest member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee,
appointed only last month. Evans is the veterans committee's top ranking
Democrat, who has been pushing for big increases in the VA budget.
In a statement, Salazar said, "With the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we
have created a whole new generation of veterans who need our care. We
cannot have a repeat of last year's shameful budget shortfall. It is time
for us to be honest in our budgeting and recognize the urgency of providing
full funding for veterans' health care. Our troops bravely put their lives
on the line and it is our moral duty to provide them with the care and
benefits they were promised."
Salazar was referring to the $2.5 billion shortfall discovered in the
2005 and 2006 budgets for the Department of Veterans Affairs that forced
lawmakers to scramble and make last-minute changes in the overall federal
budget last year to avoid serious problems.
VA officials have said the amended 2006 budget approved by Congress last
year and the 2007 budget proposed by the Bush administration fully cover
all costs associated with treating people injured in the global war on
terrorism and providing earned benefits. But House Democratic aides said
they have been hearing from some VA facilities that money is tight and that
some services may have to be cut.
In the letter to Hastert, Democrats said they are just trying to act
early to prevent last year's problems. "Last year we saw the VA face
disgraceful shortfalls in its health care budget, shortfalls that had a
direct impact upon the care received by veterans," the letter says.
"Ultimately the administration begrudgingly admitted these shortfalls and
was forced to request additional resources."
"We are concerned that the administration may have once again
underestimated the total number of veterans who will seek services at the
VA, including new veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars," the letter
adds. "We strongly urge you to correct the administration's oversight and
recognize that caring for our veterans is an ongoing cost of war."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
64 [du-list] Take Action Against Depleted Uranium!
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:01:52 -0800
Take Action Against Depleted Uranium!
Anti-Flag, Military Free Zone and After Downing Street Coalition have
partnered up to raise awareness that Depleted Urnaium is being used by
the US military and is killing thousands - but worse, maybe giving
millions cancer and other diseases for decades to come. Anti-Flag
released an exclusive song about Depleted Uranium at
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/8592. Please check out the
song (it is an interview between lead singer, Justin Sane, and
Congressman Jim McDermott- the author of the Congressional bill to
study the effects of DU. Please write your member of Congress at
http://www.millionemailmarch.com/du.php -
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
65 [du-list] letter to rep. Herseth on du impacts
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:06:07 -0800
Dear Representative Herseth,
Quoting an Associated Press release from your meeting with veterans
at the American Legion's 85th birthday celebration,on March 18,2004,
when you were campaigning for the House seat to which you were
elected and have since been reelected, "Lanny Stricherz told Herseth
that the issue of depleted uranium weapons and ammunition from the
Desert Storm conflict is a major health concern for those veterans.
"Nobody is talking about it, and somebody needs to," he said.
Herseth said she will focus on issues such as that, just as Sen. Tom
Daschle did with Agent Orange when he began running for the U.S.
House of Representatives in 1978. "We need to make sure we don't go
for many years without those health needs being addressed," she said."
I have asked you in the past to sign on as a Cosponsor on Jim
McDermott's bill on the issue of Depleted Uranium. Your response was
that you would vote for it if it came out of committee.
This morning I received the following sad email letter from Denise
Nichols, the chief nurse for Dr (and Major) Dr Doug Rokke, the US
Army's chief physicist charged with the cleanup of the DU mess in
Iraq after the first gulf war. In her letter she lists three bills
concerning DU for which she is asking cosponsorship. Certainly in
keeping with your campaign promise of March 18,2004, you can find
common ground with at least one of these bills and hopefully all
three and sign on as a cosponsor.
You may not be aware, but testing for DU exposure is already mandated
by Army regulations as well as federal law. But the Department of
Defense is not bothering to do that testing so two states have
already passed legislation mandating it at the state level. Six other
states are currently considering such legislation. South Dakota's
recently finished session also considered such legislation, but it
was opposed by Governor Rounds Office. Although the bill passed both
houses, it contained different wording which left the bill dead. I am
sure that the opposition to the bill has come out of the current
administration in Washington, because although the United Nations has
delcared DU as a WMD and also it's use illegal, our military leaders
in the Pentagon want to keep using it and donot want light reflected
on it's detrimental effects. Denise Nichols letter follows.
Sincerely,
Lanny Stricherz
Sisseton, SD
I have returned home, it was hard. My brother's memorial service was
beautiful.
The Marines came and did final honors and found a bagpiper who was
active Guard Army that came and played.
I am sad, depressed and to see that Dana Reeves died today adds to
the pain.
Gulf war vets are even more at risk for cancer.....we need to push
for annual xray/scans there is no other way to get early diagnosis is
the only answer.
I am so tired and down but I will find my footing and go forward yet
again.
Please I ask you all to get the word out on the three DU bills that
sit on the hill on the house side, we do not have enough cosponsors
please call your reps and pass the word to all to get on the phone,
faxes, emails about this. I just checked to see if we have had a
ground swell of new cosponsors and very few have added on FEB-March.
WE have limited time all and I am asking each of you to do your part!
Please ladies and gentlemen help me by getting your Reps signed on to
these three DU bills!!!
I will also be going on bandwagon on funding National Cancer Inst.
Bush slashed funding on Research for Cancer and I guarantee you that
each of us should be raising our voices on that important funding.
I am tired but felt the need to send this email and the email on the
bills on DU out.
H.R.202
Title: To provide for identification of members of the Armed Forces
exposed during military service to depleted uranium, to provide for
health testing of such members, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] (introduced 1/4/2005)
Cosponsors (13)
Latest Major Action: 2/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
COSPONSORS(13), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
(Sort: by date)
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 6/24/2005 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] -
2/14/2006
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 7/29/2005 Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-
7] - 6/8/2005
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 11/10/2005 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-
7] - 6/24/2005
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 7/12/2005 Rep Markey, Edward J.
[MA-7] - 10/25/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 6/8/2005 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-
3] - 2/8/2006
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 9/21/2005 Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-
30] - 7/12/2005
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 2/14/2006
THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | FirstGov
H.R.2410
Title: To require certain studies regarding the health effects of
exposure to depleted uranium munitions, to require the cleanup and
mitigation of depleted uranium contamination at sites of depleted
uranium munition use and production in the United States, and for
other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] (introduced 5/17/2005)
Cosponsors (38)
Latest Major Action: 6/21/2005 Referred to House subcommittee.
Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
COSPONSORS(38), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
(Sort: by date)
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 5/17/2005 Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-
2] - 5/17/2005
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 5/17/2005 Rep Brown, Sherrod [OH-
13] - 5/17/2005
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 2/16/2006 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-
14] - 6/28/2005
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 6/14/2005 Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] -
6/14/2005
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 5/17/2005 Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] -
5/17/2005
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 5/17/2005 Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] -
5/17/2005
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 5/17/2005 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D.
[NY-22] - 5/17/2005
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 5/17/2005 Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] -
5/17/2005
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 7/28/2005 Rep Markey, Edward J.
[MA-7] - 5/17/2005
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 12/17/2005 Rep Meehan, Martin T.
[MA-5] - 12/16/2005
Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 9/7/2005 Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] -
10/19/2005
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 6/28/2005 Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-
15] - 5/17/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] - 7/28/2005 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D.
[IL-9] - 5/17/2005
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 5/17/2005 Rep Shays, Christopher
[CT-4] - 6/14/2005
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 6/28/2005 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-
13] - 5/17/2005
Rep Stupak, Bart [MI-1] - 5/17/2005 Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] -
12/16/2005
Rep Udall, Tom [NM-3] - 5/17/2005 Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] -
12/16/2005
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 6/14/2005 Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-
30] - 6/28/2005
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 5/17/2005 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-
6] - 5/17/2005
H.R.4184
Title: To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that
veterans of service in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent
conflicts shall be considered to be radiation-exposed veterans for
purposes of the service-connection of certain diseases and
disabilities, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] (introduced 11/1/2005)
Cosponsors (5)
Latest Major Action: 11/30/2005 Referred to House subcommittee.
Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
COSPONSORS(5), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:
(Sort: by date)
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 11/15/2005 Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-
17] - 11/15/2005
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 1/31/2006 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-
22] - 11/15/2005
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 11/15/2005a
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
66 [du-list] Depleted Uranium: email to Australian senators
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:55:28 -0800
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0603/S00117.htm
Depleted Uranium: email to Australian senators
Monday, 6 March 2006, 3:01 pm
Press Release: Robert Anderson
The following email went out today, 6 March 2006, to all Australian
Senators with a copy to the ICC and Human Rights Watch, and to Australia's
national newspapers.
In the course of the last two weeks, Australian, John Hough sent copies of
The Ultimate War Crime to six Australian Senators with a covering letter
similar to the email below. Mr Hough says he has received no replies to date.
"Senators
"This email is to draw your attention to the book The Ultimate War Crime by
Robert Anderson (NZ). The book documents the prime facie case that the
'Coalition of the Willing' used and uses nuclear weapons (depleted uranium
munitions) in the first Gulf War, in Afghanistan and in the current Gulf
conflict. The book gives background to the use of depleted uranium to
enhance conventional weapons and details the long-term harmful radiation
that results.
"The book also details legal opinion describing how the use of such weapons
violates UN conventions and treaties. It references the first case in the
UK where a British soldier was awarded compensation for the birth defects
of his son resulting from the exposure to 'friendly radiation' in Iraq. It
graphically describes the unusually large numbers of birth defects being
encountered in Southern Iraq and references expert opinion that such
defects have resulted from the use of depleted uranium munitions.
"I have sent copies of the book to Senators Lyn Allison, Bob Brown, Chris
Evans, Barnaby Joyce, John Hogg and Robert Hill. Please check out their
copies or get your own copy (ISBN 0-473-10489-X). You can contact the
author, Robert Anderson, at roberta@clear.net.nz.
". I have copied this email to the War Crimes Tribunal and Human Rights
Watch. My aim is that no Australian Senator can claim that they were not
aware of the evidence.
"I believe that every Senator (collectively and individually) has a
responsibility to thoroughly and impartially investigate this matter - for
the protection of Australians serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the
reputation of Australia as a good global citizen.
John Hough"
N.B. A copy of The Ultimate War Crime was donated to all 120 New Zealand
MPs. Following this, Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, the Hon
Phil Goff, responding on behalf of the Government, wrote:
"I agree that there are real concerns about the long-term implications of
depleted uranium (DU) use for civilian populations as well as users."
"Since 2003, more than 900 DU-related urine tests have been administered to
NZDF personnel either before or after their deployment to Iraq or
Afghanistan. To date, all tests have been negative (i.e. less than 0.3
mcg/l) for urinary DU. Information on the potential risks that may be posed
by DU, and by vehicles hit by DUY rounds, now forms part of all
pre-deployment briefings for NZDF personnel going to areas where DU may
have been used. This includes personnel deploying to Afghanistan, Iraq,
Kosovo and Bosnia. The NZDF will continue to provide medical checks and
support to any personnel who think they may have been exposed to DU."
Robert Anderson Tauranga New Zealand 6 March 2006
ENDS
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
67 [du-list] insight into the pro-DU psyche
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:01:32 -0800
Being censored on RADSAFE gives me an excellent opportunity to test
which things certain RADSAFE participants don't want you to see.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: answers (was Re: [ RadSafe ] James Salsman, DU, and
peer-reviewed literature)
To: RADSAFE....
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006
Steven Dapra wrote:
>... how could you possibly come up with all those carefully
> manipulated quotes?
I believe my quotes, even the few which aren't exactly verbatim,
correctly represent the text from which they are taken.
> And how did you manage to so cleverly extract those eight words
> from Durakovic's review paper?
That quote was verbatim. I note that Durakovic seems to be somewhat
more respected in the pro-DU community than Rokke, Sternglass, Moret,
and others, and I believe that is justified because he has done some
of the best work. However, I think the prejudice against Sternglass
is absurd: nobody was able to suggest any serious problems with the
tooth fairy project's scientific protocols: The best RADSAFE could do
was a question about potential radium contamination which was quite a
reach at best.
> How did you do what you did with the Miller et al. paper?
> You wrote: "Abstract: 'chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals by
> depleted uranium in vitro exceeds radiolytic generation by one
> million-fold....'"
Well, that one has more of an interesting story behind it.
Originally MEDLINE had it as "106 fold" instead of "one million
fold" because the original typesetting had 10^6, ten to the sixth.
After I corresponded with Dr. Miller, she did not oppose my
request to have that changed in MEDLINE. I also fixed a typo
in a confidence interval in the abstract of Dr. Araneta's report
on the huge number of congenital malformations in combat-deployed
1991 Gulf War troops on MEDLINE. I am still not yet entirely
comfortable about having to go around correcting the mistakes of
medical professionals on the internet. If you are worried about
whether my copy correctly represents Dr. Miler's results, you can
email and ask her about it.
As for the legal questions, I'll deal with those at some point
in the future. I would like to know whether you think that a
survey of college students from military families could be used
to determine the extent to which potential exposure to depleted
uranium fumes has dissuaded military recruitment. I think such a
survey could be made fairly accurate and could be very reasonably
inexpensive to conduct.
John R Johnson wrote:
> I have found that the WHO report on DU is useful reference. Details
are at
>
>... Depleted uranium: sources, exposure and health effects....
> www.who.int/entity/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf
Here is another quote which needs to be read very carefully:
Quoting A. Pfister in Chapter 8, "The Chemical Toxicity of Uranium," of
_Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects_ (World Health
Organization, Ionizing Radiation Unit, 2001 --
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Depluranium4.pdf
-- page 103: "Until more information on the chemical form of uranium and
DU in the environment is obtained, it would be prudent to assume that it
is in a soluble form (ICRP Type F)."
Sincerely,
James Salsman
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
68 thedesertsun.com: Salton Sea area to be swept for bombs
Ordnance left from defunct test base used for training, inert
explosive tests
Photo Gallery
Salton Sea
[Sign near the Salton Sea warning of possible unexploded
ordnance.]
Ben Spillman, The Desert Sun Sign near the Salton Sea warning of
possible unexploded ordnance.
WHAT THEY FOUND
The Navy completed its last cleanup of the Salton Sea Test Base
five years ago. Here's what they removed:
From the surface: 99 items, including 40 mm rounds and M-16
rounds.
Below ground:
16 items, characterized as "small mortar shells"
Source: Navy BRAC program management office
THE SALTON SEA TEST BASE
Established in the 1940s, the Salton Sea Test Base played a role
in atomic testing in the Manhattan Project and for decades after.
It was also the site of conventional missile testing. The Navy
completed transferring the site to the Bureau of Land Management
and other agencies in 2000.The Salton Sea Authority wants to take
ownership of 15,000 acres that include the site and sell the land
for homes.No atomic weapons were detonated at the site, but dummy
warheads used there could have contained lead or depleted
uranium. Conventional ordnance could still be buried on the
site.Previous cleanups made the site suitable for open space or
habitat. But to house a residential community, it needs a more
thorough assessment.
Benjamin Spillman
The Desert Sun
March 9, 2006
A Navy subcontractor will search the defunct Salton Sea Test
Base for ordnance and other hazardous material - but workers
won't look deep enough underground to clear the land for homes.
On Wednesday, the firm EOD Technologies announced it would
search 7,000 acres near the southwest end of the sea for
munitions, explosives and other potential contamination.
The $80,000 job is slated to start this spring and include a
report to the public in June.
It's a five-year follow-up to an earlier effort to clean the
site that was used for training and high-altitude drop tests of
inert bombs, according to the Navy.
"It is possible that shifting sand and shifting earth has
exposed something," Navy BRAC spokesperson Jill Votaw said. "If
everything is the same, then we are good to go."
There's no evidence live testing with fissionable material
occurred at the site. But the Navy acknowledged depleted uranium
had been present there.
Although there hasn't been training at the base in more than a
decade, the isolated desert site has been the subject of recent
discussion.
That's because the La Quinta-based Salton Sea Authority is
eyeing the property as a centerpiece in its plan to revive the
troubled sea.
The authority would like to get the vacant property from the
Department of the Interior so it can be developed to support
thousands of homes. Tax revenue from the homes would support the
authority's plan to shrink the smelly, salty sea into cleaner,
more pleasant marine lakes.
The Navy's cleanup efforts cleared the site as far as 2 feet
below the surface of the ground.
That means it is safe for open space and wildlife. But it would
require a more thorough review to accommodate housing.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control has urged
the Navy to look more thoroughly at the site.
But Votaw said the Navy is reviewing the property to meet the
open space requirements only.
She said anyone interested in changing the land use to
accommodate housing is responsible for deeper surveys.
"It is their responsibility to clean up any further," Votaw said.
She also said the Navy wouldn't review parts of the site that
are underwater, even though the lake is expected to shrink and
expose the sea floor.
"I realize that the Salton Sea is expected to shrink," Votaw
said. "But we clean up to where it is."
Salton Sea Authority board of directors president Gary Wyatt did
not return a call for comment by press time.
Copyright © 2006 The Desert Sun
*****************************************************************
69 Xinhua: Bikini islanders to sue US over nuclear tests
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-09 18:53:24
WELLINGTON, March 9 (Xinhuanet) -- Bikini Atoll in the
Marshall Islands is preparing to file a lawsuit in the United
States courts in the next few weeks asking for more than 500
million U.S. dollars in compensation.
Radio New Zealand said Thursday two other islands, Enewetak
Atoll and Rongelap Atoll, are also hoping for compensation
following the series of 67 U.S. nuclear weapons tests which took
place on the islands between 1946 and 1958.
In 1986, the United States paid 270 million U.S. dollars in
compensation to the Marshalls under previous agreements, but as
health problems are said to be far more devastating than
expected, the Marshall Islands is now seeking further support.
But Washington held it does not support claims for more
compensation.
Bikini Atoll will file a claim this month and the Trust
liaison for the people on Bikini, Jack Niedenthal, said it's
become a matter of urgency for them.
"I think there's a lot of people in the U.S. government that
would really like to help us."
"Under the compact the U.S. government does not have to fund
anything, but it's up to them to do what they should," said
Niedenthal. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
70 Yokwe Net: Marshall Islands' President Calls for Full Settlement
http://www.yokwe.net Everything Marshall Islands ::
3-9-6
"Fifty-two years after the U.S. Government unleashed the largest
nuclear weapon ever tested in the Marshall Islands, we are a
nation that is still striving to come to terms with our nuclear
legacy. We are reminded of not only the sacrifice and suffering
of those affected by the testing but also of the strength and
survival of our people in the face of that suffering," said RMI
President Kessai H. Note during a weekend visit to the island of
Kili, one of the island where the people of Bikini were moved 60
years ago by the U.S. Military. "I am honored to pay tribute to
our survivors and to say that this Administration will not rest
until the unmet needs of all those affected by the testing are
addressed."
President and First Lady Note joined Bikini Senator Tomaki Juda
and the Bikini Mayor and Council Members and the people of Bikini
on Kili Island, over the weekend, in commemorating 60 years since
they were moved from their home for U.S. nuclear testing
purposes.
"I am interested in nothing less than full recovery for our
people. That is why this Administration began work on a Changed
Circumstances Petition when it came into office. That is why we
submitted our Petition to the U.S. Congress in September 2000
describing our needs in detail. That is why we put these same
issues on the table during the Compact negotiations. At the time,
the Executive Branch refused to allow issues related to the U.S.
nuclear weapons testing program to be included in our bilateral
discussions because it determined that Congress would address the
RMI's Changed Circumstances Petition. Therefore, we pushed and
successfully testified at hearings in both the House and Senate.
We have not allowed any setback to deter us. It is in the
interest of full recovery that we have continued to make our case
to the U.S. Government at every opportunity and by every avenue."
The President was speaking to over 100 people Friday afternoon
during his first public address in Kili during his 3 day visit.
"The most immediate needs are clear. Our Nuclear Claims Tribunal
needs additional funding to pay off all personal injury awards
and claims relating to property damage. There is a nuclear waste
storage facility - Runit Dome - on Enewetak that must be
monitored. Marshallese workers who worked at Bikini and Enewetak
under the Trust Territory and those coping with cancers and other
radiogenic illnesses urgently need improved healthcare options."
The President showed appreciation to U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski's sponsorship of a bill that will include Marshallese
in a U.S. worker's compensation program. "We look to the U.S.
Congress and the Administration to follow Senator Murkowski's
lead in finding creative solutions to the real human needs that
we face at home-in these islands. We have already made a request
to the U.S. Congress to increase funding for the 177 Health Care
Program for fiscal year 2007 and to immediately implement a
cancer detection and treatment program. We look to the Department
of Energy, Interior and others in the U.S. Administration to
support our request."
"It is time that the U.S. Government put words into action," said
President Note. "The U.S. Government constantly assures us that
it appreciates that our sons and daughters serve in the U.S.
armed services in Iraq and Afghanistan at a time when recruitment
in the U.S. is down, our willingness to host the U.S. Army at the
Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Testing Facility on Kwajalein
Atoll, and our strong support of the United States and Israel at
the United Nations as demonstrated by the RMI's voting record. We
are pleased to be your ally, but no friend likes to be taken for
granted; the time has come for action, and our requests for
healthcare to assist those injured by U.S. activities must be
addressed."
"This is the time for leadership. This is the time for our
friends and allies in the US to be courageous in their decisions,
creative in their solutions, and compassionate in their support.
The people of the Marshall Islands deserve no less."
The President and First Lady returned to Majuro on Monday.
--From the Office of the President, Republic of the Marshall
Islands
*****************************************************************
71 Pacific Magazine: MARSHALL ISLANDS: Nuclear-Test Affected Islands Gear Up For
Court Actions
PINA and Pacific
Fri: Mar 10, 2006
Islanders from two ground zeros for 67 American nuclear tests
and a third island that was engulfed in radioactive fallout in a
Chernobyl-style nuclear accident are to file lawsuits in United
States courts seeking more than $1 billion in compensation.
Seeing virtually no progress on the Marshall Islands
government’s petition to the U.S. Congress asking for additional
nuclear test compensation that was filed nearly six years ago,
the nuclear test affected atolls are preparing to take their
cases back to the U.S. court system for action.
Bikini Atoll will file a claim in U.S. courts this month, the
60th anniversary of their removal by the U.S. Navy to start the
first post-World War II nuclear tests, according to Bikini
Senator Tomaki Juda.
The Bikinians’ lawsuit will be an effort to get payment on the
$563 million judgment issued but not paid by the Nuclear Claims
Tribunal in 2001, said Bikini official Jack Niedenthal on
Wednesday.
Bikini was the site of 23 nuclear tests, including the 1954
Bravo hydrogen bomb, which was the largest U.S. weapon ever
tested.
Enewetak Atoll, which received the first land damage award from
the Nuclear Claims Tribunal in April 2000, is gearing up to file
a suit in the next several weeks in order to beat the six-year
statute of limitations for filing a claim. Enewetak wants to get
action on a $386 million Nuclear Claims Tribunal award. Enewetak
was the site of 44 nuclear tests.
Because of a lack of funds, the Tribunal made only two small
payments on these awards in 2002 and 2003, amounting to about
$2.2 million for Bikini and $1.6 million for Enewetak.
Although the Tribunal has not yet ruled on Rongelap Atoll’s land
damage claim, Rongelap is preparing for U.S. court action later
this year.
Rongelap’s lawyers and scientific advisors will begin a series
of community meetings next week Tuesday in Majuro to discuss
legal strategy. Unsuspecting islanders on Rongelap, about 100
miles east of Bikini, were engulfed in radioactive fallout from
the 1954 Bravo test. They suffered serious burns and other
radiation-induced illnesses in the days after the test, and have
suffered numerous health problems, including a high rate of
thyroid tumors, in the 50 years since Bravo.
“If we get the Tribunal award by August, then we’ll file (in the
U.S. courts) later this year,” said Rongelap Mayor James
Matayoshi, adding that the Tribunal has no funding left to
satisfy any awards made.
“We have no other choice,” he said. “The message from the United
States government is that ‘changed circumstances’ doesn’t
exist.”
A provision in a now-expired nuclear compensation agreement
between the U.S. and Marshall Islands governments said that if
the Marshall Islands could show that there were “changed
circumstances” that rendered the $270 million compensation
already paid “manifestly inadequate,” then the U.S. Congress
would consider additional compensation.
Nuclear test-affected islanders, including officials from the
Majuro-based Nuclear Claims Tribunal, say that the U.S.
compensation was clearly inadequate based on new information
about the numbers of cancers that are arising from people’s
exposure and new scientific understanding about the hazards of
radiation. A petition seeking several billion dollars in
additional nuclear test compensation and health care has been
pending with the U.S. Congress since 2000 with little movement.
The Bush administration last year issued a report to the
Congress stating that there is no legal obligation for the U.S.
government to provide more compensation.
U.S. Ambassador to the Marshall Islands Greta Morris told the
Bikini people last Friday at a ceremony to mark the 60th
anniversary of their relocation that the U.S. government
continues to be “concerned about the damage done to the
Marshallese people and environment caused by the nuclear tests
in the 1940’s and 1950’s.”
She also expressed the U.S. government’s “deepest gratitude to
the people of the Marshall Islands for your contribution to
security, peace and freedom through your participation in the
nuclear testing program.”
But she described the 1986 compensation package as a “full and
final settlement” of all Marshall Islands claims and confirmed
that the Bush administration does not support additional
compensation.
“Allow me to stress that nothing in the administration’s report
in any way reflects a weakening of U.S. commitments to the
Marshallese people,” Morris said. “Indeed, the United States has
no closer relationship with any nation in the world than it has
through the Compact of Free Association with the Marshall
Islands.”
Bikini and Enewetak had lawsuits pending in the U.S. courts for
land damages, and thousands of Marshall Islanders had personal
injury claims pending when the first Compact of Free Association
with its nuclear test compensation package came into effect in
1986. The more than $5 billion in lawsuits were dismissed in
1986 by a U.S. judge on the basis that an alternative forum —
the Compact’s $270 million compensation section, which included
direct compensation payments to four nuclear affected atolls and
established the Nuclear Claims Tribunal to review claims for
future nuclear damages — had been created by the two governments
to address the nuclear test problem problem.
Matayoshi said the nuclear affected atolls spent the last 20
years going through this process, but that because the Tribunal
was not adequately funded by the U.S. to pay the amounts
awarded, the process has failed to satisfy the claims.
>>> Source: Marianas Variety;
http://www.mvariety.com/pacific/pac01.htm
Pacific Magazine: - Publisher Floyd K. Takeuchi Tel: 808-534-7522
Fax: 808-537-9522
EDITORIAL
- Editor-in-Chief Samantha Magick Tel: (61) 2 9571-1595 Cell:
(61) 439-485-179
-Managing Editor, Web Richard F. Coleman Tel: 808-534-7509 Fax:
808-537-9522
- Associate Publisher & Advertising Director Florence Betham Tel:
(808) 534-7525 Fax: (808) 537-9522
- Hawaii/US Account Executive Trisha Finefeuiaki Tel: (808)
534-7523 Fax: (808) 537-9522
- Guam/Micronesia Sales Representative Edward Quitugua Tel: (671)
637-7609
Pacific Magazine is published monthly by PacificBasin
Communications, Inc. Founder: Bruce Jensen. Copyright 2002, 2003
PacificBasin Communications, Inc. Editorial, advertising offices
at 1000 Bishop Street. Suite 405, Honolulu HI 96813. Telephone
(808) 537-9500. Send all address changes to Pacific Magazine,
P.O.Box 913, Honolulu HI 96808 or e-mail
pmaddchange@pacificbasin.net
Pacificmagazine.net Copyright 2002 - 2004 PacificBasin
Communications Inc. For more information contact
info@pacificbasin.net
*****************************************************************
72 [rense.com]: Depleted Uranium - US Lung Cancer Rates Soar
From Karl W B Schwarz kwbschwarz2@snet.net 3-9-6
kwbschwarz2@snet.net
3-9-6
So, what is the plan?
On the March 8, 2006 edition of the CNN American Morning program
with Miles O'Brien and Soledad O'Brien, they made a startling
announcement. On average there are 175,000 new cases of lung
cancer each year in the United States. For just the months of
January and February 2006 there are 172,000 confirmed, newly
diagnosed cases of lung cancer. This is not just a little spike
on the charts and much worse news is coming. That is already
averaging this year about 6 times the normal incidence of new
lung cancer cases in a year.
They tried to attribute it to second hand smoke, but second hand
smoke and cigarettes are nothing compared to being exposed to
Depleted Uranium ("DU") and particulates created by DU
explosions. You can smoke for 30 years and not do the damage
that DU can do to you in 30 days.
How long does it take to get lung cancer after being exposed to
DU and nano-particulates? On average 2-5 years is the correct
answer. We started bombing Afghanistan in October 2001 or four
and a half years ago. We started bombing Iraq again in March
2003, or just shy of three years ago.
The effects of those bombing attacks were registered as far away
as the UK according to the Aldermaston Report we and others
released February 19, 2006. We do not know yet what was
registered in the U.S. because the U.S. government is not saying
and they definitely do not want you to know.
The link between DU exposure and lung cancer has been known for
many years. The correlation between DU and lung cancer versus
cigarettes and lung cancer is even stronger for DU.
They are making plans right now to bomb Iran, even knowing full
well that they will be spreading more nuclear pollution.
Here are the action items that need to happen:
1. MEDICAL INTERVENTION INSTEAD OF MEDICAL NEGLECT. We
(Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC) are in discussions with multiple
parties to quickly address the medical treatment needs of the
veterans that have been exposed to DU and derivative
nano-particulates. That will require a lab unlike any medical
lab in the United States due to what it is testing for and
developing treatment regimens.
We will be putting out a call to raise funds to provide the
needed travel, lodging and treatment for the veterans. Since
Patmos is already aligned with a hospital and a group of doctors,
and several key players in the heavy metal detoxification area,
our emphasis on biotech will be re-shifted to be one of
addressing the sheer medical needs of the veterans including
treatment for heavy metal toxicity, DU detoxification and
developing a wide range of options to deal with the many problems
the troops are having. If the US government will not do it, we
shall and we shall be asking Americans to do the right thing and
help out.
We are also establishing a DU Detoxification Center in the
Atlanta area and will be expediting the treatment to veterans
that our military is trying to avoid. Lives are at stake as well
as quality of life. What got my attention focused on this matter
is how many of our young healthy soldiers come home and are
fundamentally fully disabled and the government ignoring that for
to do otherwise would be an admission of guilt and creating a
paper trail of evidence that leads up to and includes criminal
conduct. This is not just a civil matter.
We might have to create an ADOPT A VETERAN program where families
with means are helping to pay for the medical needs of these
soldiers. The Red Cross raised over $1 billion for the tsunami
victims and their plight pales in comparison to this DU
contamination catastrophe. Americans sent hundreds of millions
for the tsunami relief fund and it is now time to make some of
that American giving count here at home for Americans.
Many of our troops need our help. If they do not receive help,
many will spend the rest of their lives disabled or will die much
sooner than God had intended.
Where they do not have the financial means, we are going to ask
Americans to make it happen.
If you can provide funds in general or sponsor a specific veteran
for the treatments, you may be saving their life and ultimately
your own.
We already have contingency plans that if the U.S. government
tries to bar us from treating the soldiers they are intentionally
neglecting, for fear of creating an evidence trail, there are
several places offshore where the treatments will be offered and
the logistics to get it done.
The team we are assembling includes a hospital, specialist
doctors, a new biotech center Patmos will build, firms that have
detoxification treatments already that are proving to be very
effective, and a lab that can detect not only molecules but
nano-particulates too. This DU problem will require the services
of laboratories, the medical specialties of endocrinology,
internal medicine, neurology, urology, gastroenterology,
oncology, and others.
Most of all, Patmos has already developed several technologies
that may prove to be very useful in addressing what has been done
to our soldiers and all of us. We are tired of talking about it
and waiting in vain for Washington, DC to do something right for
a change. It is time for action.
As some say, it is lead, follow or get the Hell out of the way
time.
2. LEGAL ACTION. Our government knows DU is deadly and
harmful to the troops and other populations, but they do it any
way and they keep right on doing it any time they see fit. They
knew it in 1989 and have continued to deploy troops four times in
major engagements and have continued to fire these weapons on US
bases around general civilian populations.
The answer to that is a Class Action Lawsuit aimed right at the
problem. We are soliciting attorneys at this time to assemble a
team and address this matter in the courts. It would sort of be
The Citizens of the United States, Active Duty and Veterans of
the US Armed Services v. The United States Government, certain
Defense Contractors, Certain Individuals. My guess is the true
price tag for their criminal negligence could easily top $1
trillion in damages the Plaintiffs should be entitled to.
When the whole truth, nothing but the truth is known about this
matter - America is in for a very rude awakening. You will not
want to watch Shock and Awe on TV when you find out to what
extent it has been delivered into your life.
This DU issue makes asbestos pale in comparison.
The figure does not even scratch the surface on what it will cost
to even attempt to clean up the mess they have made in targeted
countries like Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the collateral
damage of harming general populations many miles away. Turning
another nation and this nation into a nuclear waste dump is not a
no harm, no foul situation.
Army Regulation 700-48 requires mitigation of nuclear waste from
these weapons when used, and they just conveniently ignore that
and keep right on polluting. In short, they are required to put
into effect environmental remediation and medical treatment for
those parties exposed and they just never seem to find time to
obey the law.
The nations of Italy, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Canada,
and many others are seeing the health problems in their soldiers
and civilian workers that entered into these nuclear waste zones.
Bahrain is about 500 miles from Iraq at its closest point and
recent information from there shows that a high percentage of
Bahraini citizens and US soldiers stationed there are highly
exposed to DU. The UK towers at Aldermaston reported DU spikes
shortly after the bombing was done many miles away in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
The harmed parties within this nation alone are our soldiers and
US citizens. The defendants have tried for years to cover this
up or ignore it. We are going to put out a call and a website to
collect donations for the war chest that will be needed to fight
this lawsuit through to completion. It will take many millions
of dollars to wage what might be the most important legal battle
of our time and the defendants have billions of dollars to defend
themselves. They will spend whatever it takes to win because a
defeat would be the ruin of them.
What they cannot hide is the truth but they will resist the truth
from ever becoming generally known. The truth will not set them
free nor will the truth do anything but deliver back to them the
same impunity with which they have treated millions of people.
Many have already died; many more will die while this problem
continues to be ignored by Washington, DC. It is time to make
them stop ignoring it.
If you can donate to the Lawsuit Fund, please send me an email
with contact information.
3. ALL DEFENDANTS WILL BE NAMED. It is quite apparent that
the governments of the US and UK, their militaries, the elected
officials and the defense contractors have a long list of target
countries and they all share one thing in common - they either
have oil and natural gas or they have the land for oil and gas
pipelines to get the oil to ocean ports and distributed around
the world.
These policies that have so many Americans concerned are driven
by Big Defense and Big Oil - so Big Oil and its influence in
making these idiotic policies would be targeted too. Even 9-11
was a staged show for Americans so they would support these war
policies.
There is no Global War on Terror except this nation being the
world's greatest terrorist for oil, military supremacy and
petrodollar supremacy. Gore Vidal said it best in an interview I
saw and I am paraphrasing here - "there is no Global War on
Terror. That is nonsense, it is just rhetoric. They might as
well declare a Global War on Dandruff".
4. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING. We are going to deploy our own
army to take soil, water, plant life and air samples around all
US facilities where these weapons are made, fired, stored, and
generally used. We will also be putting teams in place to take
soil and water samples, as well as meeting with affected parties
in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
One of our affiliates has just uncovered a massive amount of DU
exposure and confirmed human cases in Bahrain. The Aldermaston
Report is confirmed at least for Bahrain in that this deadly
stuff does in fact spread out to large areas. It has been
detected in the UK and it has been confirmed in Bahrain. How
confirmed? A very high percentage of the people tested in
Bahrain are floating in DU contamination and it is being detected
in their urine samples so it is internal, not just laying around
on the sand.
We have preliminary indications that deaths as far away as
Denmark might have happened while this dirty little secret is
being hidden from the world. It is not hard to find US or UK or
coalition troops that went and became so sick they no longer have
a quality of life. It is also not hard to find many that have
died while being neglected by the governments that did it.
We have contacted many of the purported environmentally concerned
groups and none of them have responded. It is growing more
apparent that they have an agenda that is not totally about clean
air, clean water, and healthy environment.
This environmental testing will include randomly buying food
around the US and having it put under very exacting testing
regimens to determine to what extent this toxicity is in our food
chain. We have a pretty good idea of what will be found and it
is not a pretty picture.
Over the coming months our medical affiliates and our company
will be announcing some things that are nanotechnology based (or
combine nanotechnology with existing treatments) and will be
directed at addressing this DU and nano-particulate contamination
problem. Due to the wall of harassment we have received we will
be making these products outside of the United States as well as
an entire new generation of medical machines.
The DU contamination is present, it is real and people need to
start working in unison to address the problem. This DU issue is
a nuclear contamination calamity and DC intends to do nothing
about it.
5. STATE LEVEL ACTION Every state that has had either
National Guard or citizens called up as Reserves or sent as
active duty troops should be moving to implement mandatory DU
testing laws. If nothing else, either be a squeaky wheel or
build an eight foot fire under those bureaucratic butts. The
states of Connecticut and Louisiana have implemented such laws.
New York has a bill in motion as well as about 11 or 12 other
states. Bottom line is all 50 states need to do what is right
for the citizens of their states and put such mandatory DU
testing laws in place.
I think we have provided you with enough information to establish
why they are covering this up. Most criminals do cover up their
conduct if possible.
Every US soldier or soldier of a foreign nation that we treat is
yet another piece of evidence. That chain of evidence will not
only prove what was done to them, it will prove what has been
done to many Americans that have never left the United States yet
have been exposed enough to ruin their health or kill them.
If you know veterans in your area, or if you know some of the
state level elected officials, please contact them and urge them
to start the process of putting mandatory DU testing in place.
6. FEDERAL LEVEL ACTION There is a move in the US
House to make the US government take care of the veterans. Watch
them make this go away as fast as the Republican majority can and
even many of the Democrats since the full expose on this would
implicate Clinton, Gore and many Democrats in Congress.
HOUSE DEMS CALL FOR VETS CARE TO BE INCLUDED IN IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL
"Providing for Veterans Is Continuing Cost of War"
Tuesday March 7, 2006
Contact: Nayyera Haq (Salazar) 202.225.3319
Geoffrey Collver (Evans) 202.225.9756
WASHINGTON, DC - Led by their most junior and senior Members on
the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Congressman John Salazar
(D-CO) and Congressman Lane Evans (D-IL), House Democrats today
moved to prevent a repeat of last year's shameful shortfall in
funding for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In a letter sent
to Speaker Hastert this morning, more than 120 House Democrats
called for the inclusion of $630 million in veterans' health care
funds as part of the President's $72.4 billion Iraq War
Supplemental request:
"We believe that providing for our military veterans and their
families is a continuing cost of war and an important component
of our national defense. We are concerned that the Administration
may have once again underestimated the total number of veterans
that will seek services at the VA, including new veterans of the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Mr. Speaker, we strongly urge you to
correct the Administration's oversight and recognize that caring
for our veterans is an ongoing cost of war."
Said Salazar: "With the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've
created a whole new generation of veterans who need our care. We
cannot have a repeat of last year's shameful budget shortfall. It
is time for us to be honest in our budgeting and recognize the
urgency of providing full funding for veterans health care. Our
troops bravely put their lives on the line and it is our moral
duty to provide them with the care and benefits they were
promised."
The complete text of the letter and the full list of signatories
follows:
Honorable Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
We believe that providing for our military veterans
and their families is a continuing cost of war and an important
component of our national defense. We simply have no excuse for
not meeting their needs. For some, it easy to forget that
budgets and numbers ultimately reflect our priorities and affect
real people. Indeed, by failing to include any money for
veterans' health care and readjustment services in the $72.4
billion emergency war supplemental request, the Administration
again has failed to acknowledge the added stress and resource
demands the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are placing on the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Accordingly, we
respectfully request that you work with the Appropriations
Committee to provide additional resources for the VA within the
emergency war supplemental.
We believe that at least $630 million is urgently
needed to care for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as
well as the heroes from prior conflicts who rely upon the VA for
their health care. Specifically, we are seeking $250 million to
support increased demand for mental health services for returning
troops; $200 million for direct medical services, including
treating traumatic brain injury and other complex blast injuries,
and additional resources for the VA's Polytrauma Rehabilitation
Centers; $110 million for increased demand for VA prosthetics;
$15 million for medical and vocational rehabilitation services;
and $55 million for increased staff to process the growing
disability claims backlog of more than 370,000, including claims
homeless disabled veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who
are waiting months for decisions.
Mr. Speaker, last year, we saw the VA face
disgraceful shortfalls in its health care budget, shortfalls that
had a direct impact upon the care received by veterans.
Ultimately, the Administration begrudgingly admitted these
shortfalls and was forced to request additional resources. We
are concerned that the Administration may have once again
underestimated the total number of veterans that will seek
services at the VA, including new veterans of the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars. Mr. Speaker, we strongly urge you to correct
the Administration's oversight and recognize that caring for our
veterans is an ongoing cost of war.
Sincerely,
John Salazar
Now that you have read this information about VA funding and
Democrats' concern, note that there is not a single word about
addressing the Depleted Uranium calamity. They know and they are
terrified on both sides of the aisle of a paper trail of evidence
being created.
Remember, this is an election year and they are more concerned
about votes and breaking up the Republican monopoly than they are
the veterans suffering. It is all about power and money and
greed, not about lives and quality of life.
You see, I wonder at times why Washington, DC is so callous about
the elderly, Medicare, Social Security, the veterans and their
health needs, which would not be necessary if this nation had not
put them into nuclear waste dumps. The answer is growing clearer
to me every day - they know and if we die their problems go away.
They really could not care less in Washington, DC if you live or
die. You are a constituent and that makes you a present and long
term liability to our leaders, not an asset. They constantly
wrestle with the quandary of how to feign doing right for you and
how they have to do right for their wealthy contributors and
direct the wealth to them. It is a very steady shift of federal
funds from those that do not need it and away from those that
need it the most.
Illegal aliens are flooding into this country and getting better
treatment than our veterans.
That is their version of Problem-Reaction-Solution. I trust you
find mine more to your liking.
Best regards,
Karl
"A patriot is mocked, scorned and hated; yet when his cause
succeeds, all men will join him, for then it costs nothing to be
a patriot." -- Mark Twain -
*****************************************************************
73 Bradenton Herald: Community health survey planned, not yet funded
03/09/2006 |
DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer
TALLEVAST - Leaders of this tiny village on top of a plume of
underground pollution plan to launch a major community health
survey Tuesday even though Lockheed Martin Corp. has not
confirmed it will fund the project.
The proposal for the $33,900 study was submitted to Lockheed, as
requested by the defense giant, Jan. 13.
On Monday, Lockheed said it needed 30 more days to study the
proposal's terms.
Lockheed's failure to respond in a timely manner signals the
company is withdrawing its support, said Laura Ward and Wanda
Washington, leaders of FOCUS (Family Oriented Community United
Strong).
The confidential survey is a cooperative effort of FOCUS, the
Public Health Institute at Florida A University, Manatee County
Rural Health Services and WildLaw, a nonprofit legal aid
organization that helps communities deal with industrial
pollution.
The health survey will be completed by participants who will
fill out lengthy questionnaires at Mt. Tabor Missionary Baptist
Church March 14-18. No names or any identifying information will
be requested. Health professionals will be on hand to answer
questions.
The survey's goal is to create a community health history
including the concerns of residents and workers who may have
been exposed to contamination linked to the former Loral
American Beryllium Co. plant. The former beryllium company has
been identified as the source of the plume now known to cover
131 acres. Toxins found in the plume traced back to the plant
include potentially carcinogenic degreasers and compounds such
as TCE and 1,4-dioxane.
As the owner of the plant when the toxic plume was discovered in
2000, Lockheed Martin has the responsibility for the cleanup.
Leaders of FOCUS asked Lockheed to fund a major community health
project last December.
Ron Helgerson, who then represented Lockheed, expressed a
willingness to cooperate and asked for a detailed proposal for
the company to consider.
On Jan. 13, FOCUS submitted a survey plan prepared with the help
of the Institute of Public Health at FAMU for the first phase of
the study.
Lockheed spokeswoman Gail Rymer confirmed receipt of the
proposal in a Feb. 2 e-mail to FOCUS leaders.
Ward and Washington then met with Tina Armstrong, Lockheed's
senior manager for environmental remediation, Feb. 9. FOCUS
claims Armstrong said Lockheed had questions about the proposal
that would be submitted in writing "within the next few days."
But Lockheed never sent the list of questions, according to Ward
and Washington.
Lockheed's failure to respond meant the launch dates had to be
postponed twice, Ward said.
Another launch date was set for March 14.
But on March 3, when they still hadn't received a response from
Lockheed, Ward and Washington sent a second letter, via e-mail,
to Armstrong and Rymer asking for an answer no later than 5 p.m.
this past Monday.
Rymer's e-mail response was sent to FOCUS at 7 p.m. Monday.
"We are taking the community's concerns seriously," Rymer wrote.
"We are carefully evaluating options to address the health
concerns of the residents. We will communicate with the
Tallevast community in the next 30 days regarding possible
approaches to address these concerns."
When contacted by The Herald, Rymer made it clear that she feels
the health survey proposal came from FOCUS and not the Tallevast
community.
Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com.
HeraldToday.com
Go to the Special Coverage area online for an archive of
stories, maps and documents about the Tallevast plume, including
information about the health survey.
*****************************************************************
74 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca Mountain construction won't start for 5 years, Bodman says
Today: March 09, 2006 at 12:17:48 PST
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS (AP) - It will be at least five years before
construction can begin at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
disposal facility, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said this
week, as lawmakers grilled him about delays possibly affecting
the creation of new power plants.
During a House subcommittee meeting on Energy Department
spending Wednesday in Washington, D.C., lawmakers said the lack
of proper waste disposal facilities could endanger efforts to
license new power plants at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"I think we have a very serious problem here," said Rep. Pete
Visclosky, D-Ind.
Bodman appealed for patience.
"We really had a process that was broken, and we are trying to
fix it," he said. The nuclear industry "is being patient with
me. I ask for your patience as well."
Asked by Visclosky when Yucca Mountain was going to open, Bodman
said: "I would guess at least five years before we are in a
position to put a shovel in the ground to build it."
Bodman, who became energy secretary in January 2005, was
questioned about continuing delays in the repository program,
and about why the department was not seeking to establish
interim storage sites where thousands of tons of radioactive
spent fuel now piling up at power plants in 39 states could be
kept.
Subcommittee chairman David Hobson, R-Ohio, said he was willing
to help, "but we can't do it if you don't have a plan."
The Bush administration has been preparing legislation to speed
work on Yucca Mountain, but it has been delayed in negotiations
between the Energy Department and the White House.
The department has spent roughly $8 billion to research and
begin development of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
President Bush and Congress approved the project in 2002 with a
target date for opening in 2010. But there have been a series of
setbacks, leading project officials in recent months to push
back the target date to 2012 or later.
A federal appeals court in July 2004 threw out a key radiation
health standard, and a Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not
validated an electronic document database that was a required
precursor for NRC licensing.
Inspection audits by the department and by congressional
investigators have raised questions about the quality of work
being conducted by DOE and its management contractor, Bechtel
SAIC.
Nevada critics of the repository said management is only part of
the problem. They maintained that Yucca Mountain is
fundamentally flawed for safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
"I'm glad to hear he's finally admitting that Yucca has serious
problems," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I agree with him on the
first part: Yucca Mountain is broken. But he's wrong about the
second part; science has shown that Yucca cannot be fixed."
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., renewed a call for the department
to abandon Yucca Mountain and to invest in dry cask technology
to keep waste secured at power plants.
"What we really need is a fresh start on our nuclear waste
policy, but that can never come so long as Yucca Mountain
remains the Bush administration's sole focus," Berkley said.
---
Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
75 RIA Novosti: Russia does not import nuclear waste - IAEA expert
09/ 03/ 2006
MOSCOW, March 9 (RIA Novosti) - The depleted uranium
hexafluoride that Russia imports for reprocessing is not
considered a type of nuclear waste, a nuclear expert said
Thursday.
A number of Russian environmental protection organizations
reported Thursday that a port in Russia's second city, St.
Petersburg, was regularly used for transporting radioactive
waste.
"As far as I am concerned, it refers to shipments of depleted
uranium hexafluoride, which is two times less radioactive than
normal uranium," said Viktor Seredenko, a department head at the
institute of chemical technologies and an expert for the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
He said that uranium hexafluoride was not considered radioactive
waste by international standards.
"Thanks to unique technologies developed by Russian specialists,
this product can be reprocessed for further use," Seredenko
said, adding that transportation and processing of uranium
hexafluoride was conducted in full adherence with domestic and
international norms.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
76 Ecodefense”: an echelon with German nuclear waste is coming to Russia -
Environment - REGNUM
08:58:55 ¤ March 10, 2006 Subscribe
Ecologists advise residents of several Russian cities to stay
away from the railroad, and demand the cessation of nuclear
waste import, a correspondent has been informed in press office
of International Social-Ecological Union on March 8.
Transnational URENCO Company sent in Russia another freight of
nuclear waste from its uranium enrichment plant in Gronnau
(Germany). As it became known to Ekozashita group
(“Ecodefense”), nuclear waste at the amount of 500 tons will be
transported by sea to Saint-Petersburg, from where it wil lbe
moved to closed city of Novouralsk (Sverdlovsk region).
According to Ecodefense, the route of the train goes through
Saint-Petersburg, Vologda, Kirov, Perm, so the organization
advises residents of these cities not to approach to railroads
tracks because of possible leakage or crash.
Import of nuclear waste from Germany, as foreign country, is
prohibited by article 48 of law “On Environment Protection”, but
ecologists note that Rosatom and its factories in several closed
Russian cities, such as Novouralsk and Angarsk conduct such
import since 1996. Since 1996 more than 20 thousand tons of
nuclear waste was imported from Gronnau. Also, French company
Eurodif (daughter enterprise of company Cogema) uses the city of
Seversk for the same purposes.
At Russian plants, European nuclear waste is re-enriched,
causing about 10% of total amount of nuclear waste to get in the
same state as natural uranium. Other 90% of the wastes are
buried in Russia for free. Main reason of this scheme is Russian
willingness to bury the wastes at its territory, because if
EUrodif and URENCO will bury the wastes in their territories, it
will lead to 4-5 times increase of price of uranium, and thus
will make uranium production noncompetitive. In 2005,
“Ecodefense” published this information in the report “Import of
nuclear waste: low income, lots of wastes”.
The organization demands Rosatom to cease illegal and immoral
business on import of nuclear waste in Russia, because it will
harm future generations in the name of questionable economical
reason, stated Vladimir Slivyak, co-chairman of “Ecodefense”.
Permanent news address:
10:00 03/09/2006
© 1999-2006 REGNUM News Agency
Registration certificate No. El 77-6430 of the 6th August, 2002
*****************************************************************
77 reviewjournal.com: 'Fix' vowed for Yucca
Mar. 09, 2006
Energy chief admits past process 'broken'
By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told lawmakers on
Wednesday that the Yucca Mountain Project was "broken," and he
appealed for patience as he vowed to get it fixed.
Bodman said blame could be shared by the nuclear waste repository
contractor, other federal agencies and the Department of Energy
itself, "who did not manage it very well."
"We are attempting to manage it better," Bodman said. "My hope
is by demonstrating a thoughtful process, we will be able to
reclaim your support and that of the nuclear industry.
"We really had a process that was broken, and we are trying to
fix it," said Bodman, who became energy secretary in January
2005. The nuclear industry "is being patient with me. I ask for
your patience as well."
Bodman issued his appeal as he came under renewed pressure from
members of a House subcommittee that sets annual spending for
the Department of Energy.
The Cabinet member was questioned about continuing delays in the
repository program, and about why DOE was not seeking to
establish interim storage sites where thousands of tons of
radioactive spent fuel now piling up at power plants in 39
states could be kept in the meantime.
Lawmakers said inability to make headway could endanger efforts
to license new power plants at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The new projects could fail to meet NRC criteria for
waste disposal, they said.
"I think we have a very serious problem here," said Rep. Pete
Visclosky, D-Ind.
Subcommittee chairman David Hobson, R-Ohio, said he was willing
to help, "but we can't do it if you don't have a plan."
The Bush administration has been preparing legislation to speed
work on Yucca Mountain, but it has been delayed in negotiations
between the Energy Department and the White House.
Asked by Visclosky when Yucca Mountain was going to open, Bodman
said: "That's sort of the $64 question."
"I would guess at least five years before we are in a position
to put a shovel in the ground to build it," he said.
Nevada critics of the repository effort said Wednesday that
management is only part of the problem. They maintained that
Yucca Mountain is fundamentally flawed for safe disposal of
spent nuclear fuel.
"I'm glad to hear he's finally admitting that Yucca has serious
problems," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of Bodman. "I agree
with him on the first part: Yucca Mountain is broken. But he's
wrong about the second part; science has shown that Yucca cannot
be fixed."
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., renewed a call for DOE to abandon
Yucca Mountain and to invest in dry cask technology to keep
waste secured at power plants. "What we really need is a fresh
start on our nuclear waste policy, but that can never come so
long as Yucca Mountain remains the Bush administration's sole
focus," Berkley said.
If anything, Bodman was pressed by lawmakers on the spending
panel to move in the other direction, toward temporary storage
away from power plants where spent fuel assemblies are stored in
pools of water and in above-ground casks.
"We are laying all our eggs in one basket," Hobson said,
referring to Yucca Mountain. "I think there will be great
resistance to continue to leave those rods laying around those
communities."
Bodman said he did not believe DOE had authority to establish
interim storage before Yucca Mountain was licensed, but Hobson
disagreed.
"You don't need Yucca Mountain to move spent fuel out of Chicago
or out of Toledo," Hobson said.
Bodman said the matter was being discussed further within the
Bush administration. "We are very open-minded on interim
storage," he said.
The Department of Energy has spent roughly $8 billion to
research and begin development of a nuclear waste repository at
Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
President Bush and Congress approved the project in 2002, but
there since has been a series of setbacks.
A federal appeals court in July 2004 threw out a key radiation
health standard, and a Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel soon
after invalidated an electronic document database that was a
required precursor for licensing.
Inspection audits by the department and by congressional
investigators have raised persistent questions about the quality
of work being conducted by DOE and its management contractor,
Bechtel SAIC.
Most recently there have been stop-work orders related to
project design and to research on canister corrosion.
Almost exactly a year ago and several weeks after Bodman was
confirmed as energy secretary, the program was rocked further by
the disclosure that several U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists
in e-mails discussed possible falsification of quality assurance
documents concerning water infiltration at the site.
The research was a building block in DOE's case that Yucca
safely could contain nuclear waste, and the department spent a
year and more than $1 million to check the allegations.
Talking to the subcommittee, Bodman noted that DOE had expected
to have filed a repository license application before he was
confirmed, only to face new challenges.
"I have arrived and have taken on responsibility for a process
that has been severely compromised," he said. "I inherited what
I inherited, and I am doing my best to see that we comply with
the law and satisfy our obligations. We have got to have Yucca
Mountain, and I have got to make it work."
Bodman said he has taken steps to right the ship, installing a
new manager who has initiated a redesign of the repository's
surface complex in a bid to simplify waste handling. Also,
Sandia National Laboratories has been given responsibilities for
quality control, he said.
Bodman promised that by the summer he would give lawmakers a new
schedule for when DOE expects to seek a repository license.
"I expect that when we have a new schedule, that on the date
that we apply for a license we will be in the position to look
you in the eye and to make the case that we are on top of this
and that we know what we are doing," he said.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
78 The Australian: Waste fears at uranium mine
[March 10, 2006]
Waste fears at uranium mine
Michelle Wiese Bockmann
THE Olympic Dam uranium mine needs urgent improvements in
radioactive waste management and monitoring, according to audit
reviews.
As owner BHP Billiton seeks state and federal government approval
for a four-fold, $5 billion expansion at Olympic Dam, concerns
about the mine's tailings storage facilities have been raised in
the last two audit reviews provided to the Rann Government.
The reviews, obtained by The Australian under Freedom of
Information laws, call on government regulators to "encourage"
changes to the deposit of tailings, a radioactive slurry that is
a by-product of uranium mining production. More than 10 million
tonnes of tailings a year are placed in ponds near the mine.
The review noted radioactive slurry was deposited "partially
off" a lined area of a storage pond, which it believed
contributed to greater seepage and rising ground water levels.
The review also criticises the lack of an agreed, accurate
formula to determine the rate of evaporation of tailings and how
much leaks into the ground.
Consultants Advanced Geomechanics conducted the reviews of the
tailings storage facilities in 2002 and 2003 when the mine was
owned by WMC Resources. In a September 2004 letter to state
Department of Primary Industries and Resources, Advanced
Geomechanics consultant Richard Jewell urged "strong
representation to the operators on these issues to make the
changes".
In April last year, Mr Jewell noted cells within a tailings pond
covered 70ha, more than three times greater than a key
performance indicator recommended.
"This is an issue of real concern and requires the
implementation of urgent remedial measures," Mr Jewell warns in
the letter. He agrees with the auditors' general conclusion that
the tailings facility was "well managed".
The tailings dams were the subject of a 1996 parliamentary
inquiry after previous owners Western Mining Corporation
reported in 1994 that five million cubic litres had leaked from
them over two years.
"They (the mine owners) have a continuing problem with managing
radioactive tailings and a continuing problem with seepage of
tailings," said Australian Conservation Foundation official
David Noonan.
Mr Noonan said the audit reviews showed the mine "had failed
even the most basic monitoring practices".
Mr Jewell yesterday confirmed the 2004 auditors had again raised
the tailings problems. "But in general from my experience the
management at Olympic Dam is as good as I've seen anywhere in
the world," he said.
The Australian
*****************************************************************
79 The Dispatch: The Editor Board: Goal Too High
Thursday, March 09, 2006
By Matt King
Morgan Hill - The goal to clean perchlorate from South County's
groundwater proposed by the Olin Corp. is too high, say
officials of the Central Coast Regional Water Board.
In January, Olin proposed to clean the 9.5 mile perchlorate
plume that stretches south from Morgan Hill through San Martin
and east of Gilroy to a level of 11 parts per billion. That's
nearly twice as high California's 6ppb public health goal for
the contaminant, or the level of perchlorate state scientists
believe is safe for regular human consumption.
Perchlorate is a salt known to interfere with thyroid activity.
When Olin announced its cleanup goal, the company contended
that, based on the latest scientific evidence, 11 ppb is
protective of all humans, including infants and pregnant women.
But in a letter to Olin, the regional board said that company's
approach was "inconsistent with the water board's goal to
protect groundwater as a resource and responsibility to prevent
water degradation."
The state water code demands that polluters clean groundwater to
background levels unless it is technologically or financially
not feasible. The cleanup level can not be higher than any
published health goal. In this case, that's 6ppb, though that
number may go up when the California Department of Health
Services releases a drinking water level for the contaminant,
perhaps later this year.
The regional board did agree with Olin's stance that it is too
soon to announce a final cleanup goal because it's not yet clear
how much, if any, perchlorate was in the groundwater before
Olin's now closed road-flare factory opened in 1955, and the
company hasn't completed a cleanup feasibility study, due at the
end of June.
More than 1,000 municipal and private wells were polluted by
Olin, but most are contaminated at levels well below 6ppb. In
the latest round of tests, only 31 of 863 wells were above 6ppb.
Olin engineer Rick McClure said Tuesday the company will clean
the basin to a level that will not interfere with any current or
potential use of the water. He said the company will continue to
provide bottled water to residents whose wells test above 6ppb.
"Olin has and will continue providing alternative drinking water
supplies to well owners and tenants whose perchlorate
concentration exceeds the public health goal," McClure said.
"However, cleanup of groundwater exceeding a particular clean-up
level, whether it might be 24.5ppb, 11ppb, or 6ppb, can only be
initiated after further studies are complete and the regional
board establishes the final clean-up goal."
Matt King covers Santa Clara County for The Dispatch. He can be
reached at 847-7240 or mking@gilroydispatch.com.
*****************************************************************
80 American Spectator: Take One for the Team
By Max Schulz
Published 3/9/2006 12:05:17 AM
This article appears in The American Spectator's March 2006
issue. To subscribe, please click here.
In recent years Nevada politicos like Governor Kenny Guinn,
Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, and Senators Harry Reid and John
Ensign, along with the major newspapers, have proclaimed the
Silver State's united opposition to the proposed Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository about an hour and a half out of Las
Vegas. Every self-respecting Nevadan, it seems, naturally must
be against Yucca.
Well, maybe not everyone. It seems that Reid and Co. overlooked
a free thinker named Crystal Wosik.
Miss Wosik is better known as Miss Nevada. She was her state's
proud representative to January's Miss America pageant, which
took place, coincidentally, in Las Vegas. In a bid to breathe
some life into the dying Miss America spectacle, pageant
organizers moved the event out of Atlantic City for the first
time in its 85-year history. Searching for better ratings, they
traded the rundown squalor of a Jersey shore boardwalk for the
glitz and glitter of the Vegas strip.
According to the Reno Gazette Journal, Miss Wosik was asked
during the interview session (which did not air on television)
her opinion of the controversial plan to store the nation's
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Bucking the trend established
by just about every major elected official in the state, Miss
Nevada replied that the waste must go somewhere, and Yucca
Mountain appeared to be the best place in the country for it. It
was an eminently reasonable, even courageous, position to take.
Until the follow-up.
The pageant Savonarolas pounced. They asked what if something
terrible happened, some sort of catastrophe where people died.
Well, she reportedly replied, sometimes you "just have to take
one for the team."
Take one for the team indeed. Such selflessness and generosity
of spirit helped ensure Crystal would not be not crowned Miss
America.
So she went down in flames. But in so doing, Miss Wosik provided
a valuable service, suggesting the fissures that might exist in
the state's supposedly unified resistance to filling Yucca
Mountain with nearly 80,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel.
I had Crystal's Yucca Mountain apostasy in mind during a trip to
Las Vegas conducted just two weeks after the Miss America
pageant. Having long known what the state's political
establishment had to say about the matter, I was curious what
the average Las Vegan -- if there is such a thing -- thought
about Yucca. If my limited sampling is any indication, the
answer is not much at all.
"Yucca Mountain?" asked a blackjack dealer at the Bellagio in
response to my inquiry. "That's in Idaho, right?" I told him it
was not far from Las Vegas. He said he had only been in Sin City
for a year.
Others I asked could identify the Yucca Mountain controversy,
but nobody seemed too upset over the possibility the repository
might get built. "The politicians are making hay over it," a
cocktail waitress at the low-rent Barbary Coast noted. I had
queried her as she brought me an early morning drink. "But I
don't think it's much of a problem. The scientists will bury
that stuff pretty deep." Her candor earned a big tip.
My admittedly unscientific survey netted not one person who
could be described as being exercised over Yucca.
Perhaps that is not surprising. For years Nevada -- and Las
Vegas in particular -- played up its role as ground zero of the
nation's nuclear weapons efforts. Before the moratorium on
nuclear testing was instituted in 1992, more than 1,000 nuclear
detonations were conducted there. Most took place at the
government's test site near Las Vegas. About 100 of these were
atmospheric tests; the rest were detonated underground, leaving
an eerie set of pockmarks along the desert floor.
During the 1950s, the Nevada Test Site averaged an aboveground
explosion every five weeks. They were bona fide tourist
attractions. Casinos ferried high rollers out in early morning
limousine rides to watch the mushroom clouds tower over the
landscape. So important was the atom bomb to defining Las Vegas
that in 1958 Clark County incorporated a mushroom cloud into its
seal. According to a 2005 PBS feature on Las Vegas, the Sands
Hotel and Casino even held an annual Miss Atomic Beauty contest.
Miss Atomic Beauty! Now that's a pageant Crystal Wosik should
win hands down.
Max Schulz is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This article
appears in The American Spectator's March 2006 issue. To
The American Spectator
*****************************************************************
81 ForUm: SNF storage to be built in Ukraine
/ 9 March 2006 | 10:21
Ukraine PM Yuri Yekhanurov has announced the country’s intention
to develop a spent nuclear fuel (SNF) storage facility in a bid
to reduce costs charged by Russia for its current SNF storage
solution, reported.
Russian prices for the transportation, processing and storage of
SNF from Ukrainian plants were raised to $720/kg recently, still
considerably lower than globally accepted prices but amounting
to some $100 million annually for storage and reprocessing.
Nonetheless, according to comments attributed to the Prime
Minister, site selection for an SNF storage facility is underway
as the country will have to assume responsibility for its own
waste storage from 2008, when the current arrangements with
Russia draw to a close.
In 2012 Ukraine will receive the first batch of SNF from Russia
following the passage of a law that mandates repatriation.
Editorial staff:english@for-ua.com
All rights are reserved by © LTD. Inter-Media,
ForUm 2001-2006
*****************************************************************
82 OnPoint: Energy Secretary Bodman outlines plans on Yucca, nuclear waste
and oil security
03/08/2006 --
Energy Policy:
'National Mining Association'
About This Episode
The Energy Department recently announced the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP), an ambitious, international plan to
recycle spent nuclear fuel. But lawmakers on Capitol Hill are
raising questions about the cost and feasibility of the GNEP
program, and what it could mean for the long-delayed Yucca
Mountain repository. During today's OnPoint, Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman explains his thinking on GNEP, Yucca Mountain
legislation and the interim storage of nuclear waste. Plus,
Bodman addresses high oil prices and President Bush's pledge to
lessen the U.S. "addiction" to foreign oil.
Click hereto watch this episode.
Transcript
Brian Stempeck: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Brian
Stempeck. Joining us today is Sam Bodman, the secretary of the
Energy Department. Also with us is senior reporter Mary
O'Driscoll. Mr. Secretary, thanks a lot for being here today. We
appreciate it.
Samuel Bodman: I'm happy to be here, Brian.
Brian Stempeck: I want to start off, you recently announced,
from the department, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Samuel Bodman: Right.
Brian Stempeck: Basically a broad plan, a very ambitious goal,
very expensive long-term project.
Samuel Bodman: Right.
Brian Stempeck: Give us a sense on how this came about.
Samuel Bodman: Oh gosh, we've been focusing on the whole
question of management of spent fuel really since I got to the
department about a year ago. And I asked our deputy, Clay Sell,
to look into the matter. He'd really specialized in nuclear
matters during part of his prior career. And so we went to work
on it. I had sort of the senior oversight of it, but the real
work was done by Clay and his colleagues. And they developed an
approach that we think makes a lot of sense. We presented it to
the advisers to the president, then to the president and got his
sign off on it. So we're quite enthused about it.
Mary O'Driscoll: One of the major complaints that we're hearing
about this very ambitious program is that you are making some
real significant changes in U.S. policy on reprocessing waste.
And then managing the reprocessing and, as you call it, the
recycling of waste.
Samuel Bodman: Right.
Mary O'Driscoll: Just through an annual budget and
appropriations process and not through any kind of large scale
debate or discussion about the change in approach on this kind
of issue on Capitol Hill. How do you respond to that?
Samuel Bodman: Well, I think we're going to get plenty of
response and debate on Capitol Hill about this matter; at least
it would appear that that would be the case. GNEP is intended to
recycle spent fuel and at its core we have a situation where we
have over a hundred commercial nuclear reactors in this country.
They've been accumulating spent fuel. Our department has the
responsibility for taking title to that spent fuel. And we have
been working on a program for the ultimate disposition of the
waste in Yucca Mountain. That's sort of one path. The other path
is what we call GNEP, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,
which we believe has the potential -- and we're still saying
potential because we don't know -- but it has the potential of
recycling that waste. When you have spent fuel, Mary, 90 percent
of the energy that was in there when it was brand new fuel is
still there. It's in a different chemical form and it needs to
be removed and recycled. The problem that we have with other
means of recycle is that one gets pure plutonium, which can be
used by people who wish to do harm to others, terrorists and the
like. So this technology enables us, we believe, to recover
plutonium with a mixture of other transuranic elements, which we
think will prevent the use by terrorists for proliferation
purposes.
Mary O'Driscoll: OK. I wanted to ask, to get to that in a
minute, but I wanted to ask, you're talking about two tracks
here. You've got the Yucca Mountain track and you have the GNEP
track, but you're saying that, you have said in the past that
they are linked together. I wanted to know how closely they're
linked together. You told a group of reporters last week, for
instance, that you were not going to pursue any kind of interim
storage until you had a license, interim storage waste until you
had a license for Yucca Mountain at hand. But doesn't that kind
of create a problem where you've got, you don't know what you're
going to be doing with the waste because both Yucca Mountain and
this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership are pretty long-term
programs that aren't going to really show any development for a
while?
Samuel Bodman: Well, Yucca Mountain is a longer term program
than we'd like to have it, sure. But it is not nearly as long
term as GNEP is going to be. And so we're going to have to deal
with -- whether GNEP goes forward or not, we have to have Yucca
Mountain. And we need to have a final repository. If we are only
successful in moving forward with Yucca Mountain and we're not
successful with GNEP, now which it remains to be a question that
perhaps we can talk about later, if that's the case, we will
proceed with Yucca Mountain. And proceed to store the fuel there
as we now plan to do. We had, we will be filing legislation
related to Yucca Mountain. You alluded to that. And the primary
focus of the legislation will be first land withholding and
secondly, a financial or fiscal reform of the program in order
for us to fund it in a more effective way. I think I got a
little bit ahead of myself the other day when I said that there
will not be inclusion of any discussion of interim storage. I'm
still unclear about that, frankly, and it's still a matter
that's still being debated. So I'd rather not go further with it
until we finish the internal debate within the administration.
Brian Stempeck: There seems to be a growing sense from some
camps that all the attention being paid towards GNEP is making
it a higher priority than Yucca Mountain. Almost in a sense the
department is turning its back on Yucca Mountain. Do you think
that's an accurate assessment at all?
Samuel Bodman: Oh no. We're very committed to Yucca Mountain. We
have to be for the reasons that I mentioned. Yucca Mountain is
the law of the land. It's been passed by Congress, signed by the
president. It's been reviewed by Congress, reviewed by the
president. So this is something that we are committed to do,
among other reasons, as I said, it's the law of the land. And so
we will pursue it. We are committed to looking at GNEP. The goal
here, over the next three years, is to do enough work that we
can narrow the cost bands. And that we can make a determination
of, if you will, on a go or no go basis, as to whether we should
go forward with the global nuclear partnership. That's the
issue.
Mary O'Driscoll: OK, and you're also talking about $3 to $6
billion before you figure out whether to make that final, that
go or no go decision. So that's an awful lot of money to be
spending on something like that, isn't it?
Samuel Bodman: No. If I may, the cost over the next three years,
it's about $250 million that we have asked for '07. It'll be, I
think, it's $700 million for '08. And, oh like maybe $800 or
$900 million for the next year. That effort will put us in a
position, we believe, during '08 to make a decision. If we
can't, we'll, we will do everything we can do while this
administration is here. And bundle it all up and hand it to the
next administration who comes in. But it's, we believe it makes
great sense to pursue this. The $3 to $6 billion that you
mentioned, that's the capital costs over a period of time for
the three components --
Mary O'Driscoll: OK.
Samuel Bodman: -- of GNEP, which is the separation of the spent
fuel and the culling out, if you will, of the transuranics that
can be recycled, the development of a fast reactor, which can
burn the transuranic materials and the third part, which is the
fuel device that will, or manufacture of fuel elements from the
transuranic that are removed so that they can be put into the
nuclear reactor.
Mary O'Driscoll: OK, one question, I wanted to kind of track
back to Yucca Mountain. Senator Domenici has been telling
reporters, actually today, that he does not see any Yucca
Mountain legislation coming out this year. You've talked about
the need to reform the funding for Yucca Mountain.
Samuel Bodman: Right.
Mary O'Driscoll: Getting better access to the nuclear waste
trust fund.
Samuel Bodman: Right.
Mary O'Driscoll: And a need to jumpstart the program and get
things back on track.
Samuel Bodman: Right.
Mary O'Driscoll: And also the nuclear industry is very eager to
be able to find some way to get the waste off their sites --
Samuel Bodman: Right.
Mary O'Driscoll: -- and into an interim site or some place, so
that they don't have to keep storing it on there. Are you
concerned that Senator Domenici is saying "not this year"? That
it might have to be pushed off until next year?
Samuel Bodman: Senator Domenici is a much greater expert on the
legislative calendar and procedures than I am and so I would be
concerned, truly, if he mentions that. We hope to be able to
deliver up soon, I would hope within the month period of time,
the proposed legislation that has been signed off on by the
administration. And we hope that we can get action on it this
year. We'll see how that works out.
Mary O'Driscoll: OK.
Brian Stempeck: I want to switch subjects to the world oil
markets. We recently had the president of OPEC on our program.
He said the idea of $60 per barrel on oil is actually a fair
price, a price he doesn't think is hurting the world economy. I
wanted to see if you agree with the OPEC president's assessment
of the world oil markets?
Samuel Bodman: Well, first I make it a policy, in this job in
particular, but in general I would say not to forecast oil
prices. You know, I think a fair price is something that both
buyers and sellers find acceptable. I would say, in terms of our
being the primary buyer or the largest buyer of oil in the
world, $60 is a pretty high price, at least as far as we're
concerned, as far as the president's concern. That's why we've
made a number of proposals, the president has, in his State of
the Union address and the subsequent budget announcement, budget
proposal that we made to Congress to develop alternative forms
of energy, that hopefully could lead to a reduction in the
pressure on oil markets. So we're hopeful that we could see a
reduction in prices below the $60 level, but I wouldn't say
anything more than that. We're going to work hard to try to, to
try to reduce that pressure. We have real issues, Brian, because
we have, for the first time in my lifetime, we have, I'm seeing
an inability of the suppliers to keep up with demand. And that's
what's driven prices up into this $60 to $70 range, which is,
I've seen attendant increases in gasoline costs that are really
felt by American consumers. And so the president of OPEC is
quite right that the economy seems to be holding up pretty well.
But clearly the margin for error and slippage in the economy has
been reduced by this head wind that we're facing. And so we're
hopeful of reducing the price.
Mary O'Driscoll: I wanted to know, the president in his State of
the Union address talk about reducing our dependence on foreign
oil or oil from the Middle East.
Samuel Bodman: Right.
Mary O'Driscoll: Which then in your remarks afterwards was
amended a little bit to, you know, that's not exactly what he
was saying. What can you tell us is the real goal of the State
of the Union address to getting off of foreign oil? I mean, what
is the real goal here that you're looking at? Because it got a
little muddy there in the discussions --
Samuel Bodman: Yeah.
Mary O'Driscoll: -- after the State of the Union.
Samuel Bodman: Yeah, I think the best way I would put it is
that, would be to create enough alternative sources of motor
fuels that we could relieve the pressure on our gasoline by, of
order 5 million barrels a day and do that over the next 20
years. That's kind of how I think about it. And there are those
who would attribute that to the Mideast. We, in fact, import oil
from literally all over the world. And I think the president was
trying to deliver a message, a goal, if you will. And the way I
think of that goal is to reduce the consumption of oil by 5
million barrels a day. If you do that I think we'll see some
real diminution of the pressure on oil. And the largest, or the
best candidate to help accomplish that would be ethanol and the
manufacture of ethanol from cellulose, which is part of the
research program that the president put forth in that State of
the Union.
Mary O'Driscoll: OK.
Brian Stempeck: One last question for you, Mr. Secretary,
because we're running out of time. There's a lot of instability
in the world oil markets right now, in Nigeria, in Saudi Arabia,
the attempted attack there.
Samuel Bodman: Right.
Brian Stempeck: The situation on Iran with nuclear power and a
potential shut down of oil exports there as well. In the event
of a major supply crisis, what is the White House's plan of
response? Beyond just going to the strategic reserves, what
other plan does the White House have in the event of a major
supply crisis?
Samuel Bodman: There is going to be clearly a response if any
one of these events occurs; if we were to see a shutdown of
Nigerian oil on world markets, if we were to see a shutdown, for
whatever reason, of Iranian oil or of any major producer. There,
I believe, would be a significant increase in price that would
be attendant thereto. Increased prices would help reduce
consumption. We would have available to us the strategic
petroleum reserve, which is some 700 million barrels of oil,
that would,l if it were 100 percent of the oil that we needed it
would last us, I think, for two or three months. But given the
fact that this would be a partial shutdown, I think we would get
good support over the course of a year. So we would have some
time to adjust, but there's no doubt we would be looking at
higher prices. And I think that with higher prices we will see
an even more aggressive stimulation of alternatives. And that
would be the primary response. But the government does not have,
I wish there were a magic bullet that I had as the secretary of
Energy, or that the president had, that could impact this. But I
don't believe there is one.
Brian Stempeck: All right, Secretary Bodman, we're out of time.
Thanks so much for being here today.
Samuel Bodman: Happy to be here.
Brian Stempeck: I'm Brian Stempeck. This is OnPoint. Thanks for
watching.
[End of Audio]
*****************************************************************
83 Boston Globe: Starmet Corp. site cleanup progress lauded by environmentalists
By Davis Bushnell, Globe Correspondent | March 9, 2006
A milestone in the cleanup of Starmet Corp.'s Superfund site in
West Concord was reached with the recent removal of 3,846 drums
of depleted uranium and 322 tons of depleted uranium metal,
according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.
This work was completed on Feb. 27, a month or two ahead of
schedule, by a subcontractor of Envirocare of Utah Inc.,
department spokesman Joseph Ferson said. He added that the cost
of removing and trucking the material to Utah for disposal ''is
a little more than $8 million."
Ferson added that more than $1 million will be spent on removing
''other contaminated waste and chemicals" from the site. A
timetable for this phase to be completed is now being worked out
with the Utah firm, he said.
The Army has agreed to pay for these cleanup efforts. From 1970
to 1999, Starmet's predecessor company, Nuclear Metals Inc.,
produced uranium-tipped bullets for the Army.
Local environmentalists and officials said they are pleasantly
surprised by the progress.
''We're pleased that this part of the cleanup work has been done
so quickly and safely," said Pam Rockwell, chairwoman of the
2229 Main Street Oversight Committee, made up of town officials
and residents. The Starmet property is located at 2229 Main St.
In a next key step, the Connecticut firm doing a remedial
investigation of the 46-acre property will examine what remains
in the Starmet buildings where the barrels of low-level
radioactive material were stored.
''We're prepared to inventory what's left [in the buildings] and
then estimate the cost of removing what's necessary, including
possibly manufacturing equipment," said Bruce Thompson, project
manager for de maximis inc. of Windsor, Conn. The firm is
evaluating air, soil, and ground-water data on behalf of the
Army and four other parties cited by the US Environmental
Protection Agency in 2003 for contaminating the Starmet site. It
was placed on the agency's list of the nation's most polluted
sites in 2001.
The buildings must be vacated before his company's workers can
get into them, Thompson said, but a Starmet spinoff, Advanced
Specialty Metals, is currently using the buildings.
There are indications, he said, that the buildings will be
vacant by the end of this year.
Officials of Advanced Specialty Metals and an EPA spokeswoman
could not be reached for comment.
State and federal environmental officials have said they hope a
final cleanup plan for the property off Route 62 can be unveiled
in 2009.[ /]
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. More:
*****************************************************************
84 KUTV: PFS Chairman Says Utah Can't Stop Nuclear Storage
[clock] Mar 9, 2006 9:39 am US/Mountain
SALT LAKE CITY Private Fuel Storage’s chairman told a conference
in Maryland that the consortium of power utilities is moving
forward with its plans for a high-level nuclear waste disposal
site in Utah and he doesn’t think opponents – who include Utah’s
state government and congressional delegation – can stop it.
“Yes, there is hope for our future,” John Parkyn said, holding
up the consortium’s Nuclear Regulatory Commissions license to
applause from the crowd at an NRC conference Wednesday. He was
quoted by the Deseret Morning News.
Several Utah officials have said that PFS already has lost the
battle, despite gaining the NRC license.
Assistant Utah Attorney General Denise Chancellor that gaining
the license was “a Pyrrhic victory for PFS – just a piece of
paper.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has cited several utilities that have
suspended their financial support for the waste facility
proposed on the Goshutes’ reservation in Skull Valley. He said
the waning support from PFS members, plus other barriers against
the proposal, have “put Utah over the hump in our fight against
the Skull Valley plan.”
But Parkyn said Wednesday that he is seeking additional
utilities with nuclear plants interested in moving waste to the
PFS site, 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.
He believes other utilities will join the consortium to save
money. In some cases, it would cost utilities more to keep
storing waste at their plant sites – especially at nuclear power
plants no longer in use – than it would to move it to Utah,
Parkyn said.
And he said the federal creation of the Cedar Mountain
Wilderness Area will not succeed in blocking transportation of
waste to the site, as intended by the state and the
congressional delegation.
Parkyn maintains that the wilderness area does not rule out
using another rail route.
“That doesn’t mean you can’t put a railroad there, whether Sen.
Hatch understands that or not. It certainly would make getting
that land lease for the purpose harder.
“We will get the fuel to the site because it’s a legal
commodity, and we now have a license to receive it,” Parkyn
said.
In another development, Time magazine said in a story posted on
its Web site Wednesday that the Goshutes’ Skull Valley Band
stood to gain “as much as $100 million in fees to be paid over
40 years” by PFS. It did not cite a source for the figure.
Leon Bear, chairman of the band, said he did not know how much
money will be involved.
“When you start talking about profits ... I can’t speculate on
that,” he told the News Wednesday.
He said the agreement with PFS “has to do with profit sharing,
“and how do I know what the profit’s going to be? I know the
facility’s going to cost quite a bit to build.”
PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin told the News she did not know the
amount, and, “They have always considered the amount of the
lease confidential. It has never been released publicly that I’m
aware of.”
Margene Bullcreek, a leader of tribal members opposed to Bear
and to the project, said she does not know the terms of the
agreement with PFS.
(© 2006 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material
*****************************************************************
85 St. Paul Pioneer Press: Yucca site won't help at Monticello
03/09/2006 |
The March 1 editorial, "Dry casks now, bigger vision soon,"
acknowledges uncertainties about storing spent nuclear fuel at a
Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. However, it fails to point
out that Yucca's fate is irrelevant to Xcel Energy's proposal to
store waste generated by its Monticello nuclear power plant
between 2010 and 2030. That's because Yucca Mountain's capacity
would be full before 2010. Thus, a dry cask storage system for
Monticello's post-2010 waste can't be regarded as a "temporary
answer." It must be viewed as a long-term storage proposal
because the federal government has not identified, much less
studied, a permanent repository for nuclear waste generated
after 2010.
Though we all wish there were other disposal options, as a state
we need to acknowledge that the only place under consideration
for the waste Monticello creates after 2010 is in our own
backyard. If we make it, we own it.
DEE LONG
Minnetonka
The writer is the environmental tax and incentives program
director for Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Minneapolis
The writer is the clean energy program director for Minnesota
Center for Environmental Advocacy.
*****************************************************************
86 UPI: Germany to build nuke waste storage site
United Press International - Energy -
3/9/2006 12:11:00 PM -0500
SALZGITTER, Germany, March 9 (UPI) -- A German court rejected
four lawsuits protesting a planned storage facility for nuclear
waste in Lower Saxony, ending a fierce campaign to block the
project.
Lower Saxony's environment authorities in 2002 gave the green
light to convert a former iron ore mine in the town of
Salzgitter into a permanent storage facility for low- and
medium-level nuclear waste. Immediately after the decision, the
city of Salzgitter, two neighboring communities and two private
citizens filed lawsuits against the planned project.
On Wednesday, a court in Lueneburg rejected the suits, arguing
the radiation levels would be far below harmful levels, adding
there was no chance to appeal.
After the court's decision was announced, the federal
environment minister said he was positive the plant will be
built.
The underground storage facility could be completed within five
years and would store waste from all over Germany in galleries
sunk as deep as 4,260 feet below the surface, according to
Deutsche Welle Online.
The project was launched during the chancellery of Helmut Kohl,
when the current Chancellor Angela Merkel was environment
minister.
Several environment and citizens' groups protested against the
project for years.
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
87 ForUm: President addresses nuclear waste issue
/ 9 March 2006 | 15:35
Lecturing at the National University today, Victor Yushchenko
urged Ukrainians to honestly and professionally find ways to
store nuclear waste.
“If we want to use nuclear energy, we must learn to safely store
nuclear waste,” he said, President's press office reported.
The President reiterated that Ukraine’s four power plants
currently produce 54% of electric energy but none of them has a
modern depot for nuclear waste.
“We are living in times when one must address such issues. Like
the two previous presidents, I can say nothing but that is not
how one should respond to the challenge. We must honestly face
the existing problem,” he opined.
The Head of State said sooner or later experts would have to
build depots for nuclear waste.
“This issue belongs to experts who should reach understanding
with society. But it should never be politicized,” Yushchenko
remarked.
The President said we must distinguish betweenused nuclear fuel
and nuclear waste. Fuel contains uranium and plutonium, which
can be reused as energy.
“But Ukraine has to store nuclear waste here in accordance with
international agreements. We cannot leave this waste in other
countries,” he said.
Yushchenko reminded those present that in 2006 Ukraine would
have to pay USD 120 mln to Russia for processing its used fuel,
but in 2012 nuclear waste would be brought back to Ukraine. He
said our government tried to solve the problem constructively
and urged all to avoid “adventurous political statements.”
*****************************************************************
88 Deseret News: PFS chief says foes can't stop nuclear waste
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, March 9, 2006
Utah updates challenge; $100M deal for Goshutes? By
Suzanne Struglinski and Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — A Nuclear Regulatory Commission license in hand,
Private Fuel Storage's chairman said Wednesday that the
consortium of utilities is moving forward with its plans for a
high-level nuclear waste disposal site in Utah's Skull Valley —
and he doesn't think opponents can stop it.
"Yes, there is hope for our future," John Parkyn said,
holding up the license at an NRC conference in Maryland, drawing
applause from the crowd.
In other developments:
• The state of Utah this week filed an updated challenge
to the PFS proposal in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for
Washington, D.C. It challenges the NRC's license, issued to PFS
last month.
• And Time magazine is reporting that PFS would pay the
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians up to $100 million over 40
years for the right to operate its proposed repository on the
band's reservation.
However, neither Skull Valley Band chairman Leon Bear nor
PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin would confirm the figure to the
Deseret Morning News.
In Maryland, Parkyn told the NRC conference he is seeking
additional utilities with nuclear plants interested in moving
waste to the PFS site, 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. And
he downplayed any chances Utah's congressional delegation,
governor and other opponents have at stopping PFS's plans.
That includes the recent creation of the Cedar Mountains
Wilderness Area, approved by President Bush in January. The
wilderness area gives federal protection to land adjoining the
Utah Test and Training Range and includes PFS's preferred route
for a rail line that would be built to move nuclear waste
through Skull Valley to the storage site.
The congressional delegation had earlier pointed out that
the wilderness designation did not stop the project outright but
at least could remove a transportation option. PFS could still
use a trucking option, although it still needs permission to use
public land to build a transfer facility to truck the waste.
But Parkyn maintains that the wilderness area does not
rule out using another rail route.
"That doesn't mean you can't put a railroad there,
whether Sen. (Orrin) Hatch understands that or not. It certainly
would make getting that land lease for the purpose harder.
"We will get the fuel to the site because it's a legal
commodity, and we now have a license to receive it," Parkyn said.
Parkyn said the Cedar Mountain reserve is not a real
wilderness either, arguing that the wilderness is in the
mountains and that the delegation just "drew a bubble" around
the mountains to block the nuclear waste — an argument he says
could matter later down the line.
Parkyn believes other utilities will join the PFS
consortium to save money and that ultimately the federal
government will come on board as well.
In some cases, it would cost utilities more to keep
storing waste at their plant sites — especially at nuclear power
plants no longer in use — than it would to move it to Utah,
Parkyn said. Although he would not disclose specific amount, he
said PFS is a more cost-effective option because there is one
set of security, insurance and other costs split a number of
ways versus one utility having to pay for its own on site
storage itself.
Companies interested in using PFS to store waste would
pay a per-cask-cost, a percentage based on how much waste they
would have to store there. Parkyn agreed that there are still
some obstacles for the project to overcome, but individual
utilities face their own sets of problems having to store waste
at their plant sites, so PFS is still a viable option. He said
72 plant sites have separate costs that can be consolidated into
a small share of one site.
"It's an individual choice," Parkyn said of the utilities.
The proposed PFS site in Utah would be an interim storage
location. It was conceived because the Energy Department has yet
to open the permanent government-owned nu- clear waste site
planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada. That site is plagued by
its own set of delays and controversies. Federal law prohibits
storing waste in Nevada before Yucca gets a license, and a
federally owned interim waste site would need to be approved by
Congress.
Parkyn said "nothing official" has taken place with the
Energy Department on getting PFS to become a federal interim
site, but it is "logical to not replicate it." It took PFS
almost nine years to get a license, so PFS believes the
government could use its site instead of creating its own.
"They (the Energy Department) know that we are here, and
a lot of us have worked hard on this," Parkyn said.
'Toxic opportunity'
Meanwhile, the Time magazine article, "Utah's Toxic
Opportunity" by reporter Margaret Roosevelt, has prompted
discussion about how much the Goshutes in Tooele County could
benefit from the project.
Jason Groenewold, director of the anti-nuclear group
Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, said the $100 million
figure is "pennies on the dollar, compared to liabilities the
nuclear industry faces for keeping this waste where it's
generated. . . .
"Given that the liabilities and risks are going to be the
highest for those that live in Skull Valley, they got the short
end of the stick."
But Bear, the tribe's chairman, said PFS payments would
allow the band to improve health care and housing. In 2000
Census reports, the tribe's population was listed at 90, not all
of whom may be members of the Skull Valley Band.
The Time article, though dated March 13, is not included
in the March 13 print edition available on newstands in Utah but
is available on the magazine Web site. It does not show up as a
link but appears when the word "Goshute" is typed in the
magazine's search engine. Time magazine did not immediately
answer an e-mail query seeking to clarify why Utahns could read
the article on the Internet but could not find it in the
magazine, though it was reportedly published elsewhere.
Asked about the $100 million figure, PFS's Martin said,
"They have always considered the amount of the lease
confidential. It has never been released publicly that I'm aware
of."
In fact, she added in a telephone interview, she did not
know the amount.
Bear also said he didn't know how much money will be
involved. "When you start talking about profits . . . , I can't
speculate on that," he said Wednesday.
The agreement between the Skull Valley Band and PFS "has
to do with profit sharing," Bear added, "and how do I know what
the profit's going to be? I know the facility's going to cost
quite a bit to build," he added.
In a June 2000 article, the Deseret Morning News reported
the cost of the PFS facility would be $3.1 billion, counting
construction, operations and decommissioning. Since then,
Congress passed the wilderness act that derails a planned rail
spur line to the site. Because of that, a separate plant
apparently would have to be built to unload protective casks
from rail cars and load them onto trucks for the trip to the
reservation.
Asked how the tribe will benefit from PFS, he said,
"We're talking about putting housing up there, police station,
small tribal clinic." Another possibility is health insurance
for every tribe member, he said.
Bear said the band's health provider is in Fort Duchesne,
Uintah County, 250 miles away. "It's hard for our people to get
out there.".
For and against
Most members of the band are in favor of the project,
Bear said. "We just had our meeting a couple of weeks ago, and
everybody's anticipating when this is going to happen."
People wanted to know, "now that we got the license
(referring to the license that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
issued to PFS), how come they're not building it? I just told
them that you got to understand there's a lot of other things
that's got to happen before they start moving dirt around."
Among these are approval by the Bureau of Land Management
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Who knows what bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., are going
to do? Bear asked.
Asked if he was hopeful that the project will be built,
he said it was like his father always said, "If it's going to
come here, it's going to come here." The facility will be built
on the reservation "if that's where it's intended to go," Bear
said.
Margene Bullcreek, a member of the Skull Valley Band who
lives on the reservation and who opposes the project, said she
does not know the terms of the agreement with PFS.
She and other opponents have been saying "this contract
is not valid because we don't know what's contained in there,"
she said in a telephone interview.
"Hopefully, it's not going to happen," she said of the
project.
The project would store "more than half of the nation's
(nuclear) waste on our small, little reservation, and there's no
guarantee this is as safe as they say it is, because of the
man-made accidents," she said. "Why should we give up our
sovereignty, our indigenous land to store this waste?" Bullcreek
asked. She worried that if some irreversible incident took
place, "what's going to happen to us? Are we going to relocate?"
The $100 million cited, assuming it is a correct figure,
is not the only amount to be paid to Utah entities. In September
2005, this newspaper quoted Martin as saying the utility
consortium could pay Tooele County up to $250 million in lieu of
property tax over the project's 40-year life.
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com; bau@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [
*****************************************************************
89 The Signal: City: Site Cleanup of Perchlorate to Start This Month
Thursday, March 9 2006
Issues relating to bond held up process but officials waive
requirement for grading permit.
Kristopher Daams Signal Staff Writer
Officials said Wednesday that soil cleanup for the contaminated
996-acre Whittaker-Bermite site that lies in the center of Santa
Clarita will begin March 22.
Issues relating to a necessary bond — a security deposit of
sorts — held up the excavation of the site to begin the soil
cleanup. The site is contaminated with perchlorate, a component
of rocket fuel, and other volatile organic compounds.
The bond was a requirement for the necessary grading permit.
However, the city on Wednesday waived the requirement for
the grading permit, said Sayareh Amir, an official with the
Department of Toxic Substances Control, at a meeting of the site
cleanup’s multi-jurisdictional task force.
The soil cleanup, also called remediation, will be for soil
down to 40 feet deep.
Some sections of the site are contaminated only with
perchlorate. Those areas require on-site excavation and a
process to biologically break down the contaminant.
Other areas are contaminated only with the VOCs and that
contamination is set to be removed from the soil through dry
wells dug in the ground. Using a soil-vapor extraction system,
air will be drawn from the ground under vacuum conditions and
stripped of its dangerous components.
For areas with both contaminants, both remedies are set to
be used, said Jose Diaz, a scientist with DTSC overseeing the
cleanup, at a meeting of the Citizen’s Advisory Group for the
site cleanup on Wednesday.
Contamination is known to be as deep as 100 feet, and the
work set to begin March 22 will not be geared toward that.
The site is divided into seven “operating units,” also
called OUs, and the work set to begin in about two weeks is for
OU1, the OU pertaining to the soil.
Soil further deep down is under OU7, the component of the
site cleanup pertaining to the groundwater contaminated with
perchlorate, known to affect thyroid function.
Valencia resident Cam Noltemeyer accused DTSC officials of
“misleading the public” for notifying nearby residents and
businesses within a quarter-mile of the cleanup of the soil
remediation that would not include deeper soil.
“Right now we want to do what is technically feasible,” said
Rita Kamat, a hazardous substances scientist with DTSC also
overseeing the cleanup.
A work notice is set to be mailed out next week to people
living nearby that will notify them of the work and when it will
occur. Those work notices will be sent to residents of the
Circle J community, said Yvette LaDuke, DTSC’s public
participation specialist.
“They (the residents) will understand that this isn’t the
final remediation of the property,” LaDuke said.
Deeper soil will be cleaned up later on, Kamat said, and
Diaz said there will be “minimal impacts to the surrounding
communities.”
The site will be wetted as well so wind does not scatter any
of the contaminated dirt.
“There are a lot of measures the contractors have to put in
place,” Kamat said.
©2005 The-Signal.com - Site powered with DynamicBase by
ActiveQuest, Inc.
*****************************************************************
90 Hanford News: Lawmaker rejects vit plant's budget; Congressman claims $690
million annual budget not in effect
This story was published Thursday, March 9th, 2006
By Les Blumenthal; Herald Washington, D.C., bureau
WASHINGTON - The Department of Energy and its contractors have
"screwed up" construction of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant
and shouldn't be rewarded for their mismanagement, the chairman
of a key House panel said Wednesday.
In unusually blunt language, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, rejected
the administration's plan to spend $690 million on the waste
vitrification plant in the next fiscal year, but added he hadn't
decided how much his energy and water appropriations
subcommittee would provide.
Hobson told Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman the tacit
understanding that Congress would appropriate $690 million
annually for the plant during the next 10 years was no longer
operative.
"I don't think that's a deal anymore," said Hobson, whose
subcommittee oversees DOE funding. "There is nothing magic about
the $690 million figure."
The plant, where 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste
currently stored in aging and leaking underground tanks would be
turned into glassified logs suitable for permanent disposal, has
been beset with cost overruns and schedule delays.
Only a year ago, the plant was expected to cost about $5.8
billion and be ready to begin treating waste in 2011. The latest
estimate is the plant will cost $10 billion, a figure even
Bodman said Wednesday was likely too low, and not be operational
until 2017.
"This is tough stuff," Bodman said, noting the plant would
handle the most dangerous substances known to man. "It is very
difficult and very expensive."
Bodman said it was clear there had been a "breakdown in
management" at the plant. But he said he had met three times
with the chief executive officer of the plant's contractor,
Bechtel National, and believed the problems were being resolved.
The cost overruns and schedule delays were driven by a 2004
report that indicated the plant, as designed, might not be able
to withstand a severe earthquake.
But other factors also have come into play, including scientific
issues involving the first-of-a-kind plant, design changes and
increasing costs for labor and materials.
Bechtel is expected to provide new cost and completion estimates
by early summer, and then the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
review the estimates, Bodman said.
"I believe we have their attention," Bodman said. "There is
plenty of blame to go around. I am at least as disappointed as
you are."
But Hobson said he has never seen a project more fraught with
problems in the 16 years he has served in Congress.
"Hanford seems to get all the money and they have screwed up,"
he said. "Other sites that have done a good job get whacked.
There is a disconnect here."
Bodman defended his department's funding proposal for the plant.
"When it comes to Hanford, we made a judgment that's where we
are at greatest risk," he said.
"First it was going to be $4.3 billion and then $5.3 billion,"
Hobson said. "No one can tell me what it will be, but it is well
on its way to being $10 billion."
"It's more than that, sir," Bodman replied.
Hobson said he wasn't convinced DOE yet has a handle on the cost
overruns and schedule delays.
"I wish I had more of a comfort level with how to get this
squared away," he said. "We can't abandon it, but I haven't seen
one other project with these difficulties. It's a disaster from
my standpoint."
After the hearing, Hobson said the federal government has a
responsibility to clean up the Hanford reservation, but Congress
also has a responsibility to federal taxpayers.
"Hanford drives me out of my mind," he said. "No one can tell me
what the fix is. It is out of control."
Today, James Rispoli, the man in charge of DOE's environmental
cleanup programs including Hanford, is scheduled to testify
before Hobson's subcommittee.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
91 Hanford News: Steam may be used to rid last of sodium from FFTF
This story was published Thursday, March 9th, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
The Department of Energy is considering using super-heated steam
to remove the last of the liquid sodium in Hanford's Fast Flux
Test Facility.
Most of the sodium has been removed from the reactor as it is
permanently shut down. But small amounts of sodium once used to
cool the reactor remain trapped in areas that are difficult to
drain within piping and equipment.
DOE wants to remove all of the sodium so the reactor can be left
in a condition that requires limited and low-cost surveillance
and maintenance. It has postponed plans to dismantle the reactor
so cleanup money may be spent on more pressing environmental
concerns at the Hanford nuclear reservation.
The reactor has not operated for 13 years, and DOE has found no
use for it that it considers economically viable.
Several processes have been considered for removing the residual
sodium, which could ignite if it comes in contact with oxygen.
The residual sodium now is blanketed with argon gas.
Using super-heated steam to remove the residuals would prevent
water vapor from forming and also allow the work to be done
quickly, according to a draft study on removing residual sodium.
In the process, steam would be heated to 400 degrees before it
is injected into the system to be cleaned. The equipment would
be heated to at least 212 degrees.
As the steam reacts with the metallic sodium, the temperature
should increase to about 600 degrees to 800 degrees.
The high temperatures should prevent condensation of water
vapor, according to the study. Liquid sodium can react with
moisture under uncontrolled conditions to generate heat,
hydrogen and sodium oxide.
Because the surface of the liquid sodium would always be exposed
to the steam, sodium hydroxide that could be drained from the
system would be produced at a high rate.
Fluor Hanford, the DOE contractor for the shutdown of the
reactor, has completed draining sodium from the reactor's
cooling system and one of its spent fuel pools. The remaining
pool cannot be drained until the last of the fuel is removed.
Fluor Hanford has removed 362 of 375 fuel assemblies, washed the
fuel and loaded it into dry-storage casks.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
92 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern
FR Doc E6-3356
[Federal Register: March 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 46)]
[Notices] [Page 12190-12191] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09mr06-47]
New Mexico AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Northern New
Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463,
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be
announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Wednesday, March 29, 2006, 2 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Jemez Complex, Santa Fe Community College, 6401
Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menice Santistevan, Northern New
Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B,
Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or
e-mail: msantistevan@doeal.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda 2 p.m. Call to Order by Deputy Designated
Federal Officer (DDFO), Christina Houston.
Establishment of a Quorum.
Welcome and Introductions by Chair, J. D. Campbell. Approval of
Agenda.
Approval of Minutes of January 25, 2006 Board Meeting.
2:15 p.m. Board Business/Reports. A. Old Business, Chair, J. D.
Campbell. B. Report from Chair, J. D. Campbell. C. Report from
Department of Energy (DOE), Christina Houston. D. Report from
Executive Director, Menice B. Santistevan. E. Other Issues, Board
Members. New Business.
A. Bi-annual Assessment, Christina Houston. B. Other Issues,
Board Members. 2:45 p.m. Committee Business/Reports. A. Community
Involvement Committee, Sammy Quintana. B. Environmental
Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation Committee, Chris Timm.
C. Waste Management Committee, Matthew Deller. D. Ad Hoc
Committee on Bylaws and Administrative Procedures, Donald Jordan.
E. Reports from Ex-Officio Members. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency--Rich Mayer. DOE--Ed Wilmot or Gene Rodriguez. University
of California/Los Alamos National Laboratory (UC/LANL)--Ken
Hargis.
New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)--James Bearzi.
3:45 p.m. Break. 4 p.m. DOE Los Alamos Site Office (DOE/LASO) and
UC/LANL Business, Ed Wilmot.
[[Page 12191]] A. LANL Five-Year Plan. B. Fiscal Year 2007
Budget. C. Critical Operations Issues at LANL. D. Other Issues. 5
p.m. Dinner Break. 6 p.m. Public Comment. 6:15 p.m. Consideration
and Action on Recommendations. 6:30 p.m. DOE/LASO and UC/LANL
Presentation. A. Progress and Alternatives for Closure of
Material Disposal Areas L and G (MDA-L and MDA-G) in the
Corrective Measures Evaluations for submittal to NMED, Jim Orban
and Dave McIlroy.
B. Response to Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board
(NNMCAB) Recommendations, Gene Rodriguez.
C. NNMCAB Participation on Management and Operating Contract
Performance, Gene Rodriguez.
7:30 p.m. Comments from Ex-Officio Members--DOE/LASO, LANL, EPA,
NMED.
8 p.m. Comments from Board Members. 8:15 p.m. Recap of Meeting:
Issuance of Press Releases, Editorials, etc., J. D. Campbell.
8:30 p.m. Adjourn, Christina Houston. This agenda is subject to
change at least one day in advance of the meeting.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements
pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at
the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also
be available at the Public Reading Room located at the Board's
office at 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM. Hours of
operation for the Public Reading Room are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. on Monday
through Friday. Minutes will also be made available by writing or
calling Menice Santistevan at the Board's office address or
telephone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents
are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.org .
Issued at Washington, DC, on March 3, 2006.
James N. Solit, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-3356 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6405-01-P
*****************************************************************
93 lamonitor.com: LANL pit production role to grow
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
Plutonium pit production will default to Los Alamos National
Laboratory over the next several years, even if Congress can
agree to fund a long-term alternative for making nuclear
triggers.
"In the meantime," National Nuclear Security Administrator
Linton Brooks said, "we plan to increase the Los Alamos National
Laboratory pit manufacturing capacity to 30-40 pits per year by
the end of FY 2012 in order to support the Reliable Replacement
Warhead."
Brooks spoke to the Senate Armed Forces Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces Tuesday. He advanced the related concepts of a
"responsive infrastucture" that could more quickly respond to
emerging needs, and what he called the "enabler," the Reliable
Replacement Warhead proposed to solve a number of design and
production issues of existing nuclear weapons.
"Unanticipated events could include complete failure of a
deployed warhead type or the need to respond to new and emerging
geopolitical threats," he said in his prepared remarks.
Under the administration's plan, the nation would take on a
long-range goal of "being able to adapt an existing weapon
within 18 months and design, develop and begin production of a
new design within three to four years of a decision to enter
engineering development."
Brooks emphasized that a trade-off would be made in being able
to reduce the overall numbers of weapons in the nuclear
stockpile, because increased reliability would mean a smaller
"hedge" of weapons - nuclear bombs that are not currently
deployed, but are maintained in case of unforeseen problems.
Brooks referred to a key report issued last year by the
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, under the chairmanship of
David Overskei, that called for accelerated consolidation of the
weapons complex.
He told the senators that the agency's analysis of the report
and its recommendations would be ready for congressional
consideration by this spring.
The Task Force study has recommended a new Consolidated Nuclear
Production Center, and a weeding out of redundant facilities,
but Brooks has questioned the price tag as unfeasible.
The CNPC would contain "a modern set of production facilities
with 21st century cutting-edge nuclear components' production,
manufacturing and assembly technologies, all at one location."
Brooks made a case to revive interest in renewing the
infrastructure of the nuclear facilities, a program that he said
had been reduced by "fiscal constraints" last year and meant
that the program's goals of modernizing aging weapons plants is
no longer attainable under the schedule mandated by Congress.
Last year's budget cut the program in half, but Brooks said the
agency is committed to a temporary "get well" program, even if
it takes a couple more years to achieve.
In a statement after his testimony, Brooks said, "As our
adversaries and geopolitical threats have evolved over time, so
have the NNSA and the infrastructure that has allowed us to
carry our national security mission. We will continue to adapt
and evolve."
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
94 UPI: Sessions may slash DOE nuke budget
United Press International - Security &Terrorism -
3/9/2006 2:27:00 PM -0500
WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- A key senator this week slammed the
Energy Department's $6.4 billion nuclear weapons maintenance and
research programs as wasteful.
Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman
Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., told National Nuclear Security
Administration chief Linton Brooks at a Senate hearing Tuesday
that he had "concerns about the efficiency" of Energy Department
activities. And he hinted strongly that he was considering a
funding cut in the programs, Global Security Newswire reported
Wednesday.
"I am unconvinced that we are getting all we can for every
dollar," Sessions said, echoing comments he made last month to
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman that suggested $1 billion in
savings could be made.
Ranking committee Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida also
questioned whether the agency might at the Department of
Defense's request have taken on too many programs. He cited
early research for the administration's Reliable Replacement
Warhead program.
"Perhaps (the Defense Department) is asking too much and money
is being spent on projects that we will eventually not need,"
Nelson said.
Brooks told the committee that the Energy Department's nuclear
programs, which also include nuclear nonproliferation and Navy
propulsion system work, took "dramatic reductions" in size and
spending following the Cold War.
He said further that efforts were under way to shrink the U.S.
nuclear weapons arsenal by nearly half by 2012. Stockpile
maintenance absorbs a majority of the program's budget. The
administration has requested $6.4 billion for the stockpile work
in Fiscal Year 2007 -- the amount it received for this fiscal
year -- and $9.3 billion for all its nuclear activities.
Brooks and other officials have described the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program as a way of reducing the nuclear
stockpile, making it more easily maintained, and thereby
reducing stockpile maintenance costs.
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************