***************************************************************** 03/12/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.60 ***************************************************************** 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 AFP: US vows no permanent bases in Iraq 2 [NYTr] Why They Really Think They Must Defeat Iran 3 [NYTr] Condi and Iran: Folly, Tragedy and Farce 4 [southnews] Iran: Israel Threatens Unilateral Action 5 Why Iran? 6 Iran Standoff at the UN 7 [NYTr] Moving Toward War: US Works Hard to Sabotage Iran Talks 8 IRNA: Russia still banking on IAEA to settle Iran's nuclear case - F 9 IRNA: Lebanese expert stresses Iran's right to peaceful nuclear ener 10 IRNA: Isfahan nuclear site inspected beyond NPT, no violation observ 11 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Rejects Proposal, Angering Russia 12 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Proposes New Iran Nuclear Talks 13 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Use Oil in Nuke Standoff 14 IRNA: Interior minister: Iran not to yield if nuclear dossier become 15 IRNA: German FM ready to meet with Iran's nuclear officials 16 WorldNetDaily: IAEA pleads incompetence 17 IRNA: ElBaradei's ambiguous remarks show no diversion in Iran N-plan 18 AFP: Iran sends mixed messages over oil exports 19 AFP: Defiant Iran raises temperature in nuclear dispute 20 IRNA: Iran determined to supply energy to Asian states - FM - 21 IRNA: Iranian national resolve seek legitimate right to nuclear ener 22 IRNA: Iran's insistence on safeguarding nuclear right, a model for n 23 IRNA: Iranian nuclear strategy in conformity with NPT, IAEA Safeguar 24 [NYTr] Venezuela Rejects "N.Korean WMD" Slander 25 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Delays Cabinet Talks With South 26 AFP: North Korea urges US to change "biased" nuclear policy 27 [du-list]GAO Report Recognizes Conflict of Interest Concerns 28 US: [NukeNet] Weaponeers Debate RRW 29 US: BBC: Alaska hit by 'massive' oil spill 30 US: Salt Lake Tribune: U.N. blasts U.S. treatment of Western Shoshon 31 IRNA: Decision to report nuclear case to UNSC based on US-Russia dea 32 Aljazeera: Israel, U.S. deploy nuclear arms in submarines - 33 Scoop: Nuclear Proliferation - Challenges and US Response 34 [NYTr] Brits Helped Israel Get the Bomb in 1960s 35 MARSHALL ISLANDS NUKING: Calls For Full U.S. Settlement 36 [southnews] UK lies to IAEA about supplying Israel with nuclear 37 IPCRI EMERGENCY APPEAL 38 IPS-English VIETNAM: Nuclear Power Among Non-fossil Options 39 Guardian Unlimited: Ambassadors at large 40 London Times: Focus: Britain's secret nuclear blueprint - 41 Rediff: 'IAEA safeguards will confer N-status to India' 42 Sunday Herald: Time running out for vital consensus on energy issues 43 Xinhua: Britain develops secret nuclear warhead: report NUCLEAR REACTORS 44 HindustanTimes.com: We want to finance N-projects, says PFC 45 Hindu: No cap on India's strategic programme 46 US: Newsobserver.com: Nuclear plant critics want their say 47 canadaeast.com: Humans should be careful when regulating nuclear pow 48 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear energy is not clean or safe 49 TheStar.com: Just say no to new nuclear 50 ITAR-TASS: Yushchenko, EBRD president discuss Chernobyl shelter faci 51 ITAR-TASS: Third power unit stopped at Novovoronezh nuclear power pl 52 IPS: VIETNAM: Nuclear Power Among Non-fossil Options 53 AFP: India involved in illicit nuclear activities - US think tank - 54 AFP: US-India nuclear deal could be worth 100 billion dlrs - NUCLEAR SECURITY 55 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Security breaches often lead to shrugs NUCLEAR SAFETY 56 MARSHALL ISLANDS NUKING: Calls For Full U.S. Settlement 57 [NukeNet] Scotland: Nuclear watchdog alarmed by Faslane danger 58 Guardian Unlimited: Regulator Warns on China Environment Woes 59 US: North County Times: 'Test vets' and kin entitled to benefits 60 Sunday Herald: Nuclear watchdog alarmed by Faslane danger - 61 AU: Green Left: Fears mount about Lancelin bombing range 62 Xinhua: Argentina, U.S. to build nuclear test monitoring station NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 63 US: Herald Sun: Beware uranium fever 64 US: Indiatimes: What is the nuclear fuel cycle? 65 US: Deseret News: PFS deal not done 66 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Last laugh is on Republicans 67 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Fixated on 'broken' Yucca Mountain 68 Le Soleil du samedi: Trucks with dangerous cargo cause concern 69 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Panel: Rules for nuclear waste way off 70 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Huntsman hopes hardball works second time aro 71 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Not just ports: Ships, trucks and trains are 72 US: PittsburghLIVE.com: Looking for a landfill - 73 US: VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH: Parks dump cleanup delayed until 2008 - PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 74 Kansas City Star: Energy Secretary talks about the future of power 75 Hanford News: Framatome ANP, Cogema announce name changes 76 Hanford News: Battelle CEO visits Tri-Cities; Says Battelle committe 77 Hanford News: Panel suggests NRC takeover at Hanford 78 IBA: Former lab director supports nuke plan ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 AFP: US vows no permanent bases in Iraq Sat Mar 11, 4:56 PM ET BAGHDAD (AFP) - US ambassador to Iraq" /> Zalmay Khalilzad said that his country did not want permanent military bases in Iraq and that he was willing to talk to Iran" /> about the war-torn country's future. "We want Iraq to stand on its own feet, we have no goal of establishing permanent bases here," he said in an interview with Iraq's Ash-Sharqiya television, according to a transcript obtained by AFP. "Our goal is a working, a workable government, so that we can leave Iraq and let Iraqis handle all their circumstance themselves. That's our goal, and were very serious about this, we mean it," he said. The ambassador said he was willing to speak with Iran about Iraq's future, stressing however that the US would not let its concerns over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons' drive influence its policies in Iraq. "I have offered to the Iranians that we are willing to talk with them about our differences with regard to Iraq," he said. "Iran says that the United States wants to promote sectarianism here," he said. "I have talked to you about nothing but unity and the effort by others who are enemies of Iraq to promote sectarianism and division." US officials have maintained that Iran is undermining Iraqi reconstruction, influencing its politics and even actively supporting the insurgency there. While Khalilzad admitted differences between Washington and Tehran, he vowed they would not affect Iraq policy -- provided Iran behaved likewise. "The United States has many differences with Iran and Iran has differences with the United States," he said. "We have not tried to import our differences with Iran here in Iraq and to impose our differences on Iraq-Iran relations ... and we don't want Iran to export into Iraq its differences with us, we will react very negatively to that." Khalilzad also admitted that Washington had made mistakes since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, but did not elaborate on what they were. "We certainly have made some mistakes ourselves ... We did make mistakes. But we have learned from mistakes and tried to adjust, that's our style, to sort of keep on going, adjust as the circumstances warrant." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Why They Really Think They Must Defeat Iran Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:43:42 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit CounterPunch - Mar 11/12, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp03112006.html "We Have No Choice" Why They Really Think They Must Defeat Iran By GARY LEUPP "The problem of the Iranian regime has become entrenched over the course of an entire generation," Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns told the House International Relations Committee March 8. "It may require a generational struggle to address it, but we have no choice but to do so." As the International Atomic Energy Agency---heavily pressured by the U.S. to condemn Iran---was meeting to finalize a report to the UN Security Council about the country's nuclear program, Burns (the number three man in the State Department) left little doubt as to Washington's ultimate intentions. "We must defeat Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its sponsorship of terrorism and its subjugation of the people of Iran." He might as well have just said, "We must defeat Iran" and left it at that. The nuclear weapons, terrorism and repression issues are all pretexts for regime change, just as they were with Iraq. If Burns were more candid, less Straussian, he might say something like the following: "The Iranian regime, which emerged after a popular uprising toppled our puppet the Shah in 1979, has been able to survive these many years. That's a damned shame, because from 1953 to 1979 the U.S. called the shots in that populous, petroleum-rich, strategically located country which we'd placed on a par with NATO allies by the 1970s. It was an incalculable loss---we're still not reconciled to it---made all the worse because we couldn't just dismiss it as an anti-American plot by anyone in particular. The uprising was so huge and inclusive, involving the revolutionary left, progressive democrats, various Islamists and pretty much everybody. The fact is, it happened because our Shah had subjugated the people of Iran, just as we accuse the present government of doing, and the people rebelled as subjugated people tend to do. "What we could do was use the 'hostage crisis' (that occurred after we refused to hand over the Shah for trial) to encourage anti-Iranian feeling and aggressive nationalism here in the U.S. back in the Carter and Reagan years. In a country burned by the Vietnam War and beset by the pacifistic "Vietnam Syndrome," the outpouring of bloodlust was a comforting sign that Americans might once again unite behind a 'good war' against dehumanized others. But the regime became entrenched, despite the Iraqi war of aggression against it in the 1980s---which we supported, of course---and our tireless efforts to undermine it. "But since 9-11 we've found that we can manipulate public opinion against any Muslim target, by raising fears of terrorist attacks and mushroom clouds over New York. Fortunately, Iran supports Palestinian and Lebanese organizations that we, for our own and Israel's reasons, list as 'terrorist.' Fortunately, many Americans are willing to believe that all the Muslim 'terrorist' groups are somehow linked to those who attacked the U.S. four and a half years ago. They're altogether willing to believe they're all linked---if only through the presence of Evil in the cosmos---to al-Qaeda. So we can tell them that Iran is trying to build nukes, and repeat that again and again. Inclined to believe the worst about Muslims they'll buy our claims. Of course we don't really know what Iran's up to, and the scientists tell us that Iran's years away from the ability to produce nukes. We just assume, anyway, that any government leading a big self-respecting country like Iran---which is surrounded by nuclear China, India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel and targeted for overthrow by our nuclear selves---probably does want to have nuclear weapons someday. So what we need to say is, they're definitely working on nukes, right now, and even though of course an Iran with nukes would no more threaten the U.S. than (say) Pakistan, we can throw down the gauntlet on this issue. "So when we say 'we have no choice' but to 'address' the 'Iranian problem' and 'defeat it,' we don't really mean we feel any actual necessity to smash Iran to defend the U.S. (We don't even think we need to do it to defend Israel, although of course Iran's a much bigger threat to Israel than to us, and we need to emphasize that issue---as the president has---before some audiences more than others. It gets a bit tricky, because on the one hand you want to gather support from AIPAC and other groups who've been calling the Iranian government an "existential threat" to Israel and desperately promoting a U.S. attack on Iran as the preferred alternative to an Israeli one. On the other, you don't want people saying, 'Bush wants to attack Iran just to help Israel.' You want to kind of downplay that aspect, and if people start playing it up in the wrong way, you need to accuse them of anti-Semitism and make them shut up.) "The real necessity we feel here, ladies and gentlemen, is the need to compete with other imperialist countries for geopolitical position in this post-Cold War era, especially in this region overflowing with oil. Used to be that if we wanted to attack one of these countries we'd have to deal with the Soviet Union! But here nowadays we have this huge chunk of real estate stretching from Central Asia to the Mediterranean, this slough of nasty Muslim states that's up for grabs. If we control it, through puppet regimes, dot it with military bases, capitalize its development, control the flow of petroleum products from it---well, then, we'll be well-positioned to take on any emerging rivals. We'll have Europe and Japan and China over a barrel. We have no choice but to seize the opportunity to build empire---or risk decline vis-`-vis our friendly and less friendly contenders in what we intend to make the "New American Century." "Now, we can't put it in those terms for public consumption, because normal Americans don't think empire-building's worth the lives of their kids. But just between you and me, Congressmen and Congresswomen, if we're going to pull this off we have to use 'noble lies' to scare the masses and make them think we must defeat Iran. Any attack on Iran in the near future will be entirely a war of choice. But we must say in public the exact opposite to obtain our goals. We really have no choice but to say we have no choice in order to take advantage of the opportunities." [Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.] * ================================================================ .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] Condi and Iran: Folly, Tragedy and Farce Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:43:43 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit CounterPunch - Mar 11/12, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs03112006.html Condi and Iran: Folly, Tragedy and Farce By RON JACOBS Although the strategy is older than the mean sheriff and his less sadistic deputy in the Old West, we need to only go back a few years here. If one recalls prior to the US/UK invasion on Iraq in 2003, there were several initiatives to "promote democracy" in that country. Usually it was the State Department that played the good cop to the Defense Department's bad cop. Give money to dissident groups and others opposed to the regime of Saddam Hussein--that was the good guy approach. (If there was no organized opposition then the US would create one). Let's go in now and blow them to bits with "shock and awe" was the "bad guy" approach, more or less. Of course, on March 20, 2003, there was no difference between the two departments as their leaders watched FoxNews and cheered on the impending mass murder being perpetrated per their intentions. So, here we go again. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has formally asked the Congress to provide at least $75 billion to "promote democracy" in Iran. Already, the bad guys over in Defense have been ramping up the call to arms, including nuclear ones, in their desire to eliminate the regime in Tehran once and for all. So, the stage is slowly being set for a re-run of the same ol' carrot and stick. The question is, exactly what groups does Condi gave in mind? State Department officials have made it fairly clear that the most well-known groups opposed to the regime of the mullahs, the People's Mujahedin) PMOI and National Council for Resistance in Iran (NCRI), will not be receiving any of these funds. Furthermore, contacts aligned with these groups tell me that their leadership has no interest in monies from foreign governments, believing that any change in the Iranian government must come from within the Iranian popular will. The only other Iranian exile groups that exist (and aren't Maoist or some other leftist formation) are groups linked to the son of the former Shah, Reza Pahlavi. A quick history lesson reminds us that the Shah was installed in 1953 after a coup against the populist government of Mohammed Mossadegh. That coup was organized, funded and directed by Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA. The impetus for the coup was Mossadegh's decision to nationalize Iranian oil. After the Shah was installed on the Peacock Throne, he began a campaign of industrial modernization and secularization in Iran. At the same time, his government made oil deals favorable to US oil companies and used a large percentage of the profits from those deals to enrich his family and friends. Although the middle class grew during his reign, so did impoverishment among the rural and urban poor. In addition, the nature of capitalist progress forced many Iranians off of their small plots of land and into the cities, where life was considerably harsher. >From the beginning of his rule, the Shah had many enemies. In order to maintain control and keep his enemies down, the Shah imprisoned thousands of students, workers and others that opposed his rule. In addition, his secret police-the SAVAK-were known for their brutal methods of torture and their wanton executions. The repression increased the opposition until, finally in 1979, the groundswell became so vast that he was forced into exile. Out of what seemed to be nowhere to the western observer, the Ayatollah Khomeini appeared in the capital of Tehran, ready to take over the reins of the revolutionary government. Khomeini, who spoke the words of the revolution, won the day in the struggle for power that ensued after the Shah's government disappeared, and proceeded to methodically destroy all opposition to his socially reactionary and economically stagnant program. After ten years of rule, Khomein died and was given a martyr's funeral, with millions of Iranians mourning in the streets. Since his death in 1989, the Iranian government has continued to repress its opponents, despite some liberalization of its Khomeini era laws. Constantly rife with rumors of corruption, the economy has prospered although many Iranians continue to struggle. The election of the fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the presidency in 2005 was seen by many observers as a reaction from the rural and urban poor to the government's corruption and the failure of that government to provide basic needs to the poor. The current crisis over Iran's nuclear energy program is a crisis contrived by Washington in its drive to return Iran back to Washington's fold--a drive that began even before the Shah was overthrown back in 1979. For whatever reason, Ahmadinejad has played into Washington's hands nicely by making bellicose statements and by appearing to be hiding the program's true intentions. Whether or not Iran's nuclear program is intended purely for energy production, the perception is that it isn't. Therefore, there is little Iran can do at this point in terms of changing world opinion except back down from. So, there is a possibility that some of the monies earmarked for Condi Rice's Iranian democracy project will go to the Shah's son. Indeed, at least one other group --Kenneth Timmerman's Foundation for Democracy in Iran--that is rumored to be at least tangentially connected to Pahlavi's small organization have already received funds from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Pahlavi is also on record encouraging foreign governments to aid the Iranian resistance, especially his group. Another aspect to this scenario is a repeat of the game plan Washington used against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government. In other words, the State Department will work with willing exiles and form a so-called national congress. The intention of this group will be to make contacts with potential allies inside Iran who will help them distribute propaganda and organize dissent. Other exiles will work with the CIA and Pentagon, conducting military surveillance operations on the ground and staging small scale terror attacks and instigating local insurrections. Meanwhile, the bombardment of the US public with truths and half-truths about Iranian nuclear plans and human rights abuses will continue, perhaps even culminating with another grand televised act at the United Nations where Condi Rice repeats Colin Powell's Great Lie, complete with fuzzy photographs, anthrax vials, descriptions of underground WMD sites, and expressed fears that the end of the world is at hand unless Iran is attacked. According to an article by Farah Stockman in the Boston Globe, the US is prepared for "a long struggle" against Iran. An Office of Iranian Affairs was recently opened inside the State Department and an "embassy-in-exile" was just opened in Dubai. The main purpose of the Dubai installation will be to broadcast propaganda into Iran and to help coordinate US-sponsored exile groups and black ops against Iran. (3/7/2006) As for the possibility of other countries like Russia or China heading off any showdown between Iran and DC, the very fact that the US is now inisiting that the Iranian nuclear issue be brought to the UN Security Council without delay seems to indicate that Washington is once again only interested in making demands and ultimatums, not in genuine negotiations. Of course, all of this could quickly become irrelevant, given a number of statements by Israeli government officials, the most recent being from the ultra-hawk Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who told the media on March 8, 2006, " My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right to give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves" (AP) If Israel jumps in, all bets are off. [Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's new collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden.] * ================================================================ .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 [southnews] Iran: Israel Threatens Unilateral Action Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:19:29 -0600 (CST) IF the United Nations Security Council cannot stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, the Israeli defence minister said today. We will have to act on Iran if UN can't By Louis Charbonneau Reuters Wed Mar 8 If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on Wednesday. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program. "My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung. Iran denies wanting nuclear weapons and says it is only interested in the peaceful generation of electricity. It has also threatened to retaliate if Israel or the United States were to bomb any of its nuclear facilities. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor to prevent Saddam Hussein from getting nuclear weapons. Saddam's covert atom bomb program continued until U.N. inspectors dismantled it after the 1991 Gulf War, but the Israeli strike set progress back many years. "The Israeli approach is that the U.S. and the European countries should lead the issue of the Iranian nuclear program to the table of the U.N. Security Council, asking for sanctions. And I hope the sanctions will be effective," Mofaz said. Mofaz, who was born in Iran, added that Israel believed the 15-nation Security Council should grant the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.'s Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, sweeping inspection powers so that it can smoke out any secret nuclear arms-related activities in Iran. "We need to have very deep and large inspections within all the nuclear locations in Iran because Iran has two nuclear programs -- one is a covered one and the second is uncovered," he said. The Iranian delegation to an IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna issued a statement earlier warning that the United States could feel "harm and pain" if the Security Council took up the issue of Tehran's nuclear fuel research and vowed never to abandon its atomic program. At a news conference with Mofaz, Jung told reporters Germany was already discussing with the five permanent Security Council members -- Russia, China, the United States, Britain and France -- what the council could do to prevent Tehran getting the bomb. "Everything must be done to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons," Jung said. A senior diplomat from one of the "EU3" said earlier that the Security Council would probably begin discussing Iran next week and hoped to issue a "presidential statement" urging Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program and cooperate with the IAEA. _________________________________ Attacking Iran Even Without Good Targets William M. Arkin Washington Post blog The Cheney-Bolton threats to Iran this week have fueled speculation in the press and on the Internet that the United States (and Israel) are planning imminent military action. The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," the Vice President said yesterday. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." The Iranians "must know everything is on the table," Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said last week. Everything is on the table. Meaningful consequences do mean military action. But just because the hip-shooting duo are conveying threats as part of the ongoing diplomatic pressures doesn't mean that the United States is about to strike. It is not. But also just because an attack on Iran seems so dangerous, and just because the consequences seem so catastrophic, that doesn't mean that if push came to shove, this administration wouldn't take action. To understand what Washington could do to Iran militarily if it were to defy the international community and develop a nuclear weapon, one has to first purge the mind of any "expert" cautions associated with the task. "Most Western intelligence agencies will tell you that they're not even certain that they know where every single Iranian nuclear site actually is," Brookings scholar Ken Pollack said on NBC Nightly News last night. "The most essential condition -- surprise -- is lacking," Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld tells USA Today. "The Iranian sites are numerous, well-camouflaged and hardened." I'm sure Pollack and Van Creveld believe what they say, that an attack on Iran's nuclear capabilities would be difficult and complicated, that there isn't good enough intelligence and that it might contradict all of the traditional military and even political rules. But the Bush administration has been clear on the question of preemption: It is not going to wait for the possible mushroom cloud, and terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction are the NUMBER ONE national security concern of the administration. So if the worst came, * The Bush administration would not care about nor seek a "strategic" surprise attack and thus would not be stopped by the lack of surprise of because Iran is presumed to already be making preparations to protect its assets. * The Bush administration would not seek a ground war or regime change, at least not initially or immediately, so the difficulties associated with both tasks and the ongoing operations in Iran or Afghanistan would not stop it from attacking Iraq's weapons of mass destruction infrastructure. * The Bush administration would not be impeded by a lack of knowledge about Iran's weapons of mass destruction or by Iranian deception or by its going underground in terms of targeting. According to the Guardian (UK), Ambassador Bolton told visiting British parliamentarians in New York last week that it was well aware of the expert cautions. "We can hit different points along the line," Bolton said. "You only have to take out one part of their nuclear operation to take the whole thing down." * The Bush administration would not be stopped by the protests and vetoes of the international community nor would it hesitate to use force merely because there were dangers of escalation into a full-scale war. I've already written about the Bush administration's war plans to pre-empt development of weapons of mass destruction and its specific thinking on Iran -- how the administration has directed the military to prepare a multi-dimentional "global strike" attack on Iran and North Korea's WMD capacity, how it views the task and its difficulties. Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said at a National Press Club appearance last month that "We are a long way away from needing the military option" on Iran. But if push came to shove, the administration would select the best targets that it could to set back the program, to impede the delivery of WMD, and to express U.S. resolve and threaten additional military consequences. It would be better for the news media to stop speculating about an imminent strike and stop providing expert warnings of the difficulties associated with such a strike. It should focus instead on the administration's and the military's thinking on the subject. The reason is because even if the administration's "triggers" appeared tomorrow for "global strike" to be implemented, that is, if Iran announced it possessed a nuclear weapon, it would still a terrible and dangerous course of action for the United States to immediately attack. I'd hate to have the experts still saying "but we didn't even have good intelligence!" By William M. Arkin | March 8, 2006; 09:00 AM ET The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 5 Why Iran? Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:32:58 -0600 (CST) January 15, 2006 What's Left http://gowans.blogspot.com Why Iran? by Stephen Gowans The increasingly frequent demonization of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Western media has become an integral part of the stepped-up efforts of Washington, London, the EU-3 and Tel Aviv to bring Iran under US control, efforts that may, if scattered newspapers reports are to believed, culminate in the aerial bombing by US or Israeli forces or both of Iranian nuclear facilities early this spring. A London Sunday Times article of December 11, 2005 revealed that Israeli armed forces had been ordered to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran. Scotlands The Herald (January 10, 2006) echoed the Times report. Meir Dagan, the chief of Israels spy service, Mossad, General Aharon Zeev-Farkasj, who retired earlier this month as head of Israeli military intelligence and Israeli policy makers all agree that a military option against Irans nuclear facilities cannot be ruled out. (New York Times, January 13, 2006.) But they say Israel has no intention, for now, of trying to deal with Iran alone or through military means. (New York Times, January 13, 2006) But do they have an intention of dealing with Iran through military means in partnership with the US? UPI (December 30, 2005), citing the German weekly, Der Spiegel, revealed that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack (on Iran) rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year. CIA Director Porter Goss is said to have traveled to Ankara to clear the way for Turkey to be used as a staging ground for US warplanes to fly missions against Iranian targets. Whether planning for an attack is in an advanced stage, or whether reports of an imminent assault are a ruse to pressure Iran, is unclear. Whatever the case, theres no mistaking the reality that the Iranian president is being elevated to the position of international enemy #1, in much the same way Saddam Hussein was in the run-up to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Emblematic is the Times of Londons Bronwen Maddox (January 12, 2006) asking whether Ahmadinejad is the most dangerous leader in the world? and answering her own question in the affirmative by noting its thin reassurance for the West that Iranian clerics are the bulwark against Ahmadinejads excesses. Not too many months ago, Kim Jong Il was called the most dangerous leader in the world, though the demands of the Western propaganda machine have since thrust him aside, for now, to better align with the shifting priorities of US foreign policy. Not to be outdone, Timothy Garton Ash, professor of European studies at the University of Oxford, speaks of Ahmadinejad as the seemingly half-crazed Iranian President. (Globe and Mail, January 12, 2006) In doing so, he places the Iranian president in the company of north Koreas Kim Jong Il, also regularly presented as half-mad, along with a legion of other Third World leaders who have, as the standard operating procedure of imperialism, been described variously as bloodthirsty, dictatorial, despotic, antidemocratic and monstrous -- whatever it takes to make the messy and murderous business of regime change appear to be worth the price. Ash, by the way, worries that US or Israeli bombing raids would take the lives of innocent civilians or at least of people who Iranian television could credibly claim were innocent civilians, implying that while the job of taking over a country might seem messy, the carnage is probably an illusion conjured up by the propaganda ministry of the country whose innocent civilians lives are not really being snuffed out. Innocent civilians has become a clichi, a prepackaged phrase to be thrown about, and absorbed, without much thought. What about innocent soldiers? Is a solider, or for that matter, a guerilla, or insurgent, who resists an invader any less innocent than a civilian? And can people like Ash, who prepare public opinion for war, be considered innocent? One wishes Ash could be plunked down in the middle of Tehran, to take the place of the innocent civilians he says probably wont be killed or mangled or permanently disabled by the terror bombing of the US and Israeli air force. If hes right, he has nothing to worry about. It happens so regularly as to have become a law, that we can soon expect prominent critics of US foreign policy to join in the demonization, at the same time donning t-shirts emblazoned with the smiling mug of George W. Bush above the words: international terrorist, just to show theyre above the fray and with the angels. Analysis of foreign affairs, in the hands of pro-imperialist scribblers, like Ash, and of professed anti-imperialists, who invariably deplore the monsters imperialist armies and bomber crews are set in motion against, is nothing more than demonology. The problem with the Bush international terrorist t-shirts is that, while Bush is indeed a terrorist, and deserves the opprobrium, so were all his predecessors, and so too would be anyone who replaced him. Get rid of one international terrorist, and another will immediately pop up in the White House to take his place. Like whack-a-mole, no matter how many moles you hit, the rodents keep coming back, because thats the way the game is programmed. The t-shirts would convey a deeper truth if they featured the outline of faceless person, accompanied by the following note: place picture here of head of US (or British or French or German) government. When all heads of US governments, to single out one imperialist country, have at least one entry in their portfolios of terrorist acts, from the ethnic cleansing of aboriginal populations and wars of conquest that attended the expansion of the US westward, through the wars of conquest to dominate the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, Samoa and Cuba, through regular bloody interventions throughout Latin America, to fire-, carpet-, and atomic-bombings of civilian populations, its clear theres something deeper than the personal characteristics of high state officials that account for this sanguinary, horrific, record. Like whack-a-mole, there seems to be something deep in the programming that thrusts individuals forward as the culprits, when in fact theyre simply agents through which the program works. Its not individuals, but the program, that ultimately matters. A clue to what the logic is that governs the program can be glimpsed in the Heritage Foundations 2006 Index of Economic Freedom. The think tanks index is a kind of measure of how pleased youd be with a country if you had a whole pile of cash to invest, or goods and services to sell, and were looking around for a good place to expand your stock of capital. Hong Kong, for example, which tops the list, has everything a capitalist could want. No tariffs and no barriers to trade, no pesky minimum wage laws, free entry of capital, unrestricted repatriation of earnings, and a low corporate and personal income tax rate. Other countries high on the list include Singapore (no tariffs, low corporate income tax), Ireland (hungry for foreign investment and willing to do whatever it takes to get it), Luxemburg (virtually free entry of goods) and the UK (good foreign investment climate, minimal tariffs). The countries at the bottom, on the other hand, are a veritable Whos Who of international pariahs, as defined by US State Department: Cuba (rank: 150, restricts and imposes performance criteria on foreign investment); Belarus (rank: 151, concerted resistance to the private sector, and resistance to privatization serving to hinder foreign investment; follows active policies of import suppression and export promotion); Venezuela (rank: 152, government controls key sectors of the economy limiting US investment opportunities); Zimbabwe (rank: 154, generally unwelcoming to foreign investment, preferring majority Zimbabwean participation in new ventures and eventual local ownership); Iran (rank: 156, see below) and north Korea (rank: 157, firmly rooted in communism with a central command economy which controls all imports and exports and prohibits most foreign investment). Were supposed to believe these countries -- the perennial bugbears of US-UK foreign policy are countries of concern, not because they set local development and economic sovereignty ahead of what Western investors and trans-nationals believe is their inalienable right to accumulate capital wherever they like, but because theyre supposed to be anti-democratic and contemptuous of human rights. Yet all these countries share one thing in common: they prohibit or impose conditions on foreign investment and imports. That includes US investment and US exports. It would hardly be surprising that the US state, dominated by business interests, where the majority of cabinet members are, and have, for at least the past century, been corporate directors or members of corporate law firms, would be hostile to countries that interfere with, or prohibit, activities related to the accumulation of capital by US-based trans-nationals. Iran prohibits private ownership of power generation, postal services, telecommunications and large-scale industry hardly an inviting place for a foreign investor looking to expand his capital. Add to that the fact that Irans constitution severely restricts foreign ownership in the petroleum sector and mandates that the banking sector be state-owned. Theres also the reality that the government uses its ownership stake in over 1,500 companies to influence pricing to meet social policy (not trans-national profit-making) goals. Top these multiple crimes against the potential for fat profits with a trade policy that fosters the development of domestic industry by discouraging imports, and the conclusion is clear: Iran isnt the kind of place a capitalist scouring the globe for markets and investment opportunities is going to warm up to. So, is alarm over Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons, and Ahmadinejads reputed violent anti-Semitism, a cover for an effort to pry open the Iranian economy to move it up the Index of Economic Freedom? Ask yourself this: Is the US trying to make over Iraq, its latest conquest, into another Hong Kong, the indexs champion? Before the US installed itself as the effective ruler of the country, Iraq had a largely state-owned economy, imposed restrictions on foreign ownership of key economic sectors, and subsidized necessities, such as fuel, cooking oil and staples, to meet social policy objectives. Like Iran today, Iraq had all the features of a largely closed, dirigiste economy, so richly at odds with the expansionary requirements of US capital. But Iraq, under US guidance, is in the midst of an economic makeover. State-owned enterprises are to be sold off. Subsidies for fuel and oil are being eliminated. The country is under the control of the IMF. Foreign investors are to be allowed to enter the state-run oil-export business, and promises are being made to open up downstream infrastructure, like refining, to private investors. (New York Times, August 11, 2005) So, yes, Iraq is being transformed from an economy much like Iran s into one much like Hong Kongs. Thats one reason to believe that alarm over Iran is contrived, a cover for pursuing a new economic makeover project to benefit the economic elite of the US imperialist alliance. But there are others. Lay aside the monumental hypocrisy of rich, industrialized countries, some teeming with nuclear weapons, all with the capability of producing them, most with their own civilian nuclear power industries, demanding that Iran relinquish its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to independently develop nuclear power for civilian use. Ignore, too, that the same demands are not made of other less developed countries, higher on the index of economic freedom, and more accommodating to the profit-making interests of Western investors and trans-national corporations. Its not as if Iran hasnt a legitimate need for nuclear energy, notwithstanding the insinuations of the Bush administration that a country rich in oil hasnt a need for nuclear energy. On top of oil, Iran has abundant supplies of uranium. And while it sits on a sea of oil, it lacks sufficient refinery capacity. So it imports refined fuel. Add to that the fact that the US hasnt always been opposed to nuclear power in Iran, and the alarm over Irans nuclear energy program is seen for what it is -- contrived. Under the Shah, a consortium of US corporations, led by Westinghouse, put together a proposal to build a massive nuclear power industry in the country with the approval of the US government. (Washington Post, March 27, 2005) The proposal was shelved after the Shah was overthrown. Were Westinghouse hired to build nuclear power plants in Iran today, US foreign policy wouldnt be so hostile, but Irans nuclear facilities are being built by Russia, a US economic competitor. Nor would Washington look askance if US investors were allowed to own Irans proposed nuclear industry, but Irans constitution forbids foreign ownership of power generation. What about the claim Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons? Its true that on top of strengthening Irans economic sovereignty, a civilian nuclear power industry, and domestic control over the fuel cycle, would give the country the means to develop nuclear weapons. But who are the US, France, the UK and Israel, all possessed of nuclear weapons themselves and having no intention of relinquishing them, to tell Iran it cant have them, too? Moreover, just because someone has the means to do something, doesnt mean theyll do it. Your neighbor has the means to creep into your bedroom late at night and slip a stiletto under your sternum, but do you stay awake worrying about it? Western media coverage implicitly accepts as an axiom that if Iran is permitted to exercise its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to refine uranium, it will, ipso facto, produce nuclear weapons, and use them. The only evidence it will do so, is that the US, some Western European countries which have a habit of joining the US in pulverizing countries you ll find at the bottom of the Heritage Foundations Economic Freedom Index, and Israel, keep rattling their sabers in Tehrans direction; faced with unceasing threats, Iran may decide to acquire a nuclear capability to make imperialist countries think twice about doing to Iran what they have, in recent years, done to Iraq and Yugoslavia, and to countless other less developed countries in other times. Indeed, it would seem almost to be a necessity of maintaining any kind of real sovereignty, to equip oneself with an effective means of deterring the inevitable threats of destabilization, economic strangulation and open warfare that the ruling interests of Washington and other advanced, industrialized countries routinely employ to keep the world open to their products, services and capital. But thats not the Western media line. Instead, were to understand that Iran may acquire nuclear weapons, not as a self-defensive measure, but because its president is half-crazed, the clerics who hold him in check are not much better, and that they all want to wipe Israel off the map, which is to say, fire a few nuclear tipped missiles Israels way to reduce the Jewish settler state to cinders. Surely, this is not beyond the capability of anyone who denies the Holocaust. The line that a half-crazed and violently anti-Semitic president of Iran has denied the Holocaust and threatened to wipe Israel off the map, is a useful as a tool to justify strenuous action against Iran, including war, but it creates an impression that doesnt quite line up with the facts. Ahmadinejads Holocaust remarks were a challenge to those who use the Nazis attempt to systematically exterminate European Jews as justification for displacing Palestinian Arabs to found a Jewish state. What he said about the Holocaust amounted to this: Either it took place or it didnt. If it didnt take place, then it is a fabrication. If it did, it wasnt the Arabs who did it; it was the Europeans. Why then should the Palestinians pay the price of what the Europeans did against the Jews? (Musayeb Naimi, editor of Al Wefaq, New York Times, December 20, 2005) That, by the way, is a question those who express high moral dudgeon over the Iranian presidents comments, have steered clear of. Instead, theyve latched onto his questioning of the Holocaust, even as a hypothetical, as the mark of a half-crazed Jew-hater. Ahmadinejads remarks: If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay? This is our proposal: If you committed the crime, then give part of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their own country. (New York Times, December 15, 2005) Why do you want to force Israel on the holy land of Palestine by killing Muslims? Give a piece of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska so the Jews can create their own state. (Los Angeles Times, December 15, 2005) Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler, the reason for their (the Europeans) support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe like in Germany, Austria or other countries to the Zionists, and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe, and we will support it. (Washington Post, December 9, 2005) To this, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharons spokesman, Raanan Gissin, replied: Just to remind Mr. Ahmadinejad, weve been here long before his ancestors were here. Therefore, we have a birthright to be here in the land of our forefathers and to live here. (Washington Post, December 9, 2005) Whos the religious fanatic? Ahmadinejads assertion that Israel must be wiped from the face of the map (by which he meant the idea of Israel as a Jewish homeland, founded on expulsion of Palestinians) has, predictably, been deliberately misinterpreted as a call for a second Holocaust, this serving the necessary pro-war propaganda function of painting Ahmadinejad as beyond the pale a new Hitler whose country must be contained, crushed and subordinated, like the countries of all the other propaganda program-fabricated monsters the US and its janissaries have argued they needed to take out. When Egypts ambassador to the UN, Maged Abdelaziz, criticized a UN General Assembly Resolution adopted November 1, 2005 to set aside a day each year to commemorate the Nazi perpetrated anti-Jewish holocaust as being too narrow (We believe no one should have a monopoly on suffering,) US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton replied, When a president of a member state can brazenly and hatefully call for a second Holocaust by suggesting that Israel, the Jewish homeland, should be wiped off the face of the map, it is clear that not all have learned the lesson of the Holocaust and that much works needs to be done. (New York Times, November 2, 2005) Ahmadinejads explanation of what he meant by wiping Israel of the face of the map is a far cry from what Bolton, and others, angling for intervention in Iran, would have you believe. The only logical solution to solve the Palestinian issues, explained Ahmadinejad, is to hold free elections with the participation of Palestinians inside and outside the occupied territories and in recognition of a nations legitimacy. (RNA, cited in Workers World, November 6, 2005). Ahmadinejad later noted that they (Bolton and others) created a lot of hue and cry over that, adding, It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want. (New York Times, January 15, 2006) This isnt the half-crazed ranting of a violently anti-Semitic leader; its a call for justice. It is a standard practice, going back to at least WWI, if not earlier, to select an individual on whom all the fear and hatred whipped up by a deliberate program of pro-war propaganda can be focused. Where plans to pry open the Iranian economy are concerned, Ahmadinejad is that person, as Hugo Chavez (now described by the US as anti-democratic, though popularly elected (New York Times, January 14, 2006)) is in Venezuela, Fidel Castro is in Cuba, Alexander Lukashenko is in Belarus, Robert Mugabe is in Zimbabwe and Kim Jong Il is in the DPRK. Since the Second World War, it has been common practice to try to equate such individuals to Hitler, a fairly easy task in Ahmadinejads case, not because hes anti-Semitic, but because his hostility to the expulsion of Palestinians as the basis of Israeli can be readily twisted into an apparent anti-Semitism, while his opposition to the idea of a Jewish state in historic Palestine, featuring a single dominant ethnic group by design and intention, can be distorted demagogically to create the appearance hes committed to a second Holocaust. The hostility of Western powers to Iran, then, has little to do with the ideas of Irans leadership, especially as they pertain to Israel, for those ideas, as presented by pro-interventionists, are distortions deliberately twisted to build a case for economic strangulation, at the very least, and war, quite probably. Instead, the hostility is rooted in Irans economy, and the countrys assertion of economic sovereignty. It would, however, be wrong to say that Irans hostility to the idea of Israel as an ethnically-defined state, founded on a gross injustice perpetrated against Palestinians, is entirely insignificant to US foreign policy, for insofar as it signals an opposition to Israel, it strikes at part of the apparatus the US relies on to enforce its domination of the Middle East. But domination, to what end? Its often said that the US seeks to bring renegade states under its control, either for entirely spurious reasons (to introduce democracy and respect for human rights, for example) or, where these reasons have been discredited and shown to be false, for reasons that are often left unstated. Power, control, domination these represent the end point of the analysis, as if imperialist powers seek power for powers sake. But what is it about renegade states that impel Western powers to bring them under their control? Rebellion, yes, but against what? Against the economic interests of Western powers; not out of hostility to the West as a policy, but out of commitment to their own independent development and sovereignty. State-ownership of key, and in some cases, all economic sectors; intervention in internal markets in pursuit of social policy objectives; control of, or influence over, pricing, including the price of labor; and the use of barriers to trade to foster internal industrial development; these are policies that may significantly improve the living conditions of domestic populations, but they, of necessity, impede the pursuit by Western investors and trans-nationals of activities related to capital accumulation. Since the same investors and trans-nationals hold almost exclusive sway over the policies of Western states, they are able to press the apparatus of the state into service to unblock pathways to foreign investment and export. Subversion, destabilization, economic strangulation and war are used to establish political and military control over economically renegade states, to define a space wherein investors and trans-nationals of whichever alliance of advanced, industrialized countries has undertaken the intervention are free to move about economically, to sell products and services without restriction, to own industry and infrastructure, to accumulate capital, and to do so without constraint, free from performance conditions, with profit senior to all other considerations. Why Iran? (1) To stifle the countrys economic development by depriving it of nuclear power; (2) To prevent it from acquiring a nuclear deterrent to Western aggression; (3) To keep it from becoming powerful enough to challenge the US attack dog in the region, Israel; and the reason to which the preceding three are subordinate: (4) To put an end to Irans assertion of economic sovereignty, which conflicts with the profit-making interests of US investors and trans-nationals. Achieving these goals is a multi-phase project. The project has now moved into the phase of preparing public opinion for some manner of stepped up intervention, possibly culminating in terror bombing of Iranian targets. This will not make people in the West or Israel safer, but will greatly heighten the chance there will be retaliatory strikes against Western and Israeli targets. This, however, is of little moment to the economic elite of the advanced, industrialized countries, who are compelled by the logic of capitalism to vigorously pursue the project of capital accumulation. Iran, as other countries deemed to be of concern by US foreign policy, is a multiform obstacle to unimpeded foreign investment and export. A state dominated by business interests, scouring the globe for investment and export opportunities, will quite naturally move in the direction of undermining and outraging the sovereignty of closed or economically sovereign countries, to open markets and improve investment climates. The demonization of Ahmadinejad is merely the mostly publicly visible part of that project. ======== http://gowans.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-iran.html ======== http://gowans.blogspot.com/ The article is available as a Word document on request. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to sr.gowans@sympatico.ca, and write unsubscribe in the subject line. ========= ***************************************************************** 6 Iran Standoff at the UN Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:08:40 -0600 (CST) Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ Thursday, March 9, 2006 Iran Standoff at the UN SELIG HARRISON, via Haeyoung Kim, asiaintern@ciponline.org, http://www.ciponline.org/asia/articles/011806harrison.htm Available for a limited number of interviews, Harrison is director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and author of five books on nonproliferation and Asian affairs. He wrote recently: "The nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European Union were based on a bargain that the European Union, held back by the U.S., has failed to honor. Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment efforts temporarily pending the outcome of discussions on a permanent enrichment ban. The EU promised to put forward proposals for economic incentives and security guarantees in return for a permanent ban but subsequently refused to discuss security issues." Harrison is also closely following the recent U.S.-India nuclear deal. JAMES PAUL, james.paul@globalpolicy.org, http://www.globalpolicy.org Paul is executive director of the Global Policy Forum, which monitors the United Nations. He is closely following developments regarding Iran at the UN. ALICE SLATER, aslater@gracelinks.org, http://gracelinks.org/nuke President of the GRACE Policy Institute, which works on nuclear issues, Slater said today: "The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty explicitly obliges signatories like the U.S., U.K., Russia, China and France who have nuclear weapons 'to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.' The nuclear powers are out of compliance with this, and the U.S. is pursuing a nuclear deal with India which undermines the NPT. So why should we expect Iran to follow the treaty?" MICHAEL SPIES, michael@lcnp.org, http://www.lcnp.org Spies is program associate with the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. The group has recently released several documents assessing the situation with Iran. Spies noted today: "Two issues underlie this standoff, which must be kept separate. The first issue relates to the International Atomic Energy Agency fulfilling its statutory obligation to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. The second issue is Iran's pursuit of nuclear fuel cycle capabilities, which has been the focus of U.S. and EU efforts. The Security Council should consider whether and how it can practically facilitate the IAEA's task of verifying the peaceful use of nuclear energy." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 _________________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: public@lists.accuracy.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org For all list information and functions, including changing your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page: http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] Moving Toward War: US Works Hard to Sabotage Iran Talks Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:00:09 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by mart Deutsche Welle - March 10, 2006 http://www.dw-world.de/dw/function/0,2145,12215_pg_0,00.html US rejects last-minute Iran talks The US has rebuffed a Russian proposal to hold crisis talks on Iran prior to any action by the UN Security Council. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the next round of talks would be those at the UN Security Council next week. Russia had wanted China, the EU and the US to get together to try and diffuse the nuclear standoff with Iran. Meanwhile the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana isn't ruling out imposing UN sanctions on Iran. He said that any possible sanctions should put pressure on the government but not on the Iranian people. Other EU ministers said there was still time for diplomatic solutions. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 8 IRNA: Russia still banking on IAEA to settle Iran's nuclear case - FM - Moscow, March 11, IRNA Russia-Iran-Nuclear Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said here Friday that his country was still counting on the UN nuclear watchdog to settle Iran's nuclear case, adding that the nuclear watchdog was the rightful judge in deciding the issue. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has professional people who can deal with opposing sides to preserve the integrity of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), he added. He said that the UN Security Council does not have experts to probe into Iran's atomic activities and cannot, therefore, issue a reasonable decision. He pointed to remarks by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei indicating optimism a compromise could still be reached on Iran's case, and said he believes the agency still had the capacity to resolve the issue. The minister further expressed dissatisfaction over Western press reports released after the IAEA meeting which conveyed the message that the recent session of the IAEA Board of Governors was a victory for the West. Russia, along with a majority of IAEA member states, had invited Iran to suspend all nuclear activities as a necessary step to build confidence and continue diplomatic efforts to try to resolve the issue, Lavrov said. He said his country had made contacts with the EU troika (Germny, France and Britain), China, the United States and the IAEA chief in recent days and called on all sides to hold an international session on Iran's nuclear case in order to reach a compromise and that the troika and China also expressed their readiness to cooperate. Lavrov pointed to the two latest sessions of the Board of Governors on Iran's nuclear case and said Moscow, in Friday night's meeting of representatives of the Security Council's five permanent members, had expressed its view that sanctions would not solve the problem. He said that while Russia does not believe in sanctions as the proper solution to the issue, it believes that the sides should meet again to try to map out new strategies. ***************************************************************** 9 IRNA: Lebanese expert stresses Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy Beirut, March 12, IRNA Lebanon-Iran-Nuclear Professor of international law in the Lebanon University, Hassan Juni, on Saturday stressed Iran's right to have access to peaceful nuclear technology. Talking to IRNA, he added measures being taken by the United States including reporting Iran nuclear case to the UN Security Council and exerting pressures would have no impacts on the Iranian officials' determination to access nuclear energy. He said Iran has not violated international regulations, stressing pressures and threats against Iran would bear no fruits and would not help the US and Zionist regime achieve their goal of depriving Iran of nuclear energy. The international law expert added the Iranian government has capabilities to preserve its security and defend its interests. He said the US urged European states, China and Russia to confirm its stance against Iran and neutralized Russia's nuclear proposal on Iran which certain countries including France and even Germany had accepted. Juni stressed the importance of reinforcing internal unity, saying in that case punitive measures that may be imposed on Iran by the Security Council under the US pressure would bear no fruits. He said the council's possible action in adopting a resolution against Iran would be harmful for all the UNSC member states, adding that such a measure would push up oil prices and force Iran to show reaction. The expert quoted the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as saying there were some difficulties in imposing economic sanctions against Iran and that sanctions would not lead to Iran's withdrawal from its nuclear energy right. He pointed to Moscow's nuclear offer for Iran for joint venture enrichment inside Russia and said Iran has the right to continue nuclear research and enrichment inside its own soil. ***************************************************************** 10 IRNA: Isfahan nuclear site inspected beyond NPT, no violation observed , March 11, IRNA Head of Center for Nuclear Research and Fuel Production in Isfahan, Amir Rahimi, here Saturday said that the nuclear site of the city has so long been subject to inspections beyond the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and no violation has been observed. Speaking at a tree planting ceremony at Isfahan nuclear site dubbed `Friendship and Peace', he noted that Iran's nuclear program dates back to the pre-revolutionary era. "The current opposition to such programs has to do with the enemies' old conflict with the country's ruling system and is merely a pretext to exert pressure against it." Referring to limiting Iran's access to nuclear technology as limitation of scientific knowledge, he said that besides being a national will, nuclear energy is considered as an economic strategy. "Access to nuclear weapons is against Iran's military doctrine. Meanwhile, such weapons have no deterrent value and Iran can hardly be competitive to the major producers of nuclear weapons. "It is ridiculous to call upon Iran to prove that its nuclear program does not include production of nuclear weapons, given that we have never had such an intention," he added. Meanwhile, he said that the infrastructures of the country's nuclear technology are indestructible, adding that if the relevant installations are demolished they can be reconstructed. He pointed to Iran as one of the world eight countries possessing nuclear fuel cycle and said that the country is one of the world top states with respect to the time of production of nuclear fuel. "This is while the sensitive technology for it has been developed inside the country without the help of foreign countries. Besides, there is no ambiguity in the uranium enrichment process. "In the meantime, the environmental concerns over the activities underway at Isfahan nuclear site are pointless, given the results of the radiation tests within an 80-km radius of the site are negative," he added. During the ceremony, marking Natural Resource Week, a number of twigs were planted at the center as a sign for Iran's peaceful nuclear activities. 2326/1771 ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Rejects Proposal, Angering Russia From the Associated Press [UP] Sunday March 12, 2006 9:01 PM AP Photo XHS101 By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran ruled out a Russian proposal aimed at easing tensions over its nuclear program Sunday, drawing criticism from a senior lawmaker in Moscow who said the decision destroyed the last chance for compromise before the U.N. Security Council takes on the issue this week. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also warned that Iran is considering large-scale uranium enrichment at home as a response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's decision to refer Tehran to the Security Council. However, Tehran did back away from a threat to use oil as an economic weapon if the council should impose sanctions. Russia had sought to persuade Iran to move its enrichment program to Russian territory, which would allow closer international monitoring. Iran reached basic agreement with Moscow on the plan, but the details were never worked out. ``The Russian proposal is not on our agenda any more,'' Asefi told reporters. ``Circumstances have changed. We have to wait and see how things go with the five veto-holding countries (on the council).'' The comments effectively meant the Russian proposal was dead after the nuclear watchdog agency referred Iran to the Security Council, which can impose political and economic sanctions, last week. ``We are not afraid of the Security Council. What is important for us is defending our legitimate rights,'' Asefi said. ``Iran is a powerful country and is able to defend its interests.'' In Moscow, Konstantin Kosachev, the head of international affairs committee of the lower house of parliament, harshly criticized Iran, saying the decision meant the end of chances for a compromise on the issue, according to Russian news reports. Kosachev also warned Tehran that its refusal to continue talks on the Russian offer could ``radicalize'' the Security Council debate on the issue. The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies any intention to build weapons, saying it only aims to produce energy. A Western diplomat, who insisted on anonymity in detailing the confidential discussions, said a new meeting among the permanent council members - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - was planned Monday to look at a revised draft statement. The text was aimed at pressuring Tehran to resolve questions about its nuclear program, including demands that it abandon uranium enrichment. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran had no intention to use oil as a weapon in the confrontation, contradicting a statement a day earlier by Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi. ``The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to continue to provide Asia with the oil it needs as a reliable and effective source of energy and will not use oil as a foreign policy instrument,'' he said at a conference on energy and security issues in Tehran. Iran is the No. 2 producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, after Saudi Arabia. It also has partial control of the narrow Straits of Hormuz, a key route for most of the crude oil shipped from the Persian Gulf nations to world markets. Tehran, which only has an experimental nuclear research program, repeatedly has warned it will begin large-scale uranium enrichment if referred it the Security Council, which occurred last week. Asefi suggested Tehran would wait for the outcome of the Security Council meetings to make a decision on whether to start large-scale enrichment, which scientists say would take months to do. ``Regarding industrial scale uranium enrichment, we are going to wait for two, three days,'' he said. Uranium enriched to a low level produces fuel that can be used in a nuclear reactor, while higher enrichment produces the material needed for a warhead. Iran has insisted it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. It restarted research-scale uranium enrichment last month, two years after voluntarily freezing the program during talks with Germany, Britain and France. Mottaki, the foreign minister, also reiterated a veiled warning that Iran may consider withdrawing from the NPT if its right to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel is not respected. ``If we reach a point that the existing rules don't meet the right of the Iranian nation, the Islamic Republic of Iran may reconsider policies,'' he said. A report last week by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran was testing centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched uranium, and had plans to begin installation of the first 3,000 centrifuges late this year. Iran will need to install about 60,000 centrifuges for a large-scale enrichment of uranium. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Proposes New Iran Nuclear Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday March 11, 2006 7:01 PM AP Photo VAH111 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Russia is proposing a new round of high-level talks on resolving international concerns about Iran's nuclear program, in what diplomats characterized Saturday as an effort to head off a showdown in the U.N. Security Council. A Western diplomat, who insisted on anonymity in detailing the confidential discussions, said Russia wanted a meeting with the United States, China, France and Britain - the other four permanent members of the Security Council. The Russians also want the participation of Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and of Germany, which along with France and Britain broke off talks with Iran last year after Tehran resumed preliminary work on uranium enrichment. The Kremlin is ``pushing for a meeting in Vienna March 20,'' the diplomat said, adding that Moscow's emphasis on a Vienna venue is an attempt to take the focus off Security Council deliberations in New York on how to cajole Iran into reimposing a freeze on enrichment and fully cooperating with an IAEA probe of its suspect nuclear program. ElBaradei incurred U.S. displeasure recently by suggesting Iran be allowed to run small-scale uranium enrichment if it agrees to give up a full-scale program. Russia initially backed the suggestion but backed away after Washington issued strong opposition. A diplomat close to the Vienna-based IAEA said there had been ``some talk'' about a Vienna meeting among the five permanent council members plus Germany but no invitation had been extended to ElBaradei by Saturday. No date or other details had been discussed, the diplomat said. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov floated the idea of multilateral talks on Iran earlier in the week but did not suggest a date or venue. On Friday, John Bolton, America's ambassador to the Security Council, also said continuing consultations made ``a lot of sense.'' But the Western diplomat suggested Washington did not see any need for talks outside the Security Council, emphasizing that route was approved in January by Lavrov and the foreign ministers of the other permanent members. The five permanent council members considered proposals Friday on how to get Iran to answer questions about its nuclear program, abandon uranium enrichment and stop construction on a reactor. But Russia indicated it was uncomfortable with the council taking any significant action. Russia has strong economic and political ties to Iran and is thought to fear that Iran could spurn negotiations entirely at a time when the West fears the Islamic state is determined to develop nuclear weapons. Britain, France and the United States are seeking a tough statement aimed at pressuring Iran, while Russia and China want the Security Council to remain in the background. A new meeting among the permanent council members was planned Monday morning to look at a revised draft, the Western diplomat said. Another diplomat who had seen the draft told The Associated Press it would call on Iran to halt construction of its heavy-water reactor and stop all uranium enrichment - a process that can produce both reactor fuel and the fissile material needed to build atomic bombs. According to the diplomat, the draft did not include any threats against Iran. ``It's more about noting with concern and expressing serious concern, calling for transparency, reminding all states, not just Iran, of their obligations,'' the diplomat said. ``There's no threat of anything and there's certainly no threat of measures or next steps.'' A lack of any threats is a clear effort to get Russia and China on board. If that does not happen, Bolton and other senior American officials have suggested Washington might look elsewhere to punish Iran - possibly by rallying its allies to impose targeted sanctions. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Use Oil in Nuke Standoff From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday March 11, 2006 8:01 PM AP Photo VAH116 By NASSER KARIMI Associated Press Writer TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran on Saturday explicitly warned for the first time that it could use oil as a weapon if the U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions over an Iranian nuclear program that the U.S. and others suspect is trying to produce atomic bombs. Later in the day, diplomats said Russia is pushing for a new round of international talks to be held away from U.N. headquarters, apparently hoping to head off a showdown in the council. Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi raised the possibility of using Iran's oil and natural gas supplies as a weapon in the international standoff and also noted Iran's strategic location at a chokepoint for a vital Persian Gulf oil route. ``If (they) politicize our nuclear case, we will use any means. We are rich in energy resources. We have control over the biggest and the most sensitive energy route of the world,'' Pourmohammadi was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency. Iran is the No. 2 producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries after Saudi Arabia. It also lies on one side of the narrow Strait of Hormuz, a key passage for most of the crude oil shipped from the Persian Gulf nations. Pourmohammadi's statements were the most specific yet in a series of threats issued by Iranian officials as the Security Council discusses how to cajole Iran into reimposing a freeze on uranium enrichment and fully cooperating with a U.N. probe of its suspect nuclear program. Iran's government denies it is trying to develop atomic weapons, saying its program is intended only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity. Tehran insists the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives it the right to enrich uranium for reactor fuel, even though the process also can produce the fissile material needed to make atomic bombs. Russia, which has economic and political ties to Iran, has been trying to mediate a settlement and avoid U.N. sanctions. It is thought to fear Iran could spurn negotiations entirely at a time when the West fears the Islamic state is determined to obtain atomic weapons. In Vienna, Austria, a Western diplomat told The Associated Press that the Kremlin is trying to arrange talks March 20 among the five permanent Security Council members - the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France - and Germany. The meeting is envisioned for Vienna because Russia wants to take the focus off the council's deliberations in New York, said the diplomat, who agreed to give details of the confidential discussions only on condition of anonymity. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov floated the idea of multilateral talks on Iran earlier in the week but did not suggest a date or venue. On Friday, John Bolton, America's ambassador to the Security Council, also said continuing consultations made ``a lot of sense.'' But the Western diplomat suggested Washington wants the main focus to remain on the Security Council, emphasizing that route was approved in January by Lavrov and the foreign ministers of the other permanent members. The five permanent council members considered proposals Friday on how to get Iran to answer questions about its nuclear program, abandon uranium enrichment and stop construction on a reactor. The five planned another meeting Monday morning to look at a revised draft of a resolution involving Iran, the Western diplomat said. Another diplomat who had seen the draft told AP it calls on Iran to halt construction of its heavy-water reactor and stop all uranium enrichment, but does not contain any threat of punishment against the Iranians. The lack of a threat is a clear effort to get Russia and China on board. If that does not happen, Bolton and other senior U.S. officials have suggested Washington might try to rally its allies to impose their own targeted sanctions. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 14 IRNA: Interior minister: Iran not to yield if nuclear dossier becomes political - Tehran, March 11, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Security Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi here Saturday said that if the nuclear dossier turns out to be a political and security matter, Iran will not surrender its rights. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the ceremony, in which Tehran Municipality's accounting system was converted from cash into credit, he added that Iran has the privilege of possessing energy resources, domestic and regional consumers market for energy as well as the greatest and most sensitive route for energy transfer. In response to a question about the high expenses Iran's enemies are going through to make the country's nuclear dossier a security and political matter and whether Iran intends to use oil as a tool, he added that once economic sanction is in question, the Iranian officials will do their best to make optimum use of the available facilities. "Sanction is one of the issues brought up by the enemies. However, the international community will certainly suffer much more from the consequences of sanctions than the Iranian community. "If they take other measures, we assure them that we have the potential to counteract, despite our reluctance to take such measures," added the minister. About reporting the country's nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), he said that people's say is of high importance. "Once the nation is determined to have access to advanced nuclear technology and other fields of knowledge, as their representatives we have to serve them and pursue such a goal. "We have taken strong steps to this end, while the report on Iran's nuclear issue has been drawn up to help our opponents and enemies take advantage of UNSC to convert it into a political and security case," he added. Pour Mohammadi noted that they are aware that the dossier is a purely technical, specialized and legal case. "If it is to be treated as a political and security issue, the cost of its consequent impact upon the international community will be remarkably higher. Meanwhile, we agree that it will be costly to us as well," he said. Stressing that the nation is prepared to go through the consequent expenses, he said that such a path will certainly be followed, despite having to pay for it. Pour Mohammadi hoped that the path will be pursued by paying the least possible amount and without going through much difficulty. ***************************************************************** 15 IRNA: German FM ready to meet with Iran's nuclear officials Tehran, March 11, IRNA Germany-Iran-Nuclear German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier Friday night expressed his readiness to hold a meeting with Iran's nuclear officials to resolve the current nuclear standoff. Deutsche Welle's Internet website on Saturday quoted Steinmeier as he was speaking on the sidelines of the EU foreign ministers meeting in Salzburg, Austria. He said he would not prevent such a meeting with Iranian nuclear representatives. The minister, moreover, said that Germany, France, Britain, the United States, Russia and China had reached an agreement during their meeting Friday night to take step-by-step measures to try to resolve the issue. According to Deutsche Welle, as a first step the United Nations Security Council, reinforcing the stance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), would call on Iran to give its replies to questions previously raised by the IAEA which it has not as yet replied. ***************************************************************** 16 WorldNetDaily: IAEA pleads incompetence [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] Posted: March 11, 2006 © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com As a signatory to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Iran is required to subject all "source or special fissionable material" being produced, processed or used in any principal facility to verification – "in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency" – that none is diverted from peaceful uses, to use in nuclear weapons. All of it. Although Pakistan and India are not NPT signatories, each have some materials and activities that are subject to Safeguards. Why make a point of this? Because, according to the IAEA Statute, it ought to make no difference whatsoever to the IAEA Board of Governors whether all source and fissionable materials and activities involving them are subject to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement or not. It is the NPT – not the IAEA Statute – that requires Iran to subject all source and fissionable materials and all activities involving them to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement. Hence, it is the NPT-required Safeguards Agreement that empowers the IAEA to a) verify that all Iranian source and fissionable materials – and all activities involving their physical or chemical transformation – have been "declared," and that b) there has not been any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. According to all Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei's reports made since November 2004, there is no indication that there are now any "undeclared" source or special nuclear materials in Iran; nor is there any indication of any diversion of nuclear materials. What if India produces nuclear weapons with source or special nuclear materials it has not made subject to Safeguards? Hey, according to Bonkers Bolton, that's no problem. Since India isn't a NPT signatory, what it does with source or special nuclear materials it hasn't made subject to an IAEA Safeguards Agreement is none of the IAEA's business. But, suppose the IAEA discovers that India has used "declared" materials in furtherance of some military purpose. Making armor-piecing bullets with "depleted uranium" produced by a Safeguarded uranium-enrichment facility, for example. Well, that would certainly be a violation of India's Safeguards Agreement. And if – in connection with the activities of the agency – there should arise "questions that are within the competence of the Security Council": The agency shall notify the Security Council as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Now, would the discovery of such a violation by India be a serious threat to international peace and security? Hardly. Nevetheless, despite ElBaradei's many reports that Iran is not in "violation" or in "non-compliance" with its NPT-required Safeguards Agreement, Condi Rice has seized on these words in ElBaradei's most recent report– "the agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran" – and declared them to be "questions that are within the competence of the Security Council." It's doubtful that ElBaradei would ever be in a position – no matter how much more Iran cooperated or how much additional authority the U.N. Security Council gave him – to make such a conclusion. Besides, no one asked him. The truly important part of all ElBaradei's recent reports is that as best he can tell, after more than two years of go-anywhere see-anything inspections, Iran is in compliance with its NPT-required IAEA Safeguards Agreement. Nevertheless, at Condi's insistence, the IAEA Board has reported to the Security Council the entire Iranian dossier, which not only documents Iran's voluntary cooperation with IAEA inspections that far exceed anything required by their Safeguards Agreement (beyond even that required by an Additional Protocol), but documents numerous serious violations by the Board and individual members of Iran's "inalienable" rights under the IAEA Statute, as well as the NPT, itself. Why? Well, Rice reportedly told ElBaradei she wanted Iran's "case" before the Security Council as soon as possible so she could seek a "Presidential Statement" noting Iran's "past failures to comply with its international commitments." Presidential Statements are the product of informal consultations between the Council's president and its members and do not enjoy the status of Security Council resolutions. But as President Bush demonstrated three years ago when he attacked Iraq, "We don't need no stinking resolutions!" Last month, Bonkers Bolton was president and Rice could probably have gotten a Presidential Statement specifically authorizing council members – individually or collectively – "to take appropriate measures" against Iran. But, someone should tell Condi that Ambassador César Mayoral of Argentina is president this month. Do you agree with Gordon Prather? If so, you will want to read "Crude Politics: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism" by Paul Sperry – now reduced to just $12.99 in hardcover. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. He also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc. ***************************************************************** 17 IRNA: ElBaradei's ambiguous remarks show no diversion in Iran N-plan - Tehran, March 12, IRNA Iran-Asefi-Nuclear Iran Sunday said although the UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei's remarks about Iran are ambiguous, they reveal that Tehran has not diverted its nuclear program from its peaceful purposes. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi made the remark in his talks to reporters on the sidelines of a two-day international conference entitled "Energy and Security; Asian Vision". The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan Thursday sent ElBaradei's Iran report to the international body's Security Council. The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) failed to issue any resolution in its Wednesday's meeting on Iran and ElBaradei's report was submitted to the UN Security Council. "We think the opposing sides, the Zionist regime and the United States, will surely sustain damage if they make the situation more critical. "The Islamic Republic of Iran has enough capacity to maintain and defend its rights." Asked whether Iran has started industrial-scale enrichment after the board's decision, the spokesman said, "Not yet. We will wait and see what is going to take place in the next two or three days." Asefi said the uncommitted opposing parties have breached previous agreements. He blasted the US President George Bush's stance toward Iran as cliche and unreasoning caused by Washington's failure in Iraq. Bush Friday called Iran a grave national security concern. "The US failure to establish security and peace in Iraq is easily palpable. The issue has infuriated the White House and Mr Bush. He (Bush) made such baseless remarks to cover up his fiascos." 2327-2325/1412 ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: Iran sends mixed messages over oil exports Sun Mar 12, 5:44 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki insisted Iran" /> would remain a reliable energy supplier, a day after the interior minister issued a new warning on Iranian oil exports. "The Islamic republic of Iran is determined to be a reliable and effective energy supplier for Asian countries and not to use oil to implement its foreign policy," Mottaki told an international conference in Tehran on energy and security in Asia. Iranian media however reported apparently contradictory remarks from Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi that suggested Iran could use oil as a weapon if it was hit by economic sanctions over its nuclear programme. "We have energy, we have both our big consumer market and that of the region, and we have control over the biggest and the most sensitive energy route in the world," said Pour-Mohammadi Saturday, in response to a question on Tehran's response in case of UN Security Council action. This is not the first time that Iranian officials have denied that they intend to use oil as weapon. Iran, OPEC" /> 's second biggest producer, said on March 6 that it was committed to remaining a stable oil supplier despite mounting international tensions surrounding its nuclear program. "The Islamic republic has always stressed it is a stable source of providing energy to the world," Iran's representative to OPEC Hossein Kazempour Ardebili said. But on March 5, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani issued a veiled warning that the Islamic republic could use oil as a weapon if the nuclear crisis escalated, while signaling Iran would not initiate bringing oil into the dispute. Four days ago, Iranian Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said that his country would not halt its oil exports, even if hit by economic sanctions over its disputed nuclear program. "(Economic sanctions) could affect the (oil) market and prices could go up but it will not affect our decision to continue our supply," Vaziri-Hamaneh told reporters in OPEC meeting. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 19 AFP: Defiant Iran raises temperature in nuclear dispute Sun Mar 12, 5:57 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> has upped the stakes in the standoff over its atomic programme, saying a Russian compromise proposal was no longer on the table and threatening to quit an international nuclear treaty. The comments by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his spokesman came days before Iran's nuclear drive, alleged by the United States to be cover for weapons production, is due to be discussed on the UN Security Council. Mottaki, whose country has vehemently defended its right to carry out sensitive uranium enrichment, threatened that Iran could quit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which governs the peaceful use of nuclear energy. "If we reach a point where the existing mechanisms do not provide for the right of the Iranian people, then the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran would be possibly revised and reconsidered," Mottaki told reporters Sunday, in response to a question over whether Iran would consider leaving the NPT. "At the moment we believe that there is a chance for different sides to continue the negotiations," he added on the sidelines of an international conference on energy and security in Asia. Iran also said the Russian compromise proposal -- which would see Iran enriching uranium on Russian soil -- was no longer on its agenda now that the nuclear case is being handled by UN Security Council. "The conditions have changed now, the Russian proposal is not on the agenda. The Islamic republic will not give up its rights," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi told reporters. A spokesman for the Russian foreign ministry said it was studying the comments, "after which adjustments will be made." Asefi also went on to say that Iran would never comply with any UN Security Council resolution ordering it to suspend uranium enrichment. When asked what the Islamic republic would do if any UN Security Council resolution ordered it to suspend uranium enrichment, Asefi said: "Never." He did not elaborate more. Although Tehran has proposed suspending industrial-scale enrichment, it is refusing to halt enrichment research -- but Western powers argue that even this would allow the clerical regime to acquire nuclear weapons know-how. On Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> sent an assessment report on Iran's program to the Security Council after a failed three-year-old probe to confirm the true nature of Iran's activities. The standoff has escalated in recent months, with Tehran insisting it will not stop the sensitive enrichment activities that the West suspects are cover for developing an atomic bomb. Iran vehemently denies the charges. On Friday, the five veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council held another round of private talks on how to respond to Iran's nuclear defiance ahead of an expected meeting by the full 15-member council next week. The Council, which unlike the IAEA has the power to impose sanctions and can even authorize military action, is first expected to endorse demands that Tehran halt uranium enrichment -- a reactor fuel-making process that can be extended to weapons development. Iran -- OPEC" /> 's second biggest oil producer -- has been sending mixed messages over whether it would use its oil exports as a weapon in the case of action from the UN Security Council. Mottaki insisted Iran would remain a reliable energy supplier, a day after the interior minister issued a new warning on Iranian oil exports. "The Islamic republic of Iran is determined to be a reliable and effective energy supplier for Asian countries and not to use oil to implement its foreign policy," Mottaki said. However, Iranian media reported apparently contradictory remarks from Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi that suggested Iran could use oil as a weapon if it was hit by economic sanctions over its nuclear program. Recommend It: Not at All Somewhat Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 20 IRNA: Iran determined to supply energy to Asian states - FM - Tehran, March 12, IRNA Iran-FM-Energy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Sunday that Iran is resolved to play an effective and reliable role in supplying energy to Asian states and not to use oil to advance its foreign policy. Mottaki made the remark while addressing the inaugural ceremony of an two-day international conference dubbed `Energy and Security: Asian Vision'. "The Islamic Republic of Iran believes all factors involved in energy supply, production, economy, technology and consumption can be defined within a comprehensive security plan for Asia," he said. Mottaki said the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gives priority to cooperation with the neighboring and Asian states. He raised the question why Asian states should not be after setting up of an Asian and international consortium on energy and gas consumption. Mottaki said the Iranian government's diplomacy with respect to energy transfer pipeline to different regions is based on such an outlook. "This indicates Iran's strong resolve to participate and cooperate in the development of Asian and world countries," he said. Multilateral cooperation in the field of energy among countries can bring about security for them, the foreign minister said. Mottaki expressed hope the conference would follow up convergence between objectives of energy producing and consuming states as well as safeguarding security of Asian countries. ***************************************************************** 21 IRNA: Iranian national resolve seek legitimate right to nuclear energy , March 12, IRNA -- Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs Davoud Danesh Jaafari said on Sunday that Iranian national resolve is determined to achieve legitimate right of producing nuclear energy. He told reporters after taking part in the first meeting of high council of expatriates at Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS), that Iran is seeking its rights as enshrined in the international treaty. He said that certain states have decided to deprive Iran of its legitimate rights adding that normally the international community would display appropriate response to arbitrary action of those states. He said that it is impossible for certain states to dictate a trend to the international community. "They are going to deprive a nation of its legitimate right on the presumption that it may be diverting from civilian use. "They intensified the propaganda campaign against Iranian nuclear program to report Iran to the Security Council, but, Iranian national resolve is pursuing its rights in the context of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," he said. Asked about precautionary measures to thwart impacts of possible economic sanctions on Iran, he said that he would explain them tomorrow. ***************************************************************** 22 IRNA: Iran's insistence on safeguarding nuclear right, a model for nations - Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 12, IRNA Iran-Argentina-Nuclear If Iran insists on its stance on peaceful use of nuclear energy, it will become a model for countries who intend to become independent from yoke of the US imperialism, an Argentinean analyst and historian said here Saturday. Talking to IRNA, Juan Gabriel Labake added Iran will gain nothing if it backs down from its stance on peaceful nuclear research. He said the US political and military strategy prevents any atomic and nuclear research in developing countries, adding Washington intends to follow up an attitude with Argentina similar to what it had with Iran's nuclear program. The US has created a state of apprehension in the world that Iran is moving towards production of atomic bombs, he said, adding he does not believe Iran has any plan to develop nuclear weapons. Even if Iran seeks atomic weapons, it is entitled to such a right since Israel, which has nuclear weapons and repeatedly threatens Iran, is a destabilizing factor in the region, he noted. The analyst added he believes the US and West conflict with Iran is politically motivated, saying the US attitude shows it seeks pretext to attack Iran. He said Washington would achieve no success in attacking Iran because Tehran knows how to defend itself. China and Russia are now aware of the fact that the US goals in Arab world and Iran are not just a geographical expansionism, rather are a pretext to prepare itself for final conflict with China. Labake said neither China nor Russia would permit any invasion of Iran, adding the confrontation policy of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be the most appropriate solution for Iran. He stressed the US should not expect Iran not to produce nuclear bomb while Israel has not even signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran never invaded any country in the region but was attacked during the imposed Iraqi war, he said, adding that Israeli regime is aggressive. The Argentinean official stated that Iran's report to the United Nations Security Council is among the US approaches of pressure and bullying. ***************************************************************** 23 IRNA: Iranian nuclear strategy in conformity with NPT, IAEA Safeguards Tehran, March 12, IRNA Iran-NPT-Roudaki Deputy head of Majlis Commission for National Security and Foreign Affairs Mohammad Nabi Roudaki said on Sunday that Iran has drawn up its strategy on nuclear program in conformity with Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and national interest. He told IRNA that discriminatory approach of certain states to Iranian nuclear program is not acceptable and it is being dictated by the US. Roudaki said that the international community is aware that reporting Iranian nuclear program to the Security Council has been dictated by the United States. "Members of the UN Security Council well know that Iran has not exceeded the boundaries of NPT and Safeguards Agreement of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and that's why there is dispute about US arbitrary behavior within the Security Council." He said that according to note three of NPT and note 4 of Charter of IAEA, member states of the UN nuclear agency are entitled to have 1,000 centrifuge-related Research and Development (R) studies. "Uranium enrichment at industrial level has been permitted at the scale of above 60,000 centrifuges by NPT, but, Iran has declared a moratorium on uranium enrichment at industrial level as a confidence building measure with the IAEA," Roudaki said. He said that the US has transgressed the domains of law consistent with nuclear energy and Iran has no way but to lodge a complaint with International Court of Justice against violation of Iranian rights enshrined by NPT. He said that Majlis had approved the suspension of the moratorium on uranium enrichment if Iran (were) reported to UN Security Council and currently, the Iranian nation prefer to wait and see how the debate of the Security Council will go. "If the Security Council continued the same discriminatory approach as that of the US, the nation will not compromise its rights," Roudaki said. He objected to IAEA for the ambiguous report it provided about Iranian nuclear program which always honored Safeguards Agreement of the UN nuclear agency and said its ambivalent report has put national interests of the member states at risk. Roudaki said that the 'Western nuclear club' led by US and European states wants to have monopoly over nuclear energy by fabricating baseless charges against Iran. ***************************************************************** 24 [NYTr] Venezuela Rejects "N.Korean WMD" Slander Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:00:19 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Venezuela Rejects "N.Korea WMD" Slander Caracas, Mar 10 (Prensa Latina) Guillermo Garcia, director of Vea daily in Venezuela, said allegations that he arranged to buy nuclear missiles from North Korea was "infamous" and an "affront to Venezuela". The assertion that Garcia visited North Korea eight times for this purpose, on behalf of President Hugo Chavez, were made by Kenneth Rijock, admitted money launderer for narcotics operations, and were circulated on Alexander Boyd's webpage Garcia said he had indeed visited North Korea, two times over 15 years ago as part of a legislative delegation, and Chavez was not even a candidate for president at the time. He added that such lies are part of the US drive to destabilize the Chavez administration, and recalled that weapons of mass destruction were the pretext to justify the war on Iraq. The journalist called this a "clumsy, ill-structured, and ridiculous" attempt to create "a second missile crisis in the style of 1962 that brought the world to the brink of war." "I am in no way an arms dealer nor does Venezuela have the least interest in purchasing weapons of mass destruction. It's a fabrication from head to tail." hr/ccs/emw/nda * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 25 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Delays Cabinet Talks With South From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday March 11, 2006 12:31 PM By KWANG-TAE KIM Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Saturday postponed high-level talks with South Korea this month in anger over U.S. military exercises in the region and vowed to strengthen its peaceful nuclear activity. Kwon Ho Ung, the North's Cabinet counselor, said the South Korean-U.S. joint military exercises cannot be justified and made it impossible to hold the 18th round of the talks this month in Pyongyang. North Korea proposed to convene the talks in April, the North's official Korean Central News Agency said. ``It is our stand that the hostile war exercises and peaceful dialogue cannot go together,'' Kwon said in a telephone message to his South Korean counterpart carried by the Korean Central News Agency. The exercises will involve 20,000 American troops and an undisclosed number of South Korean soldiers, according to the U.S. military command in Seoul. They will run for a week starting March 25. About 29,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea as a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War that ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty, leaving the Koreas technically at war. North Korea routinely condemns the annual joint military exercises as preparations for an invasion. ``Your side will be held wholly responsible for the expected delay of this year's first inter-Korean ministerial talks,'' said Kwon, the North's chief negotiator in the Cabinet-level talks. The talks are the highest-level regular channel of dialogue between the Koreas since a landmark summit in 2000, which touched off a set of exchanges and cross-border projects. South Korea's Unification Ministry, which handles inter-Korean affairs, was not immediately available for comment. North Korea also vowed to step up its peaceful nuclear activities and urged the United States to change its nuclear policy toward the communist country, the KCNA said in a separate commentary. ``The U.S. should recognize the right of all countries to use nuclear technology for a peaceful purpose,'' the KCNA said in a commentary. The North accused the United States of double standards over the nuclear issue and insisted that it be treated the same as nuclear powers that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Pyongyang's demand came a week after President Bush signed an agreement to provide India with U.S. nuclear know-how and atomic fuel in exchange for India opening some of its atomic reactors to international inspections. India has not signed the NPT. North Korea withdrew from NPT in 2003. Last year, the communist country said it had nuclear weapons, though the claim has not been verified independently. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 26 AFP: North Korea urges US to change "biased" nuclear policy Sat Mar 11, 8:09 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea" /> North Koreahas urged the United States to change its "biased" nuclear policy against the Stalinist state, insisting on its right to peaceful nuclear activities. The North's official mouthpiece, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), accused the United States of applying a double standard on countries in the nuclear non-proliferation issue. "How can the Korean people cave in to the outsiders' pressure and give up the independent nuclear energy industry which they have built up for decades," KCNA said in a commentary Saturday. "It is quite intolerable for the US to overlook nuclear issues of some countries, treating them in a friendly manner, and unconditionally reject some countries over nuclear issues, seeking its own interests." North Korea, a self-declared nuclear power staying out of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), has been locked in a standoff with the United States over its nuclear development program. "The US should recognize the right of all countries to use nuclear technology for a peaceful purpose," the commentary said. "It is our assertion that the DPRK (North Korea) should be treated the same way as those countries possessing nuclear weapons outside the NPT are done." KCNA did not spell out the names of nations it was referring to, but its comments followed a recent agreement reached between the United States and India, which has also refused to joint the NPT, for nuclear energy cooperation. In the agreement reached early this month in New Delhi, US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushreversed a longstanding US policy by agreeing to sell sensitive nuclear technology to India even though New Delhi is not a party to the NPT. Critics said the agreement would fuel a South Asia arms race or set a bad example for Israel" /> Israel, Iran" /> Iran, or North Korea. Six-way talks -- which group the two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan -- aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program have been stalled since November. North Korea says it will not return to negotiations unless the United States lifted financial sanctions imposed against it over Pyongyang's alleged counterfeiting and money laundering activities. After returning from his trip to China, South Korea" /> South Korea's chief delegate to the talks, Chun Young-Woo, said Saturday the prospect of the six-party talks was "opaque." "Chinese officials said yellow dust is blowing over the road toward the six-party talks," he told journalists, referring to storms blowing in from China's Gobi desert carrying sand and industrial pollution. "There were few Chinese officials who were optimistic (over the possibility of the talks being resumed at an early date," he said. "They expressed concern that even if the talks resume, there would be little progress to be made as long as North Korea and the United States stick to their current positions," he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 27 [du-list]GAO Report Recognizes Conflict of Interest Concerns Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:46:05 -0800 (We owe Congressman Hostettler and the GAO a vote of thanks for this one. Glenn) from Glenn Bell http://judiciary.house.gov// News Advisory For immediate release Contact: Jeff Lungren/Terry Shawn March 10, 2006 202-225-2492 GAO Report Recognizes Conflict of Interest Concerns Regarding EEOICPA WA! SHINGTON, D.C. ­ House Judiciary Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee Chairman John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.) announced the release of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/gaoeeoicpa31006.pdf today which highlights a “conflict of roles” in the administration of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which risked impacting the independence and credibility of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Advisory Board) and its audit contractor. The Judiciary Committee had asked GAO to look into concerns about the potential obstruction of the work of the Advisory Board’s audit contractor, and inappropriate interference with its funding and scope of work by the NIOSH pro! gram staff who were being audited. Chairman Hostettler, who held the Subcommittee’s March 1 hearing into EEOICPA, stated, “This report validates the concerns highlighted at our recent oversight hearing on this program. GAO recognizes the potential for a loss of Government credibility with claimants and the public if we don’t ensure that the officials involved with this program do not compromise, through their actions, the real or perceived independence of this Advisory Board.” Today’s report noted that the NIOSH Director removed two officials running the EEOICPA radiation dose reconstruction program from overseeing the Advisory Board and the audit contractor, and that these personnel changes had improved performance. GAO noted that: “Credibility is essential to the work of the Advisory Board and the contractor, and actions were taken in response to initial concerns about the independence of federal officials in certain key roles. Nonetheless, it is important for [Department of Health and Human Services] HHS to continue to be diligent in avoiding actual or perceived conflicts of roles as new candidates are considered for these roles over the life of the Advisory Board.” The report also reviewed the administration of the Advisory Board’s audit contractor and the contractor’s performance. The report found that: 1) the initial scope of work was far more complex than expected; 2) the Advisory Board had to expand the audit contractor’s scope of work and time lines; 3) the initial amount of funding for the audit was unrealistic; and 4) the audit contractor is currently performing on schedule and within budget. Today’s GAO report makes 3 recommendations: (1) To assist in managing the long term costs of the audit, the contracting and project officers should be directed to develop and share with the Advisory Board integrated data on contractor spending levels compared to work completed. (2) HHS staff should collect and analyze pertinent information that would help the Advisory Board reexamine its long-term plan for assessing the NIOSH site profiles and dose reconstructions, given that the work is far more complex and time consuming. (3) To ensure that the findings and recommendations of the Advisory Board and the contractor are promptly resolved, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Director of NIOSH to establish a system to track the actions taken by the agency in response to these GAO findings and recommendations and update the Advisory Board periodically on the status of such actions. In light of an Office of Management and Bud! get (OMB) passback memo calling for steps to contain the growth in benefit costs for sick nuclear workers, and coupled with information gathered at the March 1 oversight hearing, the Committee is asking GAO to assess a range of options to protect the independence and credibility of the Advisory Board and its audit contractor. These include: 1) annual renewal of the directives in the fiscal year ‘06 Labor, HHS Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-149) that provided specific funding for the work of the Advisory Board and its audit contractor; and 2) amending EEOICPA to include Congress in the appointment process for members of the Advisory Board. The GAO report noted that the costs of the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) contract for dose reconstruction had more than tripled from $70 million to over $200 million. In response, the Committee has requested GAO investigate the reasons for these costs increases, whether ORAU’s performance has been adequate, and to assess whether conflicts of interest are being managed effectively with respect to ORAU staff working on the EEOICPA dose reconstruction program. The administrative costs of the NIOSH dose reconstruction program appear to be very large in proportion to benefits paid out to claimants whose cases required a radiation dose reconstruction, and GAO is asked to assess whether these costs are warranted. #### [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. ***************************************************************** 28 [NukeNet] Weaponeers Debate RRW Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:46:28 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) FYI-- a bit more on the RRW program -- and easy to see from this and other articles why we need to stop it from moving forward. By the way, the real issue is new nukes, lots of new nukes and the new weapons complex infrastructure to build new nukes -- not the bogus "reasons" offered here by Johnny Foster (ex-Livermore Lab director). Read on... Peace, Marylia FORMER LAB DIRECTOR SUPPORTS NUKE PLAN BUSH IDEA TO REDESIGN SUCH WEAPONS BRINGS UP CONCERNS THAT THEY MAY BE VULNERABLE TO DEFECTS Oakland Tribune -- March 12, 2006 by Ian Hoffman Livermore -- An influential Pentagon adviser on nuclear weapons threw his support last week behind Bush administration plans to redesign the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal but said the nation needs twice as many new bomb designs as insurance against any one of them failing. Former Lawrence Livermore lab director and Pentagon research chief Johnny Foster, now co-chair of a Defense Science Board task force on U.S. nuclear capabilities, said that even though weapons scientists have found fixes for defects in U.S. nuclear arms, he fears existing and newly designed weapons could be vulnerable to undetected and unforeseen breakdowns. "We have discovered warheads that would fail to operate properly," Foster said at Sandia National Laboratories-California. "We have also realized failure modes that were overlooked" as weaponeers carried bomb designs from conception to testing to production. "But what about the possibility that there are still other failure modes that we have not yet discovered?" Foster said. They are "unknown unknowns -- Unk Unks, for short." His answer is a more rigorous hunt for defects in weapons, as well as studies of why those defects were not discovered originally, and a doubling of nuclear explosive designs capable of riding on the nation's land- and sub-based intercontinental missiles, its bombers and its cruise missiles. "We should consider deploying two different, competitively designed warhead types for each nuclear delivery system," he said. "Then, should a failure mode be discovered in one type, we would have a better chance that the other half of the warheads in that operational system would be reliable and available." Critics of the new "reliable replacement warhead" program said Foster's proposal sounds like dramatic and costly expansion. "I'm tired of it," said former Sandia National Laboratories weapons executive Bob Peurifoy. "The stockpile is healthy, it is reliable. It meets all the safety standards, it is ready to go, and it will kill you. It is showing little aging. We will someday reach a point where aging will be a concern for some component. When that happens, you replace it." He observed that the majority of U.S. nuclear explosives ride on a single delivery vehicle -- Ohio class submarines and D5 missiles for the Navy, Minuteman IIIs for the land-based ICBMs and Tomahawks for the cruise missiles. "This is gigantic hoax on the taxpayer. It is stimulated by the self interest of NNSA and the (weapons) design labs based on the desire to extract ever more money from the taxpayer," he said. "You think our weapons don't work? Go stand under one. But don't take your wife and kids." The United States already stockpiles two nuclear explosive designs for every delivery vehicle. Bush administration officials argue those weapons are overpowered, were finely tuned for maximum explosive energy in a compact, lightweight package. Administration weapons managers and officials at the weapons labs are starting to design a limited number of new, supposedly more robust thermonuclear explosives as replacements that would be less expensive to maintain. Stanford physicist Sidney Drell, a frequent government adviser on nuclear weapons and intelligence, said the existing arsenal is healthy and said fielding newly design replacements poses a risk of restarting nuclear testing globally to ensure they work. "If you talk about designing new weapons, I don't think you can do that without testing," he said Friday. "I don't think that should be, and I'm going to do what I can to make sure it's not done." http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_3594985 FORMER LAB DIRECTOR SUPPORTS NUKE PLAN BUSH IDEA TO REDESIGN SUCH WEAPONS BRINGS UP CONCERNS THAT THEY MAY BE VULNERABLE TO DEFECTS Oakland Tribune -- March 12, 2006 &nbs p; by Ian Hoffman Livermore -- An influential Pentagon adviser on nuclear weapons threw his support last week behind Bush administration plans to redesign the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal but said the nation needs twice as many new bomb designs as insurance against any one of them failing. Former Lawrence Livermore lab director and Pentagon research chief Johnny Foster, now co-chair of a Defense Science Board task force on U.S. nuclear capabilities, said that even though weapons scientists have found fixes for defects in U.S. nuclear arms, he fears existing and newly designed weapons could be vulnerable to undetected and unforeseen breakdowns. "We have discovered warheads that would fail to operate properly," Foster said at Sandia National Laboratories-California. "We have also realized failure modes that were overlooked" as weaponeers carried bomb designs from conception to testing to production. "But what about the possibility that there are still other failure modes that we have not yet discovered?" Foster said. They are "unknown unknowns Unk Unks, for short." His answer is a more rigorous hunt for defects in weapons, as well as studies of why those defects were not discovered originally, and a doubling of nuclear explosive designs capable of riding on the nation's land- and sub-based intercontinental missiles, its bombers and its cruise missiles. "We should consider deploying two different, competitively designed warhead types for each nuclear delivery system," he said. "Then, should a failure mode be discovered in one type, we would have a better chance that the other half of the warheads in that operational system would be reliable and available." Critics of the new "reliable replacement warhead" program said Foster's proposal sounds like dramatic and costly expansion. "I'm tired of it," said former Sandia National Laboratories weapons executive Bob Peurifoy. "The stockpile is healthy, it is reliable. It meets all the safety standards, it is ready to go, and it will kill you. It is showing little aging. We will someday reach a point where aging will be a concern for some component. When that happens, you replace it." He observed that the majority of U.S. nuclear explosives ride on a single delivery vehicle Ohio class submarines and D5 missiles for the Navy, Minuteman IIIs for the land-based ICBMs and Tomahawks for the cruise missiles. "This is gigantic hoax on the taxpayer. It is stimulated by the self interest of NNSA and the (weapons) design labs based on the desire to extract ever more money from the taxpayer," he said. "You think our weapons don't work? Go stand under one. But don't take your wife and kids." The United States already stockpiles two nuclear explosive designs for every delivery vehicle. Bush administration officials argue those weapons are overpowered, were finely tuned for maximum explosive energy in a compact, lightweight package. Administration weapons managers and officials at the weapons labs are starting to design a limited number of new, supposedly more robust thermonuclear explosives as replacements that would be less expensive to maintain. Stanford physicist Sidney Drell, a frequent government adviser on nuclear weapons and intelligence, said the existing arsenal is healthy and said fielding newly design replacements poses a risk of restarting nuclear testing globally to ensure they work. "If you talk about designing new weapons, I don't think you can do that without testing," he said Friday. "I don't think that should be, and I'm going to do what I can to make sure it's not done." http://www.insideba yarea.com/localnews/ci_3594985 Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 29 BBC: Alaska hit by 'massive' oil spill Last Updated: Saturday, 11 March 2006 [An oil spill next to a transit line in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska] The spill covers two acres of the snow-covered tundra An oil spill discovered at Prudhoe Bay field is the largest ever on Alaska's North Slope region, US officials say. They estimate that up to 267,000 gallons (one million litres) of crude leaked from a corroded transit pipeline at the state's northern tip. The spill was detected on 2 March and plugged. Local environmentalists have described it as "a catastrophe". In 1989, the Exxon Valdez shipping disaster spilled 11m gallons (42m litres) of oil onto the Alaskan coast. 'Painful reminder' "I can confirm it's the largest spill of crude oil on the North Slope that we have record of," Linda Giguere, from Alaska's state department of environmental conservation, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency. The estimate is based on a survey conducted several days ago at the site where the leak was discovered, officials say. The spill covers about two acres (one hectare) of the snow-covered tundra in the sparsely populated region on Alaska's north coast, some 1,040km (650 miles) north of the state's biggest city, Anchorage. The source of the spill was a hole caused by internal corrosion in the pipeline, officials say. It remains unclear when the leak started. Environmentalists from Alaska Wilderness League said the spill was "a catastrophe for the environment". They said it was "a painful reminder of the reality of unchecked oil and gas development across Alaska's North Slope". They also urged lawmakers to shelve a Republican-led project to allow drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Supporters of drilling in Alaska say it offers an alternative source of energy to the Middle East and so would improve national security. Opponents warn oil exploration would harm a pristine wilderness and endanger a key habitat for migratory birds, polar bears, caribou and other animals. 1989 disaster Alaska's worst-ever oil spill happened on 24 March 1989. [Exxon Valdez spill] The 1989 spill devastated miles of Alaskan coastline and wildlife The Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, near Anchorage, contaminating around 1,300 miles (2,080km) of coastline. Its captain, Joseph Hazelwood, admitted drinking vodka before boarding the vessel, but was subsequently acquitted of operating a ship while intoxicated. The spill killed an estimated 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 Orca or killer whales, and an unknown number of salmon and herring. In 2004, a federal judge in Alaska ordered Exxon to pay $6.75bn (£3.9bn) in damages and interest in relation to the spill. ***************************************************************** 30 Salt Lake Tribune: U.N. blasts U.S. treatment of Western Shoshone Article Last Updated: 03/11/2006 2:03 AM MST Indian rights: A panel accuses the United States of violating an international treaty against racism By Erica Bulman The Associated Press GENEVA - A United Nations' anti-racism panel Friday said it had evidence the U.S. government was working with industry to ride roughshod over the rights of an American Indian tribe by exploiting its ancestral land in the western United States. The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ruled that the United States was failing to respect an international anti-discrimination treaty, to which it became a party in 1994. Organizations defending the rights of the Western Shoshone called the decision a victory, but the U.S. mission to the U.N. and other international organizations in Geneva had no immediate response to the decision, an official said. ''Maybe this will make the United States start looking at itself and at the problem of discrimination, and make it start to look at us as people instead of subhumans,'' said Western Shoshone delegate Bernice Lalo. ''We feel the decision will be helpful by opening the door. We will continue this struggle to give our children a better chance.'' The panel of independent experts said it had received ''credible information alleging that the Western Shoshone indigenous people are being denied their traditional rights to land.'' The committee of 18 independent experts said it was concerned that the U.S. government's position is based on processes ''which did not comply with contemporary human rights norms, principles and standards that govern determination of indigenous property rights.'' The committee said it was particularly concerned about reported legislative efforts to privatize Western Shoshone ancestral lands for transfer to multinational mining industries and energy developers, federal efforts to open a nuclear waste dump and the reported resumption of underground nuclear testing on Western Shoshone ancestral lands. The panel said it also was worried about reported intimidation of the Western Shoshone people by U.S. authorities, through the imposition of grazing fees, trespassing and collection notices, the impounding horses and livestock, restrictions on fishing and hunting as well as arrests. The committee was also unhappy that the conduct or planning of all these activities was done without consulting and despite the protests of the Western Shoshone people. Western Shoshone rights to the land - some 60 million acres stretching across Nevada, Idaho, Utah and California - were recognized by the United States in 1863 by the Treaty of Ruby Valley. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that the treaty gave the U.S. government trusteeship over tribal lands and it now claims them as ''public'' or federal lands. But some Shoshone have kept up the fight, even after a majority of their fellow tribe members voted to accept a government settlement that has grown to $145 million. Jim Manley, a spokesman for bill proponent U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said last month that the tribe had twice had voted decisively in favor of the settlement. The U.N. committee said in August that the U.S. government should respond to the tribe's argument that the U.S. policy of ''gradual encroachment'' amounted to racism against an indigenous people. The committee says it ''regretted'' the United States had failed to meet the Dec. 31 deadline to answer a list of questions and had not considered it necessary to appear before the panel to discuss the matter. The committee oversees compliance with the 1969 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 31 IRNA: Decision to report nuclear case to UNSC based on US-Russia deal Moscow, March 10, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Washington Head of Moscow-based Center for Studies on Modern Iran Rajab Safarov on Sunday said that the decision to report Iran's nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was taken as a consequence of a US-Russia deal. Speaking to the Russian weekly Moskovskie Novosti, he added that given Russia was not in position to reject the US proposal, it ended up joining the international coalition against Iran's nuclear program. Safarov believes that by promising to expedite the trend of Russia's membership in the World Trade Organization, fully supporting its presidency over the G-8 Group and having a more favorable approach towards the current political situation and reform in the country's domestic scene, the US persuaded Moscow to cooperate on Iran's case. "By losing Iran as its ally in the world of Islam, Moscow will also lose dozens of billions of dollars worth of economic profit gained as consequence of its presence in Iran's energy market. "Besides, Russia will be viewed by Iran and other Islamic states as an unreliable partner," added Safarov. He noted that Russia takes pride in being the main negotiator with the Palestine Resistance Movement, Hamas, adding that after its deal with the US, Iran may stop such negotiation and even instigate Hamas against Russia. Safarov did not rule out the possibility that in this case Iran will revise its cooperation with Russia, which will affect Moscow's interests. "The Iranian officials will not yield to the former unilateral decisions on nuclear issues. "Nuclear Energy is not only an inexpensive source of energy for Iran, but is a matter of its national security and credit," he added. He said that Iran may reject Russia's proposal, refrain from approving the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and even leave the UN nuclear watchdog and launch full uranium enrichment process. In his belief, to impress the world community, as the first step, Iran can reduce its oil export quota by 40-50 percent, establish its oil stock market and change its hard currency deposit account gained from the oil and gas revenue from dollar into euro. ***************************************************************** 32 Aljazeera: Israel, U.S. deploy nuclear arms in submarines - Aljazeera.com 3/12/2006 8:50:00 AM GMT Israel is believed to have around 200 nuclear warheads Israeli and American officials admitted deploying U.S.-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, which provides the Jewish State with ultimate ability to strike any targets it wishes in any of its Arab neighbours, according to UK’s The Guardian. In an interview with The Los Angeles Times, both Israeli and administration officials revealed that the sea-launch capability allows Israel strike Iran more easily if the Islamic Republic refused to surrender to the Western pressure to halt all its . Despite repetitive assurances from Iran that its is solely aimed at peaceful purposes, mainly generating power to meet the country’s rising demand for energy, the U.S., backed by Israel and the European Union, claims that Iran is seeking to develop a program. The disclosure by U.S. and Israeli officials came as the Israeli government lately announced it considers states it views as 'harboring terrorists' as legitimate targets. The paper quoted Israel’s Foreign Ministry's senior spokesman, Gideon Meir, as saying that "Israel views every state that is harboring 'terrorist organisations' and the leaders of those terrorist organisations who are attacking innocent citizens of the state of Israel as legitimate targets out of self defence,” echoing the American President’s doctrine of pre-emption. But analysts had always questioned intentions of Israel, the , specially when news emerged that it had bought three German diesel-electric submarines apparently to arm them with nuclear cruise missiles. However the admission by Israeli and U.S. officials that the two countries had collaborated in arming the fleet with a system is expected to have its major impact on the current standoff over the of Iran, threatened by sanctions the could impose. But The Guardian says that recent revelations could be designed to intimidate Israel’s enemies against attacking it. In the late Nineties, Israel, believed to have around , bought three Dolphin class submarines capable of staying in the sea for a month and equipped with "six torpedo tubes suitable for the 21-inch torpedoes that are normally used on most submarines," The Guardian added. "We tolerate nuclear weapons in Israel for the same reason we tolerate them in Britain and France," one of the LA Times' sources told the paper. "We don't regard Israel as a threat." • UK sold plutonium to Israel [ hspace=10 src=] On the other hand, news has emerged that Britain provided Israel with heavy water and plutonium to help the Jewish State develop nuclear weapons. UK’s weekly New Statesman revealed that UK's Atomic Energy Authority provided Israel with plutonium to aid it put together a pair of crude nuclear bombs. Last August, the BBC television's Newsnight reported that declassified documents showed that Britain secretly shipped to Israel a surplus of 20 tonnes of heavy water in 1958 that was originally supplied by Norway. Under the country's Freedom of Information Act, the same programme obtained new documents in December confirming that the British government took part in a deal that was crucial to Israel's nuclear arms programme. According to the New Statesman’s report, Britain not only provided Israel with heavy water, but also a whole range of other exotic chemicals, including plutonium, uranium-235, beryllium and lithium-6, used in atom and even hydrogen bombs. According to the report entitled 'Britain's Dirty Secret,' Michael Israel Michaels, who was a senior official at the science ministry under Lord Hailsham during the Macmillan government, and served at the technology ministry under Benn, and also Britain's representative at the , was the driving force behind the sales. The recent revelations could put Britain in trouble at the for breaching the , according to The New Stateman. Copyright 1992-2006 Al Jazeera Publishing, Dubai, United Arab Emirates ***************************************************************** 33 Scoop: Nuclear Proliferation - Challenges and US Response Thursday, 9 March 2006, 11:53 am Speech: US State Department Andrew K. Semmel, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy and Negotiations Remarks at the Monterey Institute Washington, DC March 7, 2006 Introduction Since the beginning of the nuclear age, mankind has faced a stark dilemma: how to exploit nuclear energy's peaceful and productive potential, while preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Rather than fading with the Cold War, that dilemma has become even more acute and multifaceted, making the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, today's preeminent threat to international peace and security. The Nature of the Threat The first face of the proliferation threat is that posed by states attempting to develop nuclear weapons, despite solemn international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT, to refrain from proliferation. In recent years, the international community resolved such threats posed by both Iraq and Libya. In the recent past, we worked to ensure that only one state with nuclear weapons, Russia, emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union, rather than four. We brought South Africa, Argentina and Brazil into the nonproliferation regime as non-nuclear-weapon States, which meant South Africa relinquished its nuclear weapons and Argentina and Brazil gave up serious nuclear weapons ambitions. Through persuasion, a few other states backed away from embryonic nuclear weapons programs. Iran. Today, the international community faces serious challenges posed by Iran and North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons. For nearly two decades Iran has claimed that its nuclear program served purely peaceful purposes, while at the same time, it concealed sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities and failed to report these activities to the IAEA as required by its NPT commitments. The IAEA has been investigating evidence of these undeclared activities since late 2002, and over the past three years, has issued nine written reports (and several oral reports) on the results of its investigation. These reports document that since the mid-1980s, Iran has systematically carried out secret nuclear activities, including undeclared uranium enrichment and undeclared plutonium separation activity. They expressly accuse Iran of "Failure on many occasions to cooperate to facilitate implementation of safeguards, as evidenced by extensive concealment activities." When confronted with evidence of its activities, including evidence provided in nine IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, Iran continues its pattern of deception and denial, fails to cooperate fully with the IAEA, and continues to pursue nuclear fuel cycle capabilities in defiance of the international community. There is no realistic economic justification for Iran's nuclear activities. One can only conclude that Iran is making its huge investments in its nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapons capability -- especially given its large oil and gas reserves, its lack of any functioning nuclear reactors, and Russia's commitment to supply nuclear fuel for its one reactor currently under construction. One particularly damning piece of evidence recently revealed by the IAEA is a document uncovered by inspectors that indicates Iran received information from a clandestine source on casting and machining hemispheres of uranium metal. There are no known applications for such hemispheres other than for nuclear weapons. As with a number of other questions posed by the IAEA, Iran has yet to fully explain its dealings with this clandestine proliferation network. As a result of this and much more, the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran in formal noncompliance with its obligations last September. And on February 4th, the Board of Governors, meeting in extraordinary session, reported Iran to the United Nations Security Council. Deliberation are scheduled for today and tomorrow in Vienna, and last ditch efforts are underway to fashion a compromise to stave off UN Security Council action. We expect the Security Council to act on Iran's behavior after the IAEA's Board meeting this week. The international community has explored every diplomatic effort to persuade Iran to comply with its international treaty obligations. Iran's continued failure to comply will necessitate a long, hard look at the nonproliferation regime and what needs to be done to strengthen it. The stakes involved are extremely high. North Korea. The stakes are no less with regard to North Korea's nuclear ambitions. North Korea's nuclear programs threaten the stability of one of the world's most important regions. As you know, the United States is working with Japan and other regional states to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue through multilateral diplomacy dubbed The Six-Party Talks. There has been some progress but it is slow in coming. At the Fourth Round of Six-Party Talks on September 19, 2005, the Six Party unanimously adopted a Joint Statement of Principles in which North Korea committed to "abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards." The Joint Statement offered North Korea significant benefits from the other parties. Those benefits would accrue only in the context of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The statement also said the U.S. and North Korea would take steps to normalize relations, subject to North Korea implementing its denuclearization pledge and resolving other longstanding concerns. The Fifth Round of Talks began in November to open discussions on implementing the Joint Statement; the parties agreed to return to Beijing in early 2006 to resume the round. The U.S. and other parties remain willing to return to the table but North Korea has so far refused, accusing the U.S. of maintaining a "hostile policy," specifically alleging that the U.S. levied economic sanctions against it. We have made clear that our actions are regulatory in nature and that we will continue to protect against North Korean illicit financial activities so long as the activities themselves continue. We have also stressed that our regulatory actions are not related to the Six-Party Talks. They are standard procedures taken to protect our own financial system. In November, we offered to brief North Korean officials on our financial and law enforcement actions as they pertained to North Korea. Recently, North Korea accepted our offer. We look forward to returning to the Six-Party Talks and hope North Korea will agree to do so soon. We believe it is essential to move quickly to implement the goals outlined in the Joint Statement. We want North Korea to join us and the other parties in building a peaceful, stable future for Northeast Asia. Non-State Actors. A newer face of the proliferation threat is the rapid rise in non-state actors' involvement in the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. As the world learned with the discovery of the secret A.Q. Khan supply network, that involvement includes illicit trafficking in nuclear- and nuclear weapons-related technology, weapons design, and equipment. It also includes terrorists' efforts to acquire and use nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. It is made more dangerous by potential cooperation between these groups and states that have violated their NPT nonproliferation obligations. Technology Spread. Also greatly magnified in recent years, is the challenge stemming from the spread of nuclear technology, particularly from those technologies that have direct relevance to the development of nuclear weapons. We must balance the right to peaceful development of nuclear energy with the need to prevent nuclear proliferation. The U.S. Response: Effective Multilateralism The Bush Administration has constructed a comprehensive strategy against proliferation, which it outlined in the December 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. The three pillars of that strategy are: preventing proliferation; countering proliferation; and managing the consequences of proliferation. To prevent proliferation, the Administration has launched expanded efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring WMD, their related materials, and delivery systems. Counterproliferation recognizes that prevention does not always succeed and that we must have the capabilities to deter, detect, defend against, and defeat WMD and those who would use them for malevolent purposes. Consequence management aims to reduce the consequences or tragic effects of a WMD attack at home or abroad. A central element of all three pillars of the Administration's strategy against proliferation is a commitment to what we call "effective multilateralism," to confront the problems that we face with realism and determination in league with our international partners. Effective multilateralism is integral to our approach to proliferation prevention, counterproliferation and consequence management. In the prevention of nuclear proliferation, effective multilateralism has meant strengthening existing tools and developing new ones. Let me mention some of those tools. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime One essential tool, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, is the cornerstone of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, because it has created an international norm against nuclear proliferation and established the legal basis for actions against those that violate this norm. I would argue that the NPT and the system of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, involving international inspections and verification procedures, have had more success than setbacks in 35 years of attempting to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But setbacks over the years have brought innovations. Based on the lessons learned about gaps in the then existing safeguards system from the discovery of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program in the 1990s, committed members of the nonproliferation regime negotiated the Additional Protocol. The A.P. aims to strengthen international safeguards by expanding access to more facilities and information and allowing international inspectors to inspect and verify so-called "undeclared activities" not just those activities a state has declared open for inspections. Another international tool includes multilateral export control regimes: principally the forty-five member Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Zangger Committee. These export control regimes seek to establish guidelines to prevent a country from acquiring the technology needed to develop a nuclear weapons capability. They promote awareness among suppliers of nuclear technologies and materials that could promote proliferation and establish a set of common export standards to which all nuclear supplier countries agree to abide. We require multilateral action to enforce those standards. The disruption of the A.Q.Khan supply network and the subsequent decision by Libya to abandon its WMD and longer-range missile programs would not have been possible without effective multilateral action, based on strong intelligence, close cooperation, and active interdiction. Central to those successes was the Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI. Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). PSI has transformed how nations act together against proliferation, harnessing their diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence assets in a multinational, yet flexible, fashion. Over 70 states now support PSI and its Statement of Interdiction Principles, and the number is steadily increasing. Participants are applying laws already on the books in innovative ways and cooperating as never before to interdict shipments, to disrupt proliferation networks, and to hold accountable the front companies that support them. The PSI-type approach involving like-minded countries is now expanding to cut off financial funding that fuels proliferation. Last July, the G-8 Leaders called for enhanced efforts to combat proliferation through cooperation to identify, track and freeze relevant financial transactions and assets. For our part, President Bush issued in June a new Executive Order that authorizes the U.S. Government to freeze assets and block transactions of entities (e.g. NGOs and businesses) and persons engaged in proliferation activities and support. Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR). Another tool in the nonproliferation arsenal includes programs to secure and eliminate nuclear weapon-related facilities and materials and to redirect scientists and scientific communities involved in these projects into civilian sectors. The United States has been engaged in such programs since the launch of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program by Senators Lugar (my former boss in the U.S. Senate) and Nunn in December 1991, just after the collapse of the Soviet Union. International engagement on cooperative threat reduction activities has greatly increased since the inauguration of the Global Partnership Against the Threat of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction by the G8 in 2002. The United States provides about $1 billion annually for these programs for Russia and the FSU alone, and we look to our G-8 partners to fulfill their commitment to match that level. Strengthening the Regime President Bush has articulated an ambitious agenda to prevent nuclear proliferation. He has put a strong emphasis on compliance with NPT nonproliferation obligations. He has called for strengthening the IAEA safeguards system by universalizing the more demanding Additional Protocol, making implementation of the Protocol one of the conditions countries must meet to be eligible for nuclear supply, and by creating a Committee on Safeguards and Verification at the IAEA, which met for the first time last November. The President proposed a United Nations Security Council Resolution to criminalize WMD proliferation, and in April 2004, the Council adopted Resolution 1540, which established for the first time binding, i.e., mandatory, obligations on all UN member states to criminalize WMD proliferation, enforce effective export controls, and secure nuclear materials. Enrichment and Reprocessing (ENR). President Bush also proposed that there be a complete ban on the export of sensitive uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology to all countries not now having full-scale plants and that those countries that forego these fuel cycle programs have access to reliable nuclear fuel at prevailing market prices. He has proposed and we have seen increased international engagement on Cooperative Threat Reduction activities beyond Russia and the FSU. There has been progress on many of these fronts but much more needs to be done. We are working with the G-8 and the Nuclear Suppliers Group to establish effective controls on enrichment and reprocessing to prevent states from pursuing nuclear weapons in the guise of supposedly peaceful nuclear energy as Iran has done. At Gleneagles last year, G-8 leaders agreed to continue in the coming year to refrain from new initiatives involving transfer of enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technology to additional states. As we continue to press for support of the President's proposal some, including IAEA Director General ElBaradei, are speaking of a long-term moratorium. As a complement to his February 2004 proposal to ban transfers of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to States not already possessing such facilities, the President called on the world's leading nuclear suppliers to ensure reliable access to fuel for civil reactors at reasonable cost for States that renounce interest in ENR. G-8 leaders at Gleneagles last year called for "new measures to ensure that those states which forgo the nuclear fuel cycle and meet all nuclear nonproliferation obligations enjoy assured access to the market for nuclear fuel." The U.S. proposes a backup safety net mechanism involving the IAEA and the principal suppliers to provide reliable access to nuclear fuel. The IAEA statute authorizes the Agency to act as an intermediary for the purpose of securing supply of services, material, equipment and/or facilities by one member for another. U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman announced a major step in support of this proposal at the 2005 IAEA General Conference regarding U.S. plans to blend down up to 17.4 tonnes of high enriched uranium excess to U.S. defense needs and hold it as a low enriched uranium reserve to support fuel supply assurances. We are working with other suppliers and IAEA Director General ElBaradei and IAEA staff to develop an international mechanism based on cooperation with the IAEA. The results of this action will mean more assured fuel supply, which will make it unnecessary for states to develop their own fuel making capacity. It will also mean a significant reduction in the amount of weapons-related material enough for almost 700 nuclear warheads. We encourage other nuclear supplier states to create such reserves as well. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Complementing these efforts is last month's announcement by Secretary Bodman of a proposal to launch the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or GNEP. GNEP is a comprehensive strategy, designed to promote the expansion of emissions-free nuclear energy worldwide by developing and deploying new technologies to recycle nuclear fuel, minimize waste, and prevent the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies and materials. We will work with our international partners, including Japan, to develop advanced commercial recycling technologies. At the same time we will honor U.S. commitments with respect to use of existing technologies in our agreements for peaceful nuclear cooperation with Japan and Euratom. GNEP recognizes that the growing demand for energy will require a dramatic global expansion of nuclear power to increase energy security, promote clean development, abate pollution and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While encouraging the expanded global use of nuclear power, GNEP seeks to address the two unresolved challenges to nuclear expansion: waste reduction and proliferation prevention. To serve these multiple goals, the GNEP seeks to implement new nuclear fuel cycle technologies that support an approach resulting in safe, clean reliable and economic nuclear energy expansion. U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation. Before closing, I'll make some brief remarks on the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation deal reached last week in New Delhi. The Civil Nuclear Cooperation initiative represents an historic step for both countries and a deepening of U.S.-India partnership. It involves reciprocal commitments. India has committed to a series of actions that include strong and effective export controls, adhering to MTCR guidelines and the NSG guidelines on nuclear exports, separating its civilian and military facilities and activities in a phased manner, and agreeing to place all its civilian facilities under IAEA safeguards. Once implemented, this arrangement will effectively remove the majority (2/3) of India's power reactors that would otherwise be used for its nuclear weapons industry and bring them under international safeguards. India has further agreed to sign and adhere to an Additional Protocol, maintain its nuclear testing moratorium, refrain from transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states not now possessing such technologies, and promises to work with us to conclude an FMCT. In the aggregate this constitutes a significant redirection in moving India into the mainstream on international nonproliferation standards and practices. We have no intention to seek any change in the NPT, will seek no alteration of NSG guidelines, will not recognize India as a nuclear weapon state, and will, in no way, assist India's nuclear weapons program. We continue to support NPT universality. At the same time, we recognize that India's critical energy needs cannot be met solely through reliance on fossil fuels. For our part, we will ask the U.S. Congress to amend relevant U.S. laws to permit the sale of nuclear equipment, fuel and support servicesto India and will work with others to seek an exception to NSG guidelines to permit full civil nuclear cooperation with India. We are prepared to give India assurances of reliable supply of nuclear fuel through various means, as necessary. We will also work to complete a bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation. India's solid nuclear nonproliferation record, its democratic tradition and its commitment to freedom and tolerance give us confidence that this arrangement makes good sense. Conclusion In conclusion, I commend this group for addressing the issue of nuclear proliferation. It is the one of the preeminent challenges that the international community faces today. Our success in constructively dealing with this threat will unquestionably help shape the quality of our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren. Thank you very much. Released on March 8, 2006 ENDS ***************************************************************** 34 [NYTr] Brits Helped Israel Get the Bomb in 1960s Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:03:06 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by MichaelP (activ-l) - Mar 11, 2006 [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 ? ) -Michael] New Statesman - Mar 13, 2006 issue http://www.newstatesman.com/200603130011 BRITAIN'S DIRTY SECRET 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. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 35 MARSHALL ISLANDS NUKING: Calls For Full U.S. Settlement Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:19:16 -0600 (CST) http://oreaddaily.blogspot.com/ PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, MR. BUSH The Bush Administration likes to lecture the world about the responsibility inherent in being a nuclear power. It would be nice if Bush would live up to our own responsibilities while he is at. How about paying our debt to the people of the Marshall Islands for starts. The accompanying image is of Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands, Nov. 1, 1952. The following article is from Pacific Magazine and was contributed by an Oread Daily reader. MARSHALL ISLANDS: President Note Calls For Full U.S. Settlement Wednesday: March 8, 2006 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," declared 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. "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, Mr Note continued. 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," Mr Note said. "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 U.S. 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 RMIs 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 three-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 Murkowskis sponsorship of a bill that will include Marshallese in a U.S. workers compensation program. We look to the U.S. Congress and the Administration to follow Senator Murkowskis lead in finding creative solutions to the real human needs that we face at homein 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 RMIs 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. Posted by: Oread Daily / 10:21 AM 0 comments ***************************************************************** 36 [southnews] UK lies to IAEA about supplying Israel with nuclear Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:17:25 -0600 (CST) British MPs now allege that minister Kim Howells tried to mislead the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over Britain's role. After Newsnight's original broadcast, the Arab League wrote to the IAEA seeking a full investigation. But Foreign Office minister Kim Howells told Mohamed ElBaradei that Britain did not sell the material to Israel. Britain gave Israel plutonium, files show Richard Norton-Taylor Guardian Friday March 10, 2006 Britain secretly supplied Israel with plutonium during the 1960s despite a warning from military intelligence that it could help the Israelis to develop a nuclear bomb, it was disclosed last night. The deal, made during Harold Wilson's Labour government, is revealed in classified documents released under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by BBC2's Newsnight programme. The documents also show how Britain made hundreds of shipments to Israel of material which could have helped in its nuclear weapons programme, including compounds of uranium, lithium, beryllium and tritium, as well as heavy water. Israel asked Britain in 1966 to supply 10mg of plutonium. Israel would have required almost 5kg of plutonium to build an atomic bomb, but British defence intelligence officials warned that 10mg had "significant military value" and could enable the Jewish state to carry out important experimental work to speed up its nuclear weapons programme. Documents show that the decision to sell plutonium to Israel in 1966 was blocked by officials in both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, who said: "It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons." But the deal was forced through by a Jewish civil servant, Michael Michaels, in Tony Benn's Ministry of Technology, which was responsible for trade in nuclear material, according to Newsnight. Peter Kelly, who was British defence intelligence's expert on the Israeli nuclear weapons programme, knew Mr Michaels. He told Newsnight he believed Mr Michaels knew that Israel was trying to build an atomic bomb, but that he had dual loyalties to Britain and Israel. Mr Benn told the programme that civil servants in his department kept the deals secret from him and his predecessor, Frank Cousins. He had always suspected that civil servants were doing deals behind his back, but he never thought they would sell plutonium to Israel. He told Newsnight: "I'm not only surprised, I'm shocked. It never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government. "Michaels lied to me, I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again." He thought Wilson may not have known that Britain was helping Israel to get the bomb. Last year Newsnight showed that in the late 1950s Harold Macmillan's Conservative government provided Israel with 20 tonnes of heavy water to start up its Dimona reactor. Newsnight said it learned that Jack Straw had admitted to the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, that Britain knew the heavy water was destined for Israel, and that in 1961, Macmillan even made a failed attempt to get it back. Guardian Unlimited ) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,,1727978,00.html ____________________________________- UK 'cover-up' on Israel's nukes BBC NEWS: 2005/12/09 22:53:20 GMT In August, Newsnight revealed that more than 40 years ago, Britain sold heavy water, a key substance, to Israel. MPs now allege that minister Kim Howells tried to mislead the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over Britain's role. The charges come as the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, is about to the receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr ElBaradei will receive the Prize this weekend for his and the IAEA's work in curbing the spread of nuclear weapons. The shipments involved heavy water - a key element in producing plutonium - which the UK had originally bought from Norway. Officially it was sold back to a Norwegian state firm called Noratom. But Britain knew Noratom would immediately sell 20 tons of the heavy water to Israel, and it was even collected directly from a British port by Israeli ships. It's thought that today Israel possesses more than hundred nuclear weapons. No cover-up After Newsnight's original broadcast, the Arab League wrote to the IAEA seeking a full investigation. But Foreign Office minister Kim Howells told Mohamed ElBaradei that Britain did not sell the material to Israel. "The UK was not in fact a party to the sale of heavy water to Israel," he wrote, "but did negotiate the sale back to Norway of surplus heavy water." Britain then circulated that response to every IAEA member government; but opposition MPs are accusing the Foreign Office of using Norway's involvement as a smokescreen. Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell told Newsnight: "There's an old political dictum that it's not the event that is often the most embarrassing, it's the cover-up. "The trouble with this cover-up is that this is not a cover-up. It simply flies in the face of the known facts, now that we have access to previously classified documents. Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn is asking the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to investigate Kim Howells' response to the IAEA. "It's simply untrue - right back to the late 1950s we were a party to the transfer of nuclear technology to Israel," he said. "We were party to the development of a nuclear facility in Israel that could, and has, been used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons; Norway was always a smokescreen." Surprise in Washington Newsnight's initial report last August was based on documents unearthed in the British National Archive, and shocked people around the world. In Washington President Kennedy's former Defence Secretary Robert MacNamara, who tried to stop Israel going nuclear, told Newsnight: "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." Newsnight has tracked down Donald Cape, one of the Foreign Office officials involved in deciding that British heavy water should be shipped to Israel. In September 1958 Cape received a letter in which the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) admitted: "It could be argued that the Israelis will receive the heavy water by reason of our reselling it to Noratom; that therefore we are parties to the supply to Israel." Mr Cape agrees with Kim Howells' interpretation, however, and insists the heavy water was sold to Norway. It is "absolute nonsense", he says, to suggest Norway's involvement was a "sham" and that the real sale was from Britain to Israel. But Newsnight has also obtained Israel's contract with the Norwegian firm Noratom. It says Noratom would provide heavy water from the UKAEA for Israel - delivered in Britain to Israel. Noratom would take a commission of two per cent on the four million dollar deal; its responsibility would be "limited" to that of "consultant". Donald Cape says he and his colleagues did not tell ministers about the transaction because there was no reason for either Britain or America to suspect what Israel was up to. But confidential letters obtained by Newsnight through a Freedom of Information request, written two months before the first delivery was collected by Israel, suggest there were already suspicions about Israel's intentions. The documents show the Foreign Office knew Israel had secretly tried to buy uranium from South Africa - without safeguards. One letter quotes secret CIA reports from 1957 and 1958, which took the view: "The Israelis must be expected to try and establish a nuclear weapons programme as soon as the means were available to them." The man who wrote these Foreign Office letters was Donald Cape himself. No safeguards When the existence of the Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona was revealed to the world in December 1960, Britain's spymasters made an assessment of Israeli capabilities. In the last few days, Newsnight has obtained the top secret 'UK eyes only' report - previously only seen by the bosses of intelligence bodies such as MI6, MI5 and GCHQ. These minutes are really the only occasion on which the British Government has ever released a detailed assessment of Israel's nuclear weapons programme, and they show just how important Britain's 20 tons of heavy water were to that programme. According to the Joint Intelligence Assessment, it meant that the Dimona reactor would be able to make enough plutonium to build up to six atom bombs a year. The document concludes: "It has been, and remains our opinion, that Israel wanted an independent supply of plutonium so as to be in a position to make nuclear weapons if she wished." Yet we also know that the Foreign Office imposed no restrictions on what the heavy water would be used for. Donald Cape wrote that it would be "over zealous" to impose safeguards on Norway or Israel. And he agreed to keep the deal secret even from the US, writing that: "I would prefer not to tell the Americans." Says Menzies Campbell: "There's no doubt we deceived our close allies, the United States; we knew that there was likely to be a military use to which this heavy water was put. "The material went from [the UKAEA at] Harwell direct to a British port, to Israeli ships, and was then taken to Israel. "This assertion that somehow we weren't party to the action simply does not stand up when you analyse the facts." BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4515586.stm Published: 2005/12/09 22:53:20 GMT The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 37 IPCRI EMERGENCY APPEAL Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:24:30 -0600 (CST) IPCRI EMERGENCY APPEAL Dear Friends, These are very difficult days for peace makers. This is by no doubts one of the most difficult periods that we have faced. With the election of the Hamas Parliament dialogue and negotiations at the formal government-to-government level have ceased. Formal peace processes are not on the horizon and the challenge facing civil society institutions like IPCRI is to keep the belief in peace alive and to continue to offer real opportunities for dialogue, coordination and cooperation. Creating hope for a better tomorrow is what our work is about today. Most foreign governments that have supported the peace process do not yet have a strategy for supporting peace making efforts. Most of IPCRIs support over the past years has come from foreign governments. We have spent great efforts over the past month to meet with most of the representatives of the international donor community in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to impress upon them the importance of their contributions to efforts made by institutions like IPCRI. We have submitted applications to all of the major donors which have supported IPCRI in the past and now we are waiting for their responses. In the meantime, we find ourselves in a crisis. At a time when IPCRIs strategic position to bring Israelis and Palestinians is needed more than ever, our financial our abilities to utilize our unique position is currently quite limited. That is why we are writing you. More than 8,000 people will receive this letter. We are writing to every single person on this list. Everyone can afford to make a contribution of at least $25 and some of you can afford more. If each person who receives this letter contributes at least $25, IPCRI would have more than $200,000 to work with over the coming months. That is a significant amount of money that will enable us to continue our work until the international situation becomes clearer. This is an emergency appeal and we ask you to respond immediately. Every contribution is crucial to our work. Sincerely yours Gershon Baskin and Hanna Siniora Co-CEOs Send your tax deductible contributions to: IPCRI PO Box 9321 Jerusalem 91092 (Contributions in the US are tax deductible and we can arrange for tax exemption in Canada and the UK): Contributions can also be made online: http://www.ipcri.org/donate.html Thank you for your continued trust and support My Contribution to the IPCRI EMERGENCY APPEAL is: ___$25 ___$50 ___$100 ___$250 ___$500 ___$1,000 ___Other Name: ________________________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Tel: ________________________ Fax: __________________________ Skype user name: ___________________________________________ Email: ____________________________________________________ Gershon Baskin, Ph.D. and Hanna Siniora Co-CEOs, IPCRI ISRAEL/PALESTINE CENTER FOR RESEARCH & INFORMATION P.O. Box 9321, Jerusalem 91092 Tel: 972-2-676-9460 Fax: 972-2-676-8011 Mobile: 052-381-715 gershon@ipcri.org http://www.ipcri.org http://www.place4peace.com NOW IS THE TIME TO SUPPORT IPCRIS EMERGENCY APPEAL Subscribe to IPCRI's Free News Service Daily News Clippings from all over the World - email to: IPCRI-News-Service-subscribe@yahoogroups.com _____ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 8500 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IPCRI News & Views" group. To post to this group, send email to IPCRI-News--Views@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to IPCRI-News--Views-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/IPCRI-News--Views -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- ***************************************************************** 38 IPS-English VIETNAM: Nuclear Power Among Non-fossil Options Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:41:54 -0800 ROMAIPS AP DV EN IP KP PS VIETNAM: Nuclear Power Among Non-fossil Options Tran Dinh Thanh Lam Ho Chi Minh City , Mar 11 (IPS) - With oil prices rising, Vietnam has begun searching for alternate energy sources to feed its growing economy, and hydroelectric and atomic power are emerging as favourites. Vietnam plans to bring power to all rural households by 2020. But according to Tran Thanh Lien, who heads international relations at the Energy Institute of Vietnam (EIV), by 2020, Vietnam would need 200 to 230 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity but may only have 165 billion kwh from conventional sources. The shortage and difficulties in extending the national power grid to remote areas has made experts consider various renewable energy options and also seek outside help. During his visit to Hanoi, last month, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov said his country planned to take part in the development of the Vietnamese energy sector. ''Russia plans to participate in a tender for the construction of the Son La hydroelectric station, and in future it could also take part in the construction of nuclear power plants in Vietnam,'' Fradkov said. Apart from hydroelectricity, Vietnam is also keen to develop nuclear power as a non-fossil energy source. The country plans to build its first nuclear plant by 2015, and operate it by 2020 and it envisages that by 2015 nuclear energy will make up 11 percent of the total energy output and 25-30 percent by 2040-2050. With oil prices hovering around 60 US dollar a barrel, several ASEAN countries, including Vietnam, are looking at everything from nuclear energy and hydroelectricity to solar energy and wind power to meet energy needs. ASEAN leaders recently agreed to have greater cooperation to slash dependence on imported oil. ''Vietnam is keen on finding out ways to develop non-fossil energy, so as to cut power wastage and improve network efficiency,'' said Pham Quyet Chi, of the EVI. Energy security, he noted, is a major challenge for Vietnam, whose economy has been growing at about seven percent annually over the last decade. Demand for energy is growing at 15-16 percent a year. EVN forecasts that the country will be short of 1.1 billion kwh in 2006, 6.6 billion kwh in 2007, 8.6 billion kwh in 2008 and 10.3 billion kwh in 2009. Currently, the country produces around 6,000 Mw a year, 40 percent of which is produced by burning fossil fuels, coal in particular. This is both inefficient and produces greenhouse gases. Vietnam is blessed with a number of rivers that could be harnessed for hydroelectricity. Nearly 55 percent of Vietnam's electricity is currently generated by five hydropower plants. Last year, the country started the construction of Son La project, the largest so far. When completed, in 2012, the plant will have a generating capacity of 2,400 Mw. Some strategists are uncomfortable with heavy reliance on hydropower in northern Vietnam since it makes the capital of Hanoi vulnerable to accidents, earthquakes or terrorist attacks. Besides, prolonged droughts lower water levels in reservoirs supplying hydroelectric plants, causing shortages of electricity. Water levels have fallen 20-40 percent since 2004, and, this year, they are predicted to be an average of 30 percent lower than normal. ''Each year, electricity demands increase by 1,500-2,000 Mw, equal to the capacity of Hoa Binh Hydropower plant, the biggest in Vietnam,'' EVN officials said. The country tries to meet shortages through natural gas-fired plants. The Phu My complex in Ba Ria-Vung Tau province, when completed, will provide an estimated 47 percent of the country's power. Another project, the 715 mw 'Phu My 2-2 plant', on the Mekong Delta, is being developed by a consortium including Japan's Tokyo Electric Power and Sumitomo and France's Electricite de France. To ease power shortages in the north, Vietnam buys power from China as part of a long-term programme with several members of the Greater Mekong sub-region. Last year, Vietnam purchased 100 million kwh of electricity from China, and is expected to be buy about 1.3 billion kwh by 2007. It also plans to start buying power from Laos in 2008. Chi said that the major advantage of renewable energy projects was in environmental terms. Phu Quoc island's biogas combustion plant, built with German technology, will not only generate additional energy but also produce organic fertilizer for 500 ha of black pepper plantations. (END/IPS/AP/IP/EN/DV/KP/PS/TDTL/RDR/06) = 03110859 ORP004 NNNN ***************************************************************** 39 Guardian Unlimited: Ambassadors at large Saturday March 11, 2006 The political agonising over what to do about Iraq and Iran was ratcheted up by two American ambassadors with outspoken remarks on the potential for further disaster in both countries. John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told a congressional committee that a military strike could halt Iran's nuclear programme if diplomatic efforts failed, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Baghdad, admitted a Pandora's box had been opened in Iraq that could lead to regional war and religious extremism. The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, chipped in with the thought that Iran could face "meaningful consequences" over the nuclear stand-off, and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, claimed Iran was sending Revolutionary Guards into Iraq to stir up trouble. The Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, another politician not noted for a low profile, managed to keep in the headlines ahead of the Italian elections by becoming involved in a controversy over a protocol-breaking meeting with the Pope and then telling poor Italians that if they wanted to improve their lot they should simply work harder. The architect Lord Rogers became embroiled in a row over the £1bn project to extend the Jacob Javits convention centre in New York when Jewish leaders in the city objected to his association with a pro-Palestinian group, and there was controversy around the appointment of Daniel Bethlehem, previously an adviser to Ariel Sharon during the battle of Jenin, to head the foreign office legal team. French students occupied campuses to protest against a new law that was intended to relieve crippling youth unemployment but which, they said, took away their job protection. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 40 London Times: Focus: Britain's secret nuclear blueprint - March 12, 2006 For nearly a year British scientists at Aldermaston have been secretly working with the Americans on a replacement for Trident. Do we need it? Is it legal? Michael Smith reports Two weeks ago a group of Britain's brightest young physicists gathered at the US nuclear test site in the Nevada desert and headed for Control Point 1. There they waited for a test codenamed Operation Krakatoa to erupt. A thousand feet beneath the desert scrub, components for a new British nuclear warhead were ready for detonation. Though it was not to be an earthquaking full nuclear blast - since Britain is a signatory to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - the physicists were about to witness only the second "sub-critical" test Britain has conducted in nearly a decade. The controlled detonation, measuring the effect of conventional explosives on a small piece of plutonium, was ostensibly to help ensure that the UK's nuclear warheads, deployed on Trident submarines, remain effective. But that was only half the story. As The Sunday Times reveals today, the data produced by the test were part of a much wider, secret research programme to build a new nuclear weapon that some experts say will breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT). Over the past few years the government has quietly been pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of extra funding into the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), based near the Berkshire village of Aldermaston, in pursuit of a replacement warhead for the Trident ballistic missile system. Among the purchases have been powerful new supercomputer and laser systems and the recruitment of a new generation of boffins. "We have been investing in the best young scientists coming out of the nuclear physics departments at British universities," said one British official. "Watching the AWE scientists standing next to their US counterparts it was noticeable how young they were." Perhaps it was no surprise that a week later the head of the American nuclear programme was talking about "revitalising" his own team. While the British remain highly secretive about their plans, sources interviewed in America were more forthcoming and say the architecture or concept for the new weapon has been settled and that the race is now on to produce a working design. The prize both teams are chasing, they say, is a new weapon known as the "Reliable Replacement Warhead" (RRW), a system that can meet the demands of modern warfare but also the rigours of international law against full-scale nuclear testing. Britain's nuclear warheads, they point out, ought to undergo occasional tests, which are now banned. The RRW, in contrast, will be a powerful and flexible "production line" nuke that can be designed, constructed and maintained without full-scale testing. It must also be capable of dispatch on an upgrade of the Trident delivery system. "The argument made for Reliable Replacement Warhead is that you can have your cake and eat it," said one US official. "We have our new warheads and we don't have to test them." A senior British defence source admitted: "We've got to build something that we can never test and be absolutely confident that when we use it, it will work. We are ahead of the Americans." The Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore laboratories have been working on an RRW since May 2005, but the officials in Washington are impressed the way "the Brits have done so much with so little". The initiative threatens to be hugely controversial, however. While Tony Blair and his government are committed to retaining Britain's existing nuclear deterrent, the question of replacing or renewing the system is far more contentious. The need, cost and legality of any new system are all challenged by politicians, lawyers and even some former military commanders. Under the NPT, which came into force in 1970, Britain is committed to prevent proliferation and to "pursue" disarmament. The issue is heading inexorably towards a clash. Britain's Trident missiles have highly sophisticated warheads with a number of components that deteriorate with age; they include the plutonium trigger, the beryllium that surrounds it and plastic seals. Guaranteeing their effectiveness without full-scale tests is almost impossible. Last year a former warhead designer from the Los Alamos laboratory revealed there was a serious flaw in the US W76 warhead, on which British warheads are based, that could prevent it exploding. It is this worry that first sparked Britain's secret co-operation with the Americans on the new warhead nearly a year ago - a move that critics characterised yesterday as "underhand" and designed to undermine the "open public debate" on the issue that Blair has long promised. This week that debate will start in earnest. Tomorrow the Foreign Policy Centre, a Blairite think tank, will publish a report questioning whether Britain needs a nuclear deterrent at all. "The unfortunate reality for the British people is that, unknown to them, they have a nuclear weapon that is not independent and is committed to support unrealistic US-led policy for the military use of nuclear weapons," the report will state. "The UK should cease to try to keep up appearances and adopt a policy based on the reality that it is not an independent nuclear power." The temperature will be raised further on Tuesday when the House of Commons defence select committee will begin an inquiry into the future of Britain's nuclear bomb. Far from rubber- stamping a Trident replacement for which work is already under way, many backbench MPs are calling for the government to publish a full assessment of national threats, nuclear costs and alternative options. "The government denies it, but it's possible (a decision has already been taken)," said Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North and chairman of the parliamentary CND group. "The evidence for it is the huge amount of money being spent on Aldermaston. One can only infer that it is possibly for a new generation of warheads." So what exactly is the "reliable" new system that scientists in Britain and America have been working on? Is it really just a Trident upgrade, or an entirely new system? Is it legal? And how does it fit with Britain's commitment to fighting nuclear proliferation? THE journey towards Britain's Trident submarines - the most sophisticated nuclear weaponry in the world - began with a humble frigate, the HMS Plym. Sailing from Britain, the Plym ferried a nuclear device to the Monte Bello islands, off Australia, where Britain exploded is first atomic weapon in October 1952. That was a fission bomb, generating a runaway chain reaction of splitting atoms. Five years later Britain developed "hydrogen" or "thermonuclear" bombs in which a fission reaction is used to create fusion, generating an even more awesome explosion. By the late 1950s Britain had its own nuclear deterrent in the form of RAF Vulcan jets armed with Blue Danube bombs, ready to strike against the Soviet empire. Soon the navy had nuclear bombs for delivery from aircraft carriers. But the deployment of such weapons was beset with problems: many airstrips in overseas locations were too small to take Vulcans, and naval vessels suspected of carrying nuclear weapons were unwelcome in foreign ports. The development of ballistic missiles, and a 1958 agreement between the USA and Britain to co-operate over nuclear defence, changed everything: in 1962 Britain bought into the US Polaris system, which could be fired from a submarine hidden anywhere in the world. The secrecy in which Polaris, and its successor, Trident, were developed and acquired is instructive. Harold Wilson, then Labour prime minister, ordered an upgrade of Polaris without telling his cabinet. His successor, Jim Callaghan, confined discussion of an entirely new system to a committee of just four trusted ministers known as Misc 7: "miscellaneous cabinet committee seven". Callaghan personally gave the Ministry of Defence (MoD) clearance to work on a new nuclear deterrent so that his defence minister could in public truthfully, but misleadingly, say that he had not authorised any such work. Under Margaret Thatcher, discussions about Trident were so shielded from public scrutiny that one deal was struck at a restaurant on the Champs Elys‚es in Paris and another was signed on the boot of a diplomat's car in Washington. That Trident system, conceived long before the cold war thawed, is immensely powerful. Each missile is ejected from a vertical launcher on submarines on a wave of super-heated steam that takes it out of the water in a second. The first stage rocket then ignites, thrusting it to speeds of 2,750mph and 18 miles above the earth's surface within 30 seconds. A second stage rocket takes it up to 55 miles where a third stage kicks in, propelling it out of the atmosphere to 600 miles above the earth. Onboard computers then adjust the missile's flight in virtual weightlessness until, two minutes after launch, the warheads, each with a yield of 100 kilotons, are fired at their individual targets. As they fall back through the atmosphere, internal guidance systems fly the warheads onto those targets. The radiation and shockwave would kill about 98% of people within a mile of the blast. Most buildings within a mile and a half would be destroyed and 50% of people between a mile and a mile and a half away would die. All those exposed to the direct heat of the blast would be killed and many more would die later from the fallout. The total number of dead from a bomb dropped on the centre of Moscow would exceed 150,000. But by the time the first Trident submarine was commissioned in 1994, and the fourth in 1999, the Soviet empire and cold war were gone. DESIGNED to last 30 years, Britain's Trident fleet will start to come out of service from about 2024. Given that it took 14 years from the decision to buy Trident to getting a submarine in the water, the government has publicly been hinting that decisions about a potential replacement must be made soon. It has been preparing the ground for some time. In the 2003 defence white paper it said that "decisions on whether to replace Trident are not needed in this parliament but are likely to be required in the next one". Shortly before the 2005 election, Blair said: "Well, we've got to retain our nuclear deterrent, and we've had an independent nuclear deterrent for a long time . . . in principle I believe it's important to retain our own independent deterrent." In its election manifesto, Labour stated: "We are committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent." It makes financial sense, says Lord Garden, former nuclear bomber pilot and now Liberal Democrat spokesman on defence in the House of Lords. Decommissioning nuclear subs and missiles is extremely expensive, while "motoring them round the ocean" is relatively cheap once the capital costs have been paid. Then two months after the election John Reid, the defence secretary, said in the Commons: "Decisions on any replacement of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent are likely to be necessary in the lifetime of the current parliament." Not everyone agrees. Garden believes no decision is needed until at least 2011, in the next parliament. The Americans are planning to keep producing the missiles, he argues, and in an uncertain world it is best to wait and see what threats develop before deciding on a new system. "Things might get better in terms of proliferation, though there's not much sign of that at the moment," he said. "Or they might get hairier and more risky, though that tends to get overstated. Either way, the longer you wait to find out (what future threats are), the better." The new Astute submarine planned by the Royal Navy is big enough to house the Trident launch tubes, and the US Navy is extending the life of its own Trident missiles to 2042. Whatever the precise timings, this approach would have political advantages. "You wouldn't actually replace Trident, perhaps not even upgrade," said Garden. "You would just repair it. That would cause much less hassle in the political debate." That is the thinking behind the research into the Reliable Replacement Warhead. In comparison with the existing warhead, RRW will do the same job but require much less maintenance, dramatically extending its shelf life. The inability to test weapons means the scientists must rely entirely on simple components, using the extensive data built up in the 50 years when testing was conducted to construct a failsafe weapon. "Robustness is the goal," says Robert Norris, of the US National Resources Defense Council, the most authoritative independent watchdog. "That could mean working through the same stages with more of everything. More plutonium, more tritium gas, not designing it on the margins. "During the cold war each warhead was tailor-made for a specific mission and highly specialised in its specifications and use of materials. They were like high-performance sports cars. They were Ferraris. Now they say they want good, sturdy, dependable Fords that will not need testing and be sure to work." The RRW, as one official explained, is intended to be a warhead that can almost be produced on a production line, built to deliver as small or large a blast as required. That may breed new risks. "The danger is you lower the threshold at which you will use them to the point that someone does," said one official. "It's just too tempting and highly dangerous. We were better off in the cold war with mutually assured destruction." For politicians, however, it has a clear attraction. Easier and quicker to produce, the RRW could be presented as an update, even a simplification, of Trident rather than a new system. That, proponents could argue, would not breach the non-proliferation treaty. TO campaigners for nuclear disarmament, the Trident system already contravenes international treaties. CND believes that "Trident is illegal, immoral and a waste of resources." Kate Hudson, chairwoman of CND, will be one of those giving evidence this week to the defence committee. Matrix Chambers, the law firm for whom Cherie Blair works, has drawn up a legal opinion advising the Peacerights organisation that any replacement of Trident would constitute "a material breach" of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The opinion has been prepared by Christine Chinkin, a professor of international law at the London School of Economics, and Rabinder Singh QC, a barrister who challenged the legality of the Iraq war. (Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, has yet to pronounce on the legality of replacing Trident; but his judgment on the Iraq war was infamously last-minute, so there is time yet.) Others object that persisting with a nuclear deterrent after the the end of the cold war will spur, not curb, the proliferation of weapons. "The missiles are there as virility symbols," said Paul Flynn, a Labour backbencher. "Who on earth are we going to take on with them anyway? We certainly need a debate before any decision is made. Replacing them wrecks any standing we have when we preach non-proliferation to countries like Iran." In addition to the defence select committee hearings, Corbyn and other backbenchers are pressing for an investigation by the foreign affairs select committee. "We want an inquiry into the compliance or otherwise with the non- proliferation treaty and any replacement," said Corbyn. Others, such as Julian Lewis, the Conservative defence spokesman, say that in an uncertain world Britain could not afford to give up its nuclear deterrent. "We are talking about a strategic nuclear deterrent being replaced during the period 2020-2050. Nobody can possibly foretell what threat this country will face that far in advance," said Lewis. The subject and the semantics are fertile ground for lawyers and politicians. When does an upgrade become a new system? Is a repair a replacement? Does either count as proliferation? It leaves the way open for much machiavellian manoeuvring. "The government says quite truthfully that no decision has yet been taken . . . in the sense that ministers haven't fully addressed the decisions yet," says Michael Clarke, professor of defence studies at King's College, London. "On the other hand, these things are never a one-off decision and the MoD is working to keep all options open." The MoD, he points out, needs to invest new money and people in Aldermaston simply to avoid technical skills being lost over time. But he also believes that "as an organisation the MoD is hard-wired to replace Trident" to the exclusion of other options. Just up the hill from the pretty village of Aldermaston the countryside morphs into a barbed-wire encampment. Behind the 10ft fence, there is little sign that this is the site of world-leading research into new nuclear weapons. But the AWE has just ordered one of the world's most powerful supercomputers, a Cray XT3 costing œ20m. To be known as Larch, the computer will be so fast that, as the AWE systems manager puts it, "the 6 billion inhabitants of earth would have to make nearly 7,000 calculations per second each to keep up with it". That enormous number-crunching will model nuclear explosions, helping to design the next generation of RRW warheads. The reality, as one US official put it, is that whatever the public political niceties, "Britain is focused on a successor to the Trident warhead". Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd. ***************************************************************** 41 Rediff: 'IAEA safeguards will confer N-status to India' March 11, 2006 18:41 IST Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Saturday assured Parliament that the Separation Plan under the Indo-US nuclear deal would not adversely affect India's strategic programme to maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrence. New Delhi would continue to seek the status of a nuclear weapons state while finalising the India-specific safeguards for its civilian facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency, he told both houses. Complete Coverage: Indo-US Nuclear Tango "India will not accept the safeguards meant for non-nuclear weapon states which were signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Dr Singh said, while replying to day-long debates on the Indo-US nuclear deal in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The five nuclear weapon states, which were permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, had signed safeguard agreements with the IAEA according to their respective requirements. India would negotiate a safeguards agreement on these lines, Dr Singh said. He, however, clarified that the safeguards were yet to be negotiated and as such it would be difficult to spell out its 'contours and details'. Allaying apprehensions of various members over India's acceptance of perpetual safeguards for its civilian facilities, the prime minister said it should be viewed in the context of the proposed perpetual nuclear fuel supply by the suppliers group. The deal provided for India taking 'corrective measures' in the eventuality of any interruption in nuclear material supplies, he said, implying that the inspections would also be stopped simultaneously. The deal was aimed at using one of the options for ensuring India's energy security, which was imperative for increasing economic growth from the present 7-8 per cent to close to 10 per cent. For achieving 10 per cent GDP growth every year, the energy requirements would go up by a corresponding proportion and this could not be met by conventional sources alone. The rising oil prices in the international market and the low quality of coal available within the country had forced the government to look for alternatives and nuclear fuel was one of these, Dr Singh said. He assured the nation and the scientific community that the deal would not hinder the defence programme or research and development work in the nuclear field. The prime minister also assured the House that Indo-US relations were being strengthened not at the cost of New Delhi's 'traditional strategic' partners like Russia or even France or China, with which another round of talks to resolve the vexed boundary dispute began on Saturday. Complete Coverage: President Bush in India "Our scientists would be provided with state-of-the-art facilities to expand the nuclear programme," Dr Singh said. In his spirited 40-minute reply, he said India would not forego its three-stage nuclear programme under the deal or allow it to come in the way of using its abundant thorium resources for generating power in future. The United Progressive Alliance government's discussions with the US pertained only to those nuclear facilities, which were being offered for safeguards. The discussions did not cover the 'strategic programme which has been and will remain fully protected,' he asserted. The deal was merely a step forward to get our country to move on a higher growth trajectory, he said. About the proposed closure of CIRUS and the shifting of the core of Apsara, both at the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre at Mumbai, the prime minister said this was being done to prevent the IAEA inspectors to have access to the other facilities at BARC, which had greater strategic significance for the country. He also clarified that the Apsara reactor would continue to remain at BARC. The perceived high cost involved in the shifting of the core of Apsara would be more than be made up by the benefits arising from the production of isotopes, the prime minister said. He said the scientific community had assured him that the two moves would not affect the strategic programme. Dismissing the charge that only the US stood to gain from the deal as it wanted to sell nuclear fuel to India, Dr Singh agreed that the interests of the two countries did not converge on several issues, but it was not so in the case of the nuclear deal. He also assured the members that the deal was not a compromise on India's independent foreign policy. "I have said on more than one occasion that our foreign policy is rooted in our civilization heritage and enlightened national interest would continue to guide India in strengthening its relations with other countries," he said. "US is a global power. Their interests always do not converge with ours, but there are occasions when our interests do converge and the deal was one such instance," Dr Singh said. Pointing out that the deal was just one aspect of Indo-US relations, he said the agreement on agriculture, which was also signed during the March 1-3 visit of US President George W Bush, would provide better technologies to India and this would be of great help in ushering in a second green revolution in the country to raise the stagnant productivity. Another major area of bilateral cooperation would bring in private capital investment from the US that the Indian corporates have been looking for all these years. India accepted to go for nuclear separation when Bush pointed out that this was necessary to convince the NSG to provide fuel to New Delhi, he said. UNI Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 Sunday Herald: Time running out for vital consensus on energy issues - Christine May ISNT it strange how quickly events shape policy? In June 2004, the Scottish parliaments enterprise committee published its renewable energy report in response to the Executives target of generating 40% of electricity from renewables by 2020. It concluded that, unless there was a change in the balance of government support for different types of renewables, Scotland ran the risk of being covered with onshore wind turbines. We recommended more support for marine renewables, hydrogen development, and wood and other products to mix or co-fire with coal. However, things have changed. Due to growing concerns about fuel shortages and price hikes, energy options that we didnt consider back then such as clean coal technology and recovering more oil from the North Sea by pumping in CO2 captured from the coal and gas generating stations are becoming increasingly viable. The looming fuel crisis has also prompted a rethink on nuclear power. Consequently, Scottish Labour supported a motion proposed by Amicus and the National Union of Mineworkers at the partys conference last month backing future use of nuclear and coal to provide electricity. The party also supports renewables and energy efficiency. Unfortunately for rational debate in Scotland, many of the opposition parties take a simplistic approach to energy matters. The Greens appear to argue renewables and energy efficiency alone can combat our energy problems. The Nationalists believe that all will be solved when Scotland is independent and otherwise only know what they are against, but not what they are for. The Tories argue for a balance (I agree), and the Liberal Party dont want nuclear and are divided amongst themselves on the rest. The Executive coalition position, meanwhile, is that no decision on new nuclear will be made until the long-term solution for nuclear waste is agreed. Despite these divisions, we do all agree on some things: we want power to be affordable, sustainable, reliable, safe and home-produced as far as possible. But the recent fuel-price rises have shown that we dont have the luxury of many more years of debate we need to arrive at a consensus on energy soon. In my view, the answer is a three-pronged approach to energy supply, comprising renewables, fossil fuels (including clean coal) and nuclear. I also believe that we will follow the Swedes, Finns and French by opting to store nuclear waste deep underground. Of course, I dont expect everyone to agree. But its time for people in the energy debate to say what they are for, not what they are against. 12 March 2006 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 43 Xinhua: Britain develops secret nuclear warhead: report www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-12 19:17:34 LONDON, March 12 (Xinhuanet) -- Britain has been secretly designing a new nuclear warhead with the United States, triggering off a legal row over the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the Sunday Times reported. According to the report, the government has been pushing ahead with the program while claiming that no decision has been made on a follow-up to Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent, estimated to have cost nearly 10 billion pounds (some 17.4 billion U.S. dollars). Scientists at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in South Britain have been working on a new weapon since British Prime Minister Tony Blair was re-elected last May, and is now said to be ahead of similar U.S. research, the report claimed. The aim is to produce a simpler device using proven components to avoid breaching the ban on nuclear testing. Known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead, it is being designed so that it can be tested in a laboratory rather than by detonation. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 HindustanTimes.com: We want to finance N-projects, says PFC Indo-Asian News Service Shimla, March 12, 2006 Smelling opportunity in the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Power Finance Corporation of India Ltd (PFC) says it would be willing to finance even nuclear power projects in future. "We would certainly want to finance nuclear projects, just as we are currently funding hydel and thermal projects across the country," PFC chief VK Garg said. India and the US agreed on a breakthrough civil nuclear deal on March 2 during President George Bush's visit, opening new avenues for accessing nuclear technology and fuel for New Delhi provided the Congress okays it. Garg was in Shimla for a PFC meeting with state power utility chiefs and borrowers from across the country. "The meeting had an in-depth interaction on a wide range of issues, including existing bottlenecks in improving state power utilities' performance and the PFC's role in mitigating such problems," the PFC chief said. "We will soon launch an IPO (initial public offer) of Rs 1.50 billion with 10 per cent fresh equity infusion from PFC and 5 per cent equity of the central government," he said. "PFC now figures among the top ten public sector units. The company has been made the nodal agency for setting up five ultra mega power projects, each having a capacity of 4,000 MW and involving an investment of Rs 800 billion," Garg said. "In the current financial year we have already financed Rs 220 billion till date, and in the next six years we aim to become a Rs 500 billion annual disbursement company," Garg said. ***************************************************************** 45 Hindu: No cap on India's strategic programme Sunday, Mar 12, 2006 Manmohan: we will not forgo the nuclear programme to use our vast thorium resources NEW DELHI: India could possibly associate with the United States-led global nuclear energy partnership (GNEP) as an "equal partner" in the capacity of a "supplier nation," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the Lok Sabha on Saturday. "I would like to emphasise this point. We will not forgo the three-stage [nuclear] programme, which will enable us to use our vast thorium resources in future," he said, replying to a debate on Indo-U.S. issues. Distinct from the deal The GNEP was distinct from the nuclear deal with the U.S. "Our comprehensive capabilities across the spectrum and mastery over all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle are well-established and widely recognised." U.S. President George W. Bush said on February 22 that under the GNEP "America will work with nations such as Great Britain, France, Japan and Russia that have advanced civilian nuclear energy programmes to share nuclear fuel with nations like India that are developing civilian nuclear energy programmes." The deal with the U.S. was "basically a quest" to promote cooperation between India and the Nuclear Suppliers Group members to meet New Delhi's energy requirements. While complimenting the nation's scientists, he said the nuclear energy programme had not advanced due to problems in availability of raw materials. "This has hurt our energy programme." Dr. Singh said there was no cap on the strategic nuclear programme. "I have taken full care of it. I had the advice of our atomic scientists and armed forces in working out the requirement of a critical minimum deterrent." He assured that fissile material and "other inputs" for the strategic programme would be available adequately. "We have made sure that we have taken care of our present [deterrence] requirements and future requirements, as far as humanly possible." The civil and military nuclear facilities' separation plan would "not limit our option now or in the future to address evolving threat scenarios with appropriate responses consistent with our nuclear policy of restraint and responsibility". The U.S. was a global power and its interests do not, all the time, converge with India's interests. "But there are opportunities ... when our interests do converge and I believe it is the duty of any Government of India to take advantage of all those opportunities ... " Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 46 Newsobserver.com: Nuclear plant critics want their say Saturday, March 11, 2006 John Murawski, Staff Writer Environmental groups are challenging Progress Energy and Duke Power's forecasts of energy demand, asking the state utilities commission to consider promoting solar power and options other than building new nuclear power plants. Public Staff, the consumer advocacy arm of the N.C. Utilities Commission, is requesting a hearing and expects the request to be granted. "We want to explore every feasible way of improving efficiency and reducing energy consumption," said Ben Turner, director of the Public Staff's electric division. Environmental advocates such as N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network in Durham say that North Carolina lags behind other states when it comes to promoting energy efficiency. "This is the big debate we've all been looking for," said NC WARN's director, Jim Warren. "It's the first time in a long time that this has come up at this level." The groups that have asked the utilities commission for evidentiary hearings also include N.C. Sustainable Energy Association, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Southern Environmental Law Center. Among their goals: to challenge the energy-demand projections filed by Progress Energy and Duke Power. Warren says the utilities are inflating their projections to justify new power plants. The 10-year forecasts are typically filed with the state as a matter of public record, but not subject to evidentiary hearings. The groups propose a: * Public Benefits Fund. It would be used for interest-free loans, rebates or subsidies for homeowners or businesses that invest in energy efficiency. The cost would be included in customer bills. * Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard. Utilities would be required to generate some of their power from solar, wind and other renewable generators. The extra cost would be paid by utility customers as part of the electricity rate. The proposal stalled after being introduced in the General Assembly last year. The utilities commission is commissioning a feasibility study on the topic and is expected to issue a report this year. * Rate Decoupling. This would guarantee a profit level for a utility when efficiency and conservation reduce electricity sales and hurt the bottom line. The financial loss would be made up by customers. The activists want the commission to either adopt the proposals or recommend that the General Assembly do so. Proponents of these programs say they would cost consumers less than the rate increases that would be necessary to pay for building a new power plant. North Carolina has programs in place already. Since 2000, the state has allowed homeowners and businesses to take income tax credits for buying and installing renewable energy generators. The net metering program, adopted in October, lets homeowners with renewable energy generators sell electricity back to the utility, which lowers their monthly bills. The utilities commission could decide that new power plants are needed, but that they are needed farther out than 10 years, which would delay the construction. Or the commission could side with the utilities and accept their energy demand forecasts as submitted. The commission hasn't decided whether to hold hearings. Progress Energy and Duke Power officials say they are not opposed to hearings. The utilities say they support efficiency and conservation, but that current renewable technology is more expensive than building a power plant. And utility officials say they doubt that the public is willing to lower its energy consumption enough to decrease energy demand. "Right now we don't see anything that's commercially viable for large-scale electricity production," said Progress Energy spokesman Keith Poston. "We have to plan based on current consumption models." Utilities haven't embraced efficiency and conservation on a large scale because cutting energy use reduces sales and hurts profits, Warren said. But restructuring the rate system would allow utilities to sell less power without being penalized, he said. "Utilities have every incentive to maximize their sales," Warren said. "It's backward." Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at 829-8932 or murawski@newsobserver.com. © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 47 canadaeast.com: Humans should be careful when regulating nuclear power As published on page B1/B2 on March 11, 2006 Neil Reynolds Contrary Minded On August 7, 1945, a mushroom cloud still hanging in the heavens above Hiroshima, a North Carolina country singer named Fred Kirby sat down at his kitchen table and composed the first hit song inspired by atomic power. He wrote it, naturally, as a gospel song, and in the next year - recorded by a number of prominent country and folk singers, including the legendary Red Foley (who had just made it big with Old Shep, a tribute to his own German Shepherd) - it was repetitively broadcast across North America. This world is at a tremble With its strength and mighty power. They're sending up to heaven To get the brimstone fire. Take warning, my dear brother, Be careful how you plan. You're working with the power Of God's own holy hand. Sixty years later, atomic power retains a lingering sense that Dr. Frankenstein's monster is still in private negotiations with God. Muted now, this conflicted sentiment - a simultaneous assertion of technological shock and religious awe - still influences people's attitudes. Though made to feel a kind of backwoods, hillbilly embarrassment for it, most people persevere in their discomfort. In Ontario, given a choice, most people will not support Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty's decision to rely on nuclear power for the province's next-generation supply of electricity. According to the results of an opinion poll, released earlier this week by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, public support is essentially non-existent. In this particular survey, 11 per cent of people indicated that they "would be inclined" to vote for a political party committed to building more nuclear power plants. Chernobyl aside (30 dead and thousands of cases of thyroid cancer), it's not that nuclear power plants can't operate safely. These plants generate 20 per cent of the world's electricity (from 442 plants) with infinitesimal risk. The probability of a significant radioactive release, at any nuclear plant, can be expressed very simply as .00001, a reassuring number. (It anticipates that 1,000 nuclear plants can be operated for 100 years with one accident causing one death in the century.) This is much better for everyone than freezing in the dark. And it's not that nuclear power plants can't be cost-competitive, though they probably won't. And it's not that they can't produce electricity in a reliable way, though they probably won't. It's mostly that the industry requires people to accept its radioactive wastes - on faith. Essentially, for all time. Let us generate nuclear wastes for a hundred years or so, the industry says, and we'll look after them in a responsible way for successive millenia. Or longer, if necessary. For most people, the industry asks too much. The safe disposal of radioactive nuclear wastes requires that they be kept secure against hell and high water for a minimum of 10,000 years, a longer stretch than all of humanity's recorded history. Canada hasn't selected a permanent nuclear waste dump site yet. The country isn't ready for it. We could perhaps avoid the decision entirely and export our wastes to Kazakhstan, which apparently wants to make a few bucks by developing a nuclear-waste superdump. We could dispatch our wastes into outer space, which is equally far-fetched. Or we could keep these wastes in "temporary storage" forever. Which is what we do now. In the end, though, we'll probably force a national nuclear dump into someone's backyard. It's the fashionable thing to do. The U.S. is further along than Canada. But then it has more radioactive wastes. Global arms reduction agreements have put a lot of plutonium out of work - and plutonium has a protracted half-life of 25,000 years. Construction crews are already digging into Yucca Mountain in Nevada. An excellent site, all things considered. It's 90 miles from Las Vegas. And if you need faith for this kind of work, you'll need luck, too. Yucca has been designed to entomb 77,000 tons of radioactive waste, meaning it will be full as soon as it opens - sometime after 2010. (The U.S. has 50,000 tons of waste from electricity production alone, stored temporarily in 100 locations in 39 states.) In testimony this week before the Senate, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrators said that the agency would establish its final radiation regulations for the Yucca dump site by the end of the year. It had already proposed that "permissible radiation exposure" be set at 15 millirems a year for the first 10,000 years. (A chest X-ray equals 10 millirems.) It now proposes that permissible exposure be set at 350 millirems a year for the subsequent one million years. This is three times the limit now permitted near nuclear power plants but, let's face it, who's going to care much about the radiation reading on Yucca Mountain on March 10, Anno Domine 1,012,010? To its credit, the EPA wanted to regulate (as does the AECL) for only 10,000 years. It was compelled to prepare a million-year regulatory plan by federal court order. In either case, it's preposterous - you're regulating eternity. As Fred Kirby warned in Atomic Power, humans need to be careful how they plan. Neil Reynolds, a former editor-in-chief of the Telegraph-Journal, is the Ottawa-based national affairs columnist for the Globe and Mail's Report on Business. Copyright © 2006 Brunswick News Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear energy is not clean or safe Opinion Article Last Updated: 03/11/2006 1:16 PM MST By Eileen McCabe-Olsen and Pete Litster Some of Utah's lawmakers argue that nuclear energy is clean, safe and cheap. We disagree with them on the supposedly low level of greenhouse gas emissions released throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, and the economic nonsense of huge taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power. However, we are more concerned with the legacy of long-lived nuclear waste. Waste from nuclear power currently resides at the generating plants, awaiting permanent storage in the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada. Yucca Mountain is geologically unstable and is on land sacred to the Western Shoshone Indians. Recent studies indicate that designs for this project could allow groundwater corrosion within decades, resulting in contamination of the huge aquifer that lies beneath. This supplies water to one of the West's largest dairy lands. Assuming that Yucca Mountain actually opens, what will we do when it's full? Its capacity was calculated based on the premise that no more nuclear plants would be built and that no existing plants would be relicensed beyond their initial 40 years. Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign, as well as our own senators, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, have proposed changing federal law to keep waste at the generating plants. Power plant owners and neighboring residents oppose these changes, not wanting such "safe" waste in their backyards, thus efforts to "sweep it under the rug" here in the West. It is unclear that the industry-supported waste fund will cover these expenses, leaving taxpayers with the bill. Members of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes and the State of Utah are fighting the Private Fuel Storage nuclear dump proposed for the Goshute Reservation in Utah's West Desert. Oscar Shirani, an industry whistleblower, has done extensive analysis of the dry storage casks designed for the PFS project, and noted that even a mild sandstorm could clog the casks' cooling vents, and that birds or rodents building nests in them could cause containment failure and radioactive release. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy noted the gross lack of funding for emergency responders to handle a nuclear accident en route to our Great Basin home. Further, studies by the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C., describe, in detail, consequences of even moderate damage to a "spent" nuclear fuel cask from a common automobile-train collision, including release of Cesium-137, a dangerous radionuclide. Finally, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences conceded that no analysis had been made of the terrorism threat to nuclear waste in transit to Skull Valley, because the relevant information was classified. Nuclear proponents are pushing a false "solution" for reducing this waste burden: recycling or reprocessing nuclear waste. The technology being discussed by the Bush administration is merely theoretical. Even nuclear advocates, like the Nuclear Energy Institute, acknowledge that it will take decades and serious expense to mature. Despite these factors, 11 new plants are being planned. Since 2000, 39 have been relicensed, 12 more applications are under review, and 27 more applications are expected by 2012. Disposal of the expected waste output requires planning far beyond what we can even currently imagine. It is unconscionable that certain Utah lawmakers are trying to trick Utahns into contributing to this already massive and dangerous boondoggle. It is hypocritical to oppose the storage of nuclear waste within state lines, when you are considering becoming an actual generator of the waste. Tons of radioactive rock is not clean. Radioactive water is not clean. Further creation and expansion of nuclear waste dumps is not safe. Enabling this with huge taxpayer subsidies makes no economic sense. Utah has many energy options it can consider. Let us not make the critical error of gambling our future on a choice we cannot undo. --- Eileen McCabe-Olsen is associate director and Pete Litster is executive director of Shundahai Network, an international network of activists and organizations formed at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site in 1994 to unite environmental, peace-and-justice and indigenous land-rights communities. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 49 TheStar.com: Just say no to new nuclear rMar. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM CAMERON SMITH Big, awkward, inflexible, inefficient and vulnerable  that describes Soviet central planning of 50 years ago. Now, look at what the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) is recommending to solve Ontario's electricity woes: centralized power generation, where half of the province's electricity will come from massive, inflexible, breathtakingly expensive nuclear plants, with a history of breakdowns and cost overruns. Why, you might ask, does the OPA not see the comparison and the dangers? It argues that nuclear power is needed for security of supply. But it's not listening to people involved with renewable energy who say the opposite: that there's no security in centralized bigness because when something breaks, there's an immediate crisis. Moreover, the enormous cost of nuclear plants will financially starve other services in the province. Instead, they say, look seriously at decentralization, at renewable energy policies to unleash a multitude of small producers and reduce electricity demand. So far, OPA has looked at renewables only in a cursory way, or it simply hasn't looked at all  as happened with ground-source heating and cooling. OPA simply ignored it. Yet, it's so important that the Greater Vancouver Regional District has mapped geological formations within its boundaries to assist in installations. And Manitoba offers incentives to encourage installations because they'll free up electricity for export. In Ontario, I wouldn't be surprised if ground-source heating and cooling could eliminate the need for an entire nuclear plant, simply by cutting electricity demand for air conditioners, electric hot water tanks and electric baseboard heaters. The problem is that high costs and long payback periods are barriers to installations. Ron Dembo of Toronto, however, has a solution: His firm, Zerofootprint Inc., will arrange for installation at no added cost to property owners. Dembo is well-known in financial circles. He has taught at Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and in 1989 he created a company that developed and sold risk management software to financial institutions around the world. He sold the company last year. His new firm installs ground-source heating and cooling in newly constructed buildings at no extra cost to builders above what they would otherwise pay for conventional systems. In return, purchasers of the buildings agree to pay Zerofootprint a monthly charge that's slightly below what they would pay for oil or natural gas at the time of purchase. Payments don't increase, electricity bills are lower and property owners are protected against rising fuel prices. Once the installation costs are recovered, heating and cooling bills drop dramatically. It's a model that could be modified for retrofitting existing buildings. Dembo calls these payments "cash flows," and he raises money for installations by bundling together a number of cash-flow payments and selling them to financial institutions. So, Zerofootprint is showing it's possible to reduce electricity demand significantly at no cost to the government or to property owners. It underscores the need for Ontario to take time to look much more seriously at renewables. In the meantime, there's no need to panic over shortfalls of electricity. Ontario can keep its coal-fired plants in reserve to meet any emergency. The province is deciding on a system that will last for the next 30 years, and getting it right is far more important than deciding everything in a rush. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For ***************************************************************** 50 ITAR-TASS: Yushchenko, EBRD president discuss Chernobyl shelter facility 12.03.2006, 18.18 KIEV, March 12 (Itar-Tass) - Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development President Jean Lemierre discussed problems in the construction of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant’s shelter facility by telephone on Sunday, the presidential press service said. The press service said that the telephone conversation centered on the upcoming 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Yushchenko and Lemierre touched upon the London tender for the construction of a new shelter over the damaged fourth unit of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which is due for March 15-20. The tender was cancelled a month ago because the company that made the smallest bid had changed the offer. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development operates the specialized fund that was formed by donors for building the new shelter facility. The project will cost about $1 billion and be completed by 2011. The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the largest man-made disaster in the entire history of mankind, will be marked on April 26. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 51 ITAR-TASS: Third power unit stopped at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant 11.03.2006, 07.20 NOVOVORONEZH, the Voronezh region, March 11 (Itar-Tass) - The third power unit was stopped at the Novovoronezh nuclear power station at midnight on Friday. “The unit was shut down for regular service inspection required after the maximum loads of the winter season,” the plant’s chief engineer Viktor Loskutov told Itar-Tass. The engineers will examine the nuclear reactor’s safety systems, the state of its generators and equipment in just two days instead of 10 according to the inner rules and regulations. The third power unit with the WWER- 440 reactor began operation at the Novovoronezh nuclear power plant in December 1971. After 30 years of operation, it service life was extended for another 15 years. “The power unit is safe and reliable in operation,” Loskutov emphasized. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 52 IPS: VIETNAM: Nuclear Power Among Non-fossil Options Inter Press Service News Agency Monday, March 13, 2006 Tran Dinh Thanh Lam Ho Chi Minh City , Mar 11 (IPS) - With oil prices rising, Vietnam has begun searching for alternate energy sources to feed its growing economy, and hydroelectric and atomic power are emerging as favourites. Vietnam plans to bring power to all rural households by 2020. But according to Tran Thanh Lien, who heads international relations at the Energy Institute of Vietnam (EIV), by 2020, Vietnam would need 200 to 230 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity but may only have 165 billion kwh from conventional sources. The shortage and difficulties in extending the national power grid to remote areas has made experts consider various renewable energy options and also seek outside help. During his visit to Hanoi, last month, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov said his country planned to take part in the development of the Vietnamese energy sector. ''Russia plans to participate in a tender for the construction of the Son La hydroelectric station, and in future it could also take part in the construction of nuclear power plants in Vietnam,'' Fradkov said. Apart from hydroelectricity, Vietnam is also keen to develop nuclear power as a non-fossil energy source. The country plans to build its first nuclear plant by 2015, and operate it by 2020 and it envisages that by 2015 nuclear energy will make up 11 percent of the total energy output and 25-30 percent by 2040-2050. With oil prices hovering around 60 US dollar a barrel, several ASEAN countries, including Vietnam, are looking at everything from nuclear energy and hydroelectricity to solar energy and wind power to meet energy needs. ASEAN leaders recently agreed to have greater cooperation to slash dependence on imported oil. ''Vietnam is keen on finding out ways to develop non-fossil energy, so as to cut power wastage and improve network efficiency,'' said Pham Quyet Chi, of the EVI. Energy security, he noted, is a major challenge for Vietnam, whose economy has been growing at about seven percent annually over the last decade. Demand for energy is growing at 15-16 percent a year. EVN forecasts that the country will be short of 1.1 billion kwh in 2006, 6.6 billion kwh in 2007, 8.6 billion kwh in 2008 and 10.3 billion kwh in 2009. Currently, the country produces around 6,000 Mw a year, 40 percent of which is produced by burning fossil fuels, coal in particular. This is both inefficient and produces greenhouse gases. Vietnam is blessed with a number of rivers that could be harnessed for hydroelectricity. Nearly 55 percent of Vietnam's electricity is currently generated by five hydropower plants. Last year, the country started the construction of Son La project, the largest so far. When completed, in 2012, the plant will have a generating capacity of 2,400 Mw. Some strategists are uncomfortable with heavy reliance on hydropower in northern Vietnam since it makes the capital of Hanoi vulnerable to accidents, earthquakes or terrorist attacks. Besides, prolonged droughts lower water levels in reservoirs supplying hydroelectric plants, causing shortages of electricity. Water levels have fallen 20-40 percent since 2004, and, this year, they are predicted to be an average of 30 percent lower than normal. ''Each year, electricity demands increase by 1,500-2,000 Mw, equal to the capacity of Hoa Binh Hydropower plant, the biggest in Vietnam,'' EVN officials said. The country tries to meet shortages through natural gas-fired plants. The Phu My complex in Ba Ria-Vung Tau province, when completed, will provide an estimated 47 percent of the country's power. Another project, the 715 mw 'Phu My 2-2 plant', on the Mekong Delta, is being developed by a consortium including Japan's Tokyo Electric Power and Sumitomo and France's Electricite de France. To ease power shortages in the north, Vietnam buys power from China as part of a long-term programme with several members of the Greater Mekong sub-region. Last year, Vietnam purchased 100 million kwh of electricity from China, and is expected to be buy about 1.3 billion kwh by 2007. It also plans to start buying power from Laos in 2008. Chi said that the major advantage of renewable energy projects was in environmental terms. Phu Quoc island's biogas combustion plant, built with German technology, will not only generate additional energy but also produce organic fertilizer for 500 ha of black pepper plantations. (END/2006) Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 53 AFP: India involved in illicit nuclear activities - US think tank - Fri Mar 10, 11:20 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US think tank has questioned India's nuclear non-proliferation record, saying it had uncovered illicit Indian government nuclear procurement from Europe that leaked sensitive atomic technology. US President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushhas used India's so-called untarnished non-proliferation record as a basis for sealing a civilian nuclear deal with New Delhi last week. But the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a private group in Washington, said in a report Friday that it "has uncovered a well-developed, active, and secret Indian program to outfit its uranium enrichment program and circumvent other countries' export control efforts." Uranium enrichment is used as fuel for nuclear reactors but can -- in highly refined form -- be the fissile core of an atom bomb. "Indian procurement methods for its nuclear program leak sensitive nuclear technology," said the report, co-authored by ISIS President David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector. When asked by AFP from where the Indian government made the illegal procurements, Albright said, "Certainly from the supplier states from Europe and could be from other places too." He declined however to elaborate. "We sculptured that comment in the report very carefully," he said. US and Indian officials claim that New Delhi does not engage in illicit nuclear procurement and has an exemplary record of preventing nuclear secrets from falling into the wrong hands. The ISIS report said that under the direction of India's Department of Atomic Energy, the public firm Indian Rare Earths Ltd. of Mumbai procured sensitive materials and technology for a secret gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant outside Mysore in southern India. Rarely acknowledged by the Indian government as a gas centrifuge plant, the plant is believed to provide enriched uranium for civil research reactors, perhaps nuclear weapons, and a fledging naval reactor program, ISIS said. "Public information about India's procurement for (the plant) is also shrouded in secrecy," according to the report. On foreign procurement by Indian Rare Earth, ISIS said the firm, and trading companies procuring on its behalf, did not reveal that "the end user is an unsafeguarded uranium enrichment plant." Its methods "allow a supplier to easily avoid knowing the true end use of an item and thus the supplier escapes responsibility for providing a dual-use item to a gas centrifuge plant," the report said. Ironically, it said, Indias gas centrifuge program was procured through individuals who also played key roles in the illicit nuclear trading network led by notorious Pakistani nuclear scientist A Q Khan. "We don't see India like Pakistan but they are not like Japan either," Albright told AFP. "There are some serious issues that India has to wrestle with and certain things it has to change," he added. The US-India deal, which gives India access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing a majority of its nuclear reactors under international inspection, has to be cleared by the US Congress before it can be implemented. The Bush administration has proposed to Congress that an India-specific amendment be made to the US Atomic Energy Act, which currently prohibits nuclear sales to states which are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has refused to sign the NPT and has developed nuclear weapons. ISIS proposed that before the United States and other countries engaged in nuclear cooperation with India, Indian procurement and export practices be closely scrutinized. "The Indian government should commit to stop conducting illicit procurement for its nuclear facilities, implement steps to better control its nuclear information, and improve its implementation of national and international export controls," it said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 54 AFP: US-India nuclear deal could be worth 100 billion dlrs - Australia &NZ News Saturday March 11, 01:32 PM WASHINGTON (AFP) - A landmark US deal extending civilian nuclear technology to India could open up 100 billion dollars in energy business ventures for Americans, a top US business group said. US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh clinched the deal in New Delhi last week that still requires US Congress approval for implementation. It gives India access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing a majority of its nuclear reactors under international inspection. "This agreement could provide the US business community with 100 billion dollars worth of new opportunities in India in the energy sector alone," said Dan Christman, the US Chamber of Commerce's senior vice president of international affairs. "But the significance of deepening of the strategic partnership between the two democracies goes far beyond commercial terms," said Ron Somers, the president of the US-India Business Council. The agreement could spur energy-starved India's economic reforms and open markets to US investment in key areas from information technology and telecommunications to pharmaceuticals and insurance, Christman said. But Bush faces a battle to get the accord through Congress where legislators are concerned that regimes like Iran and North Korea will cite it to pursue their own nuclear weapons ambitions. The US Atomic Energy Act currently prohibits nuclear sales to states which are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India refused to sign the NPT and developed nuclear weapons on its own, but the Bush administration contends that India has a good record on not spreading dangerous nuclear technology to other states. However, a US think tank on Friday questioned India's nuclear non-proliferation record, saying it had uncovered illicit Indian government nuclear procurement from Europe that leaked sensitive atomic technology. The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a private group in Washington, said in a report that it "has uncovered a well-developed, active, and secret Indian program to outfit its uranium enrichment program and circumvent other countries' export control efforts." Uranium enrichment is used as fuel for nuclear reactors but can -- in highly refined form -- be the fissile core of an atom bomb. "Indian procurement methods for its nuclear program leak sensitive nuclear technology," said the report, co-authored by ISIS President David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector. The Bush administration has proposed that an India-specific amendment be made to the US Atomic Energy Act to overcome the legislative hurdles. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "gave to the congressional leadership this week in the meetings she had, some ideas for how this legislation could be written," a senior State Department official said Friday. "We have to respect the prerogatives of Congress but we are suggesting India-specific amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954," Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, told reporters after briefing the US Chamber of Commerce on the deal. The chamber, which represents more than three million American businesses and organizations, said it would make a "massive grassroots effort" to win congressional approval of the agreement. "We're confident that once Congress has all the facts, they will strongly endorse an agreement that will help cement a new and important strategic partnership between the United States and India," Christman said. A group of 20 eminent scholars, diplomats and former US government officials have sent an open letter to the US lawmakers urging them to endorse the deal. "To sum up, the arguments made against the agreement are outweighed by the arguments in its favor," they said, according to a copy of the letter sent to AFP. Civilian nuclear cooperation with India will strengthen its political and economic stability, further US non-proliferation goals and US energy security, and help combat the growing danger posed by global warming, the group argued. The US-India pact, which also needs to be accepted by the 44-member international Nuclear Suppliers Group, would effectively end India's status as a nuclear pariah after it first tested a nuclear weapon three decades ago. Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 55 Salt Lake Tribune: Security breaches often lead to shrugs Article Last Updated: 03/12/2006 12:52 AM MST Undocumented workers: Recent cases in Oakland and at Dugway highlight flaws in the hiring system By Matthew D. LaPlante The Salt Lake Tribune The seven men were Mexican nationals - undocumented immigrants looking for a paycheck, not a war. But their ability to find work at the cargo screening facility of one of the nation's busiest seaports troubled Charles DeMore, a federal agent charged with protecting sensitive and secure U.S. facilities. "When someone uses fraud or false documents to gain access to a major cargo hub like the Port of Oakland, we have no way of knowing who they really are or what their motives might be," DeMore said following the workers' October arrests. And yet the story of what happened in Oakland - where contractors had been granted the authority to bypass normal security measures and then allowed undocumented foreign workers into the shipyard - has repeated itself at military bases, nuclear plants, chemical plants, airports and seaports across the United States. The most recent case? The Dugway Proving Grounds, a U.S. Army biological and chemical testing facility 80 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, where nine illegal workers were arrested inside the base gates after being brought in by a subcontractor. Although immigration officials have found a pattern of violations that one agent said was a virtual "playbook" for secretly moving people into the nation's most sensitive places, authorities have reacted slowly - and in some cases, not at all. In most cases, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice said, the undocumented workers arrested at the facilities are not thought to have terrorist intentions. But, she said, "we're talking about sites that could cripple the country if undermined." A trusting system: In most cases, getting a job at Dugway Proving Ground means interviews, background checks and waiting lists. But there are a few exceptions: Like at most military facilities, construction, maintenance and janitorial work is contracted out. And so for a few individuals, getting a job recently at Dugway meant simply hopping into the truck of a subcontractor who was looking for some drywallers willing to work cheap. Dugway officials say they've always asked contractors to inform them if any of their workers are from foreign countries. But until last month, they trusted that contractors were being forthright. While some might see that as an overly trusting system for such a highly sensitive facility, it's not unusual. A review of dozens of similar cases shows that contractors and subcontractors are routinely given authority to clear their own workers through security. Among the hundreds arrested and deported at key U.S. facilities were residents of Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Pakistan and Indonesia. Hill Air Force Base - a hub for maintenance on fighter jets, cargo airplanes and ballistic missiles, among other military hardware - is among the scores of military bases that trusts contractors to clear their own employees. That unnerves Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He said the time to trust contractors is over. "They've found all sorts of ways to game the system, including using subcontractors . . . which is a favored way of employers getting out of responsibility," Mehlman said. Out of trouble: All nine men arrested at Dugway on Feb. 9 have since been deported, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Adam Parks said last week. He said an investigation continues into the drywall company that hired the illegal workers and allowed numerous unchecked others onto the base previous to the arrests. Employers don't always face sanctions, though. Last March, for instance, immigration agents in Boston arrested 14 illegal workers who had been employed at - and given unfettered access to - Logan International Airport by subcontractor Hurley of America. Hurley officials denied responsibility, saying they didn't have the ability to check every employee. Nearly a year after the arrests, the company has not been criminally charged. A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman in Salt Lake City said that, with limited resources, attorneys in her office don't prosecute many employers of undocumented workers. "We have done some but haven't done many," Melodie Rydalch said. "Part of that is resources and part of that is proving the elements of the crime." But regardless of the outcome in the courts, if homeland security advocates have their way, the Logan response to the arrests shows what can be done to close the hole. In the wake of the Logan case - which came 3 1/2 years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in which two airplanes from the airport were hijacked - officials finally changed the rules regarding who may issue security badges. "We ended the practice of allowing outside contractors to issue ID badges for our airport," said Logan Communications Director Danny Levy. "We were like, 'Forget it. We'll do it ourselves.' " She was surprised to learn that not everyone has taken similar steps. In some places, no changes: In Oakland, officials say there hasn't been any change in the patchwork of regulations, organizations, oversight and blind trust that failed to prevent illegal workers from finding employment at a facility responsible for inspecting cargo coming into Bay Area ports - a duty homeland security experts say is crucial to protect the nation from potential threats. And though it had been the subject of an illegal hiring practice investigation at least once before, the company that employed the Oakland undocumented workers remains in charge of vetting its own employees, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Ray Greenlee. Greenlee noted that his agency performs checks on employees hired by such companies. But he declined to say how long it takes. "There's a lot of work to be done out there," he said, "and we continue to do it with the staff that I have." At least some of the men arrested in last year's Oakland sweep, he conceded, had been working at the facility for years. Dugway officials said Thursday that they could not confirm whether they had made any changes in access policies as a result of the arrests at their base and would not say whether any such changes were intended in the future. No jurisdiction, no champion: Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say they don't have the authority to change security policies at hundreds of locations considered to be sites of "critical infrastructure," even if case after case shows a pattern of security holes that could largely be filled by taking the authority for granting access out of the hands of contractors and subcontractors. "In terms of policies and procedures of those respective jurisdictions, we don't have the authority to go in and basically make changes," said Kice, the customs spokeswoman. "In terms of access, we aren't in a position to mandate how they do checks." But those who are pushing for such changes - like Ira Mehlman, the immigration reform advocate - say they haven't yet found a champion for the cause who does have that authority - a member of Congress, for example. mlaplante@sltrib.com Port security has been a hot topic for Republicans and Democrats alike ever since the revelation of a decision to turn over operational control of up to 22 seaports to an Arab-owned company. But the presence of undocumented workers in some of the same places has not. "The security we have is a joke even without the government of Dubai taking over operation of our ports," Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said of the recently abandoned plan. "That doesn't mean we need to make it worse, but certainly we have a lot to do to make our ports secure." One Democratic senator compared handing operations over to Dubai Ports World to making a deal with the devil. Mehlman thinks that deal was made long ago, "and all in the name of cheap labor." On Nov. 9, 2004, for instance, agents at the Port of Tampa discovered 14 illegal workers had managed to obtain access badges that provided them free movement about the Florida seaport. And in 2003, immigrations agents arrested eight illegal workers from the Port of Miami, according to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez. Both facilities later appeared on the list of ports the Dubai company was to take over, a deal heavily opposed by members of Congress. - Matthew D. LaPlante Port security has been a hot topic for Republicans and Democrats alike ever since the revelation of a decision to turn over operational control of up to 22 seaports to an Arab-owned company. But the presence of undocumented workers in some of the same places has not. "The security we have is a joke even without the government of Dubai taking over operation of our ports," Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said of the recently abandoned plan. "That doesn't mean we need to make it worse, but certainly we have a lot to do to make our ports secure." One Democratic senator compared handing operations over to Dubai Ports World to making a deal with the devil. Mehlman thinks that deal was made long ago, "and all in the name of cheap labor." On Nov. 9, 2004, for instance, agents at the Port of Tampa discovered 14 illegal workers had managed to obtain access badges that provided them free movement about the Florida seaport. And in 2003, immigrations agents arrested eight illegal workers from the Port of Miami, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez. Both facilities later appeared on the list of ports the Dubai company was to take over, a deal heavily opposed by members of Congress. - Matthew D. LaPlante © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 56 MARSHALL ISLANDS NUKING: Calls For Full U.S. Settlement Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:19:11 -0600 (CST) if Bush would live up to our own responsibilities while he is at. How about paying our debt to the people of the Marshall Islands for starts. The accompanying image is of Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands, Nov. 1, 1952. The following article is from Pacific Magazine and was contributed by an Oread Daily reader. MARSHALL ISLANDS: President Note Calls For Full U.S. Settlement Wednesday: March 8, 2006 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," declared 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. "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, Mr Note continued. 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," Mr Note said. "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 U.S. 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 RMIs 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 three-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 Murkowskis sponsorship of a bill that will include Marshallese in a U.S. workers compensation program. We look to the U.S. Congress and the Administration to follow Senator Murkowskis lead in finding creative solutions to the real human needs that we face at homein 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 RMIs 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. Posted by: Oread Daily / 10:21 AM 0 comments ***************************************************************** 57 [NukeNet] Scotland: Nuclear watchdog alarmed by Faslane danger Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:46:10 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.sundayherald.com/54528 Sunday Herald - 12 March 2006 Nuclear watchdog alarmed by Faslane danger By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor ---------- A SERIES of safety lapses at the Faslane nuclear submarine base on the Clyde, including one in which workers were over-exposed to radiation from a reactor, has worried government inspectors. Internal documents obtained by the Sunday Herald reveal that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has been concerned about poor supervision at the base and is monitoring the situation. The inspectorate’s governing body, the Health and Safety Executive, has also expressed frustration at the failure of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to respond to repeated requests for information. Concern was sparked by a hitherto unreported incident on 13 January last year, when workers were called in to remove scaffolding from above a submarine reactor. They were not told, however, that the reactor was “hot” as it had been conducting high-power trials prior to sailing. As a result, four workers were exposed to excess radiation beaming through the reactor casing. Their plight was noticed by Faslane health monitors, who conducted a survey which detected “a measurable dose” of radiation. “This event seems to be the latest in a series of similar oversights and omissions relating to the control of work within the Clyde naval base,” a nuclear inspector told the base commander. In a file note, he added: “My concern is that the interface between ships’ staff and base staff does not seem to be effective. There is a fundamental issue here.” An investigation was launched by the MoD’s internal watchdog, the Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel. It is understood to have found that safety guidelines were breached. The MoD was accused of showing a “callous disregard for health and safety” by John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. “They are willing to put the health of sailors and civilian workers at risk in order to keep Trident and other nuclear submarines at sea,” he claimed. Ainslie pointed out that the legal powers of inspectors at military sites such as Faslane were weaker than at civilian nuclear sites . “Next time the consequences of a mistake could be far more serious,” he warned. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) confirmed details of the reactor incident. But a spokesman pointed out that the radiation dose received by the workers was less than 1% of the legal limit for a year. “HSE is working closely with the Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel in monitoring improvements to the arrangements for control and supervision of work at the Faslane site,” he said. A spokesman for Faslane was unable to comment on the incident as it was the subject of a request under the Freedom of Information Act. “We take health and safety extremely seriously,” he said. “It’s a number one priority.” Some internal documents concerning the incident were released by the HSE in response to the FoI request by the Sunday Herald. But the name of the ship involved has been blacked out, making it impossible to know whether it was a submarine carrying conventional wea pons or one carrying Trident nuclear warheads. Both are powered by reactors. Other documents were withheld because the MoD failed to give the HSE any information on their national security status. One is the report of the MoD’s official investigation into the reactor incident. “The situation has been most frustrating,” an HSE official told the Sunday Herald. “Despite numerous reminders, I have not received any advice from the MoD.” The MoD, however, pointed out that it was assessing the public interest, which involved consulting with commercial companies. “The delays are very much regretted,” said Gavin Findlay, Faslane’s head of corporate business support. ---------- Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088 Back to previous page _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 58 Guardian Unlimited: Regulator Warns on China Environment Woes From the Associated Press [UP] Saturday March 11, 2006 6:01 PM AP Photo BEJ119 By AUDRA ANG Associated Press Writer BEIJING (AP) - China must sharply improve environmental protection or it could face disaster following two decades of breakneck growth that have poisoned its air, water and soil, the country's top environmental official warned Saturday. The director of the State Environmental Protection Administration said that more than half of China's 21,000 chemical companies are near the Yangtze and Yellow rivers - drinking water for tens of millions of people - and accidents could lead to ``disastrous consequences.'' ``Facts have proved that prosperity at the expense of the environment is very superficial and very weak,'' Zhou Shengxian said at a news conference during the annual meeting of China's parliament. ``It's only delaying disaster.'' China's cities are among the world's smoggiest and the government says its major rivers are badly polluted, leaving hundreds of millions of people without enough clean drinking water. Protests have erupted throughout the country over farmers' complaints that uncontrolled factory discharges are ruining crops and poisoning water. Environmental protection took on new urgency for Chinese leaders after a Nov. 13 chemical spill in a northeastern river forced a city to shut down its water supply, and sent pollutants flowing into Russia. Zhou's agency said in a report that its goals for this year include better prevention and control of pollution in major rivers, stricter environmental law enforcement and increased supervision of nuclear and radiation safety. The agency also will develop an environmental law enforcement team, it said. ``What we are aiming for is achieving coordinated economic social development and environmental protection while putting emphasis on environmental protection,'' Zhou said. ``At this stage we cannot passively protect our environment by simply stopping economic development,'' he said. ``Yet we cannot be lenient on those polluters.'' The National Development and Reform Commission said in a report released during the news conference that China, which is hungry for energy and other resources, is hoping to reduce energy consumption by 20 percent in 2006. ``We will have some difficulties in realizing this objective,'' said Jiang Weixin, a vice chairman of the commission. ``But we must make huge efforts to realize this objective.'' He said the nation will push industrial restructuring to accelerate development of high-tech businesses, and shut down facilities with high pollution and energy consumption levels. Zhou took office after the outcry over the November river spill forced the resignation of his predecessor, who became the highest-ranking Chinese official ousted over an environmental incident. The spill of potentially cancer-causing chemicals used in dyes and resins into the Songhua River prompted fears that the contaminants could be trapped in winter ice and cause long-term contamination. Zhou said farm products from the region have been found safe and experts from China and Russia have concluded that the spring thaw will not release more pollutants. ``Last night I received a piece of most exciting news from the Russian side, that they had reached the same conclusion as ours: that there will be no second pollution of the Songhua River this spring,'' he said. He said the government has completed a long-term river management plan that puts top priority on pollution prevention and treatment. ``If in the past, in terms of environmental protection, we were very passive ... now there has been a U-turn,'' Zhou said. Other officials said this week that the government plans to focus on improving environmental protection and quality of life as part of its next five-year economic development program. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 59 North County Times: 'Test vets' and kin entitled to benefits NCTimes.com - Californian.com Last modified Friday, March 10, 2006 7:36 PM PST By: MIKE SCHUSTER - For the North County Times I wish to thank Mike Bailey (testvets.blogsource.com) for his e-mail about Edgewood Arsenal chemical and biological testing. There is an old idiom when you join the military: "don't volunteer" for anything. But, young recruits are often impressed by words such as "National Security," "God and Country," and "your fellow soldier," and often do the unthinkable and volunteer for some secret military test program as a human guinea pig and sign an oath that they'll never reveal what they did. Such programs have been implemented since WWI and most likely still go on today. Some of the volunteer programs that we know about today are: + World War II mustard gas test ---- with 60,000 soldier volunteers; + Edgewood Arsenal, chemical and biological testing from 1955 to 1975; + SHAD chemical and biological testing from 1963 into the 70's; + Operation Whitecoat, 1954-1973. And the list goes on and on, as years ago the military was a cheap source of human test subjects. These soldier volunteers have become known as "test vets" who now may suffer disabilities many years later because of their exposure to such things as syphilis, anthrax, pulmonary disease, keratitis, cancers, mood disorders and heart disease, as part of a service test program. The V.A. in October, 2003 published a study titled "Health Effects from Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Weapons" ---- both our's and their's). The 84-page study on the Internet is required reading and scary stuff. So if you're a "Test Vet" with a disability you will need to do your research prior to filing your claim. These claims can be laborious and time consuming for the veteran and his family; this is because not all diseases are presumptive, personnel records become lost or misplaced, and sometimes the government is in denial. + First: Get a firm medical diagnoses of the disease that the veteran suffers and a doctor's opinion that "it is likely as not related to the veterans exposure to _________ while in the military." + Second: In all claims, the veteran needs to send for his service medical records and personnel records that should show duty stations, assignments, time periods of service. + Third: find a dedicated veterans advocate, have them file the claim, be patient, expect delays. The military is not always quick on these types of requests from the V.A. for information. So, get health care from your VA health care provider and then live long enough to see your claim granted. Also, being a "soldier volunteer" wasn't the only way to be exposed to conditions in war zones that generated potential health concerns, such as: the occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after WW II; Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam and Korean DMZ '69; Gulf War sarin gas exposure in Kamisayah, Iraq, in March 1991 and the Iraq War, DU (depleted uranium). If you're one of those "soldier volunteers" or a widow of one, I urge you to talk to your veteran's advocate. San Diego Veterans Representative Mike Schuster can be reached at (760) 643-2049 or email at mgs@cts.com. . webmaster@nctimes.com © 1997-2006 North County Times – Lee Enterprises editor@nctimes.com ***************************************************************** 60 Sunday Herald: Nuclear watchdog alarmed by Faslane danger - By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor A SERIES of safety lapses at the Faslane nuclear submarine base on the Clyde, including one in which workers were over-exposed to radiation from a reactor, has worried government inspectors. Internal documents obtained by the Sunday Herald reveal that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has been concerned about poor supervision at the base and is monitoring the situation. The inspectorates governing body, the Health and Safety Executive, has also expressed frustration at the failure of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to respond to repeated requests for information. Concern was sparked by a hitherto unreported incident on 13 January last year, when workers were called in to remove scaffolding from above a submarine reactor. They were not told, however, that the reactor was hot as it had been conducting high-power trials prior to sailing. As a result, four workers were exposed to excess radiation beaming through the reactor casing. Their plight was noticed by Faslane health monitors, who conducted a survey which detected a measurable dose of radiation. This event seems to be the latest in a series of similar oversights and omissions relating to the control of work within the Clyde naval base, a nuclear inspector told the base commander. In a file note, he added: My concern is that the interface between ships staff and base staff does not seem to be effective. There is a fundamental issue here. An investigation was launched by the MoDs internal watchdog, the Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel. It is understood to have found that safety guidelines were breached. The MoD was accused of showing a callous disregard for health and safety by John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. They are willing to put the health of sailors and civilian workers at risk in order to keep Trident and other nuclear submarines at sea, he claimed. Ainslie pointed out that the legal powers of inspectors at military sites such as Faslane were weaker than at civilian nuclear sites . Next time the consequences of a mistake could be far more serious, he warned. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) confirmed details of the reactor incident. But a spokesman pointed out that the radiation dose received by the workers was less than 1% of the legal limit for a year. HSE is working closely with the Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel in monitoring improvements to the arrangements for control and supervision of work at the Faslane site, he said. A spokesman for Faslane was unable to comment on the incident as it was the subject of a request under the Freedom of Information Act. We take health and safety extremely seriously, he said. Its a number one priority. Some internal documents concerning the incident were released by the HSE in response to the FoI request by the Sunday Herald. But the name of the ship involved has been blacked out, making it impossible to know whether it was a submarine carrying conventional wea pons or one carrying Trident nuclear warheads. Both are powered by reactors. Other documents were withheld because the MoD failed to give the HSE any information on their national security status. One is the report of the MoDs official investigation into the reactor incident. The situation has been most frustrating, an HSE official told the Sunday Herald. Despite numerous reminders, I have not received any advice from the MoD. The MoD, however, pointed out that it was assessing the public interest, which involved consulting with commercial companies. The delays are very much regretted, said Gavin Findlay, Faslanes head of corporate business support. 12 March 2006 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 61 AU: Green Left: Fears mount about Lancelin bombing range Annolies Truman Fear that depleted uranium (DU) weapons have been used at the Lancelin Bombing Range in WA and that they could be poisoning Perth has prompted a campaign to close the base. Anne Snow, a resident of Lancelin, a small seaside town 123 kilometres north of Perth, told Green Left Weekly that the bombing range has been used by the Australian army since the 1960s and the Australian navy since 1978. Since then, the US military has been involved in joint exercises. Dr Colin Hughes, another anti-Lancelin bombing range campaigner, is a former head of public health for the Perth east metropolitan region and is currently lecturing at the medical faculty of the University of West Australia. He and his colleagues are concerned at rising rates of fast-cell-growing cancers — lymphoma, thyroid cancer and leukaemia (especially in children). These cancers, which are known to follow exposure to radiation, have risen dramatically in Australia, peaking in the five years following the end of atmospheric testing in the Pacific in 1996. DU is a by-product of the nuclear power industry. It enables the faster projection for bombs and shells as it self-sharpens on impact, doubling penetration. As it explodes, it burns and gives off nanoparticles which lodge in the body and, being insoluble, cannot be excreted. To avoid expensive disposal measures, the industry gives it away to arms manufacturers. In the lead-up to the war on Iraq, usage of the range increased. In January 2003, the USS Abraham Lincoln trained in air-to-ground bombing on its way to the war. “Over the next two years we had a carrier every six months, culminating in live air-to-ground bombing in late 2004", Snow said. The experience was “terrifying”, she continued. “Our houses didn’t just vibrate, they shook, and the noise was almost unbearable. But worst was the fear that the pilots would drop a bomb on our homes. Lancelin has very strong winds and they can blow emissions straight to us. Of course we had no idea if depleted uranium was being used.” The Australian navy has continued ship-to-shore bombing and demolition exercises. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) claims it doesn’t use DU. “Even so, all munitions give off toxic chemicals and are a risk to the community and the environment”, said Snow. “An added risk is the firing during the prohibited burning season. Several fires are started each season.” Snow cites four main reasons to close the base. “The damage to this fragile and unique environment; the risk to the rock lobster industry; the proximity of residential areas (eight kilometres away) and the potential contamination of the Yaragadee aquifer which runs under the Defence Training Area and supplies water to much of WA.” The main industries in Lancelin are lobster fishing and tourism. Local business people oppose the bombing, but fear publicity. Dr Doug Rokke, former head of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project, visited Lancelin in July 2003 and told local activists that it was 100% likely that DU munitions either had already been used on the weapons range, or would be. DU weaponry has been used in Iraq since the first Gulf War. The effects on the civilian population have been horrendous — birth defects and cancers that endure for generations. The half-life of DU is 4.5 billion years. The earth is thought to be only 5 billion years’ old. Not only are people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo suffering from DU contamination, US, British and Australian troops are also showing signs of illnesses caused by exposure to DU. A quarter of a million US soldiers who served in the first Gulf War are now on disability pensions. Radioactive contamination found in other bases and bombing ranges points to the likelihood of DU use at Lancelin. A similar bombing range in Vieques, Puerto Rico, has been irrevocably damaged by US military activity. Cancers in children aged 11-19 living anywhere on the island are 256% higher than in the rest of Puerto Rico. Where the US military has been forced to vacate bases in Panama and the Philippines, it has left behind contaminated soil, air and groundwater from chemical weapons and DU. Rashes, still-births and gastroenteritis are frequently reported maladies that can be linked to toxic exposure. The February 19 Sunday Times Online reported that the highest levels of DU ever measured in the atmosphere in Britain were transported on air currents from the Tora Bora bombing in Afghanistan in 2001, and the “shock and awe” bombing in Iraq in 2003. [For information or to get involved in the campaign to close the Lancelin Bombing Range contact (08) 9299 6453.] From Green Left Weekly, March 15, 2006. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW ***************************************************************** 62 Xinhua: Argentina, U.S. to build nuclear test monitoring station www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-11 09:42:26 BUENOS AIRES, March 10 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States signed a deal on Friday with Argentina to build a station in the South American country to monitor underground nuclear tests, Argentina's Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Roberto Garcia Moritan, Argentina's deputy foreign minister who signed the agreement, said the system would be capable of distinguishing a nuclear explosion from earthquakes. Under the agreement, Argentina will allow the U.S. to maintain and operate a station in Paso Flores in Rio Negro province, and Argentina will provide services to the station. The station would reinforce the International Vigilance System developed under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, of which both the U.S. and Argentina are signatories, said the vice minister. It would also be a very important support for the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty, he added. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 63 Herald Sun: Beware uranium fever [12mar06] By ANTHONY BLACK THE uranium boom that is sending the price of related stocks through the roof should be viewed with utmost caution, analysts warn. Keen investors in the boom should be prepared to lose money on what are clearly speculative stocks, they say. Nevertheless, fortunes have and are being made in a relatively short-time trading uranium stocks. But how long can soaring share prices be sustained given the political hurdles surrounding the nuclear resource also known as yellowcake? Uranium stocks are soaring on the back of a uranium price that has risen from about $US22 a kilogram three years ago to almost $US45 today. Demand for the mineral has exceeded mine supply, there have been barriers to production and uranium is a growing alternative source of power -- not to mention the price keeping pace with hype surrounding the material. The stand-out uranium investment on the Australian Stock Exchange has been Paladin Resources, which has mines in Namibia, Africa, and prospective projects in SA and WA. Paladin has 44,000 tonnes of uranium oxide at its Langer Heinrich project in Namibia and it is expected to start producing within a year, according to State One Stockbroking's mining analyst, Brendan Fogarty. Mr Fogarty seriously questions whether Paladin's commercial resource can justify its share price rising from 5c on January 1, 2004, to $1.15 on March 10 last year and $3.66 on Friday. Simply, he says, a $2000 investment in Paladin when the stock was worth 5c is now worth $146,400 -- a return of 7220 per cent. But what favours Paladin over Australian-based explorers is having a mine approved for commercial development in Africa, Mr Fogarty says. Australian explorers are subjected to state governments dictating uranium mining policy, with the exception of the NT, which falls under Federal Government control. The Labor Party's "no new mines policy" restricts mining to the Olympic Dam in SA, now owned by BHP Billiton, the Ranger mine in NT, owned by Energy Resources of Australia, in which Rio Tinto has a majority shareholding, and the Beverley mine in SA, owned by US-based company Heathgate Resources. Rio Tinto also owns the Rossing uranium project in Namibia. Mr Fogarty says BHP Billiton is planning a major expansion at Olympic Dam, and upgraded reserves at ERA's Ranger mine should extend uranium production to 2014. Mr Fogarty says a host of listed uranium explorers and potential producers are benefiting from a high uranium price and from speculation that political barriers will be less intrusive to increased exports. Australia has 30 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves and 16 per cent of the world's electricity supply is now nuclear powered. Ian Hore-Lacy, of the Uranium Information Centre, says that last year Australia exported 12,360 tonnes of uranium oxide, earning $573 million. The US and Europe were our biggest customers, followed by Japan. Mr Fogarty says Alliance Resources, Summit Resources and Deep Yellow are riding the uranium wave and, in the process, rewarding investors. Alliance's share price has risen from 3.6c a year ago to be 41.5c on Friday. Summit has gone from 46c to 79c and Deep Yellow has jumped from 5.2c to 9.8c at Friday's close. Mr Fogarty points out there are long lead times between finding and producing uranium -- even before political considerations are taken into account. "Just because you find it, doesn't mean you can mine it," he says. "Even if governments were inclined to approve additional uranium mining, they might favour the experienced major producers rather than putting it in the hands of junior explorers," he says. M R FOGARTY says those willing to take the high risk can make big profits investing in uranium companies. Uranium's price is forecast to stay high, given that demand exceeds supply. Investors made big money during the tech boom -- if they sold in time. The uranium and tech booms share many similarities, he warns. Mike Kendall, of Goldman Sachs JBWere, says inexperienced investors lose money when emotion and hopes of a fast buck cloud their judgment. Mr Kendall says investors should stick to the fundamentals before buying any stock. "In the case of uranium, how quickly can a discovery be brought to production, in light of mining limitations? That's a big consideration," he says. "Like any investment, uranium stocks should be treated on their merit." © Herald and Weekly Times ***************************************************************** 64 Indiatimes: What is the nuclear fuel cycle? >The Economic Times> News By Industry > TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006 01:24:22 AM] The nuclear fuel cycle involves extraction and processing of uranium ore to be used in a reactor for generation of electricity and disposal of spent fuel. What are the stages in preparation of nuclear fuel? Preparation of nuclear fuel includes mining and crushing of ore, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication. These steps are together called the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle.Uranium ore, like any other mineral ore, is found underground. The usual methods of extraction are similar to open-cast and underground mining. The mined ore is crushed and dissolved in sulphuric acid, which selectively absorbs uranium leaving out the waste rock. The solution so formed containing uranium undergoes filtration and some other processes to obtain uranium, which undergoes a process of enrichment. Enriched uranium is treated at a temperature of about 1,400xC and inserted into thin tubes, in powder form, to form fuel rods. A number of fuel rods make up a fuel assembly, which is then fitted in a nuclear reactor. In the reactor, the U235 isotope splits (the process is called fission) producing heat in a controlled manner. The reaction is called chain reaction. The heat so generated is used to produce steam, which drives a turbine which, in turn, generates electricity. An uncontrolled chain reaction can lead to explosive energy release and is the concept behind nuclear bombs. What is `enriched' uranium? Uranium obtained from initial processing contains only about 0.7% of U235 isotope, the rest being U238. U235 is the isotope, which undergoes reaction, and its concentration needs to be increased for more effective reaction. The enrichment process involves selective removal of U238, increasing the share of U235 up to 3.5%. The technology for enrichment is very complex and is available with a few countries only. However, fuel used in most of reactors in India is natural uranium as it does not have the technology for enrichment. What is `criticality'? In a nuclear reactor, splitting of the U235 isotope occurs by neutrons impacting it which, in turn, produces more neutrons. If the rate of production of new neutrons from the above process is less than the rate of loss of neutron through other means, then the reactor is called `subcritical' and will not lead to a chain reaction, essential for generation of electricity. When the rate of production exceeds the rate of loss, the amount of neutrons produced will grow exponentially, and continuous heat generation would take place. At this stage, the reactor is said to have achieved `criticality.' What are the problems associated with waste disposal? The major problem associated with nuclear waste is that it contains highly radioactive material, and therefore requires complete isolation from the human environment. The release of these materials through water sources can also cause serious damage. Further, since these have a very high half-life period (up to 4.5 bn years), the radiation occurs over a very large period of time. Because of the long time period, the problem of waste disposal presents an enormous challenge. What are the stages in processing and disposal of spent fuel? After a period of 12-18 months, a portion of fuel assembly is taken out from the reactor. This spent fuel is hot and highly radioactive, stored in ponds to allow both the heat and radioactivity to fall. Spent fuel still contains approximately 96% of its original uranium (with concentration of U233 down to about 1%), about 3% spent fuel and 1% plutonium. Uranium is returned to the conversion plant for re-enrichment. Plutonium can be blended with enriched uranium to produce a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. The remaining 3% of high-level radioactive wastes are heated at a high temperature to produce a dry powder, which is mixed with Pyrex glass. This mixture is then poured into stainless steel canisters. The process is called vitrification and is called the `back end' of fuel cycle. The canisters would be finally buried in rocks deep underground. Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.|| ***************************************************************** 65 Deseret News: PFS deal not done [deseretnews.com] Sunday, March 12, 2006 Deseret Morning News editorial Yes, Private Fuel Storage LLC has a license to operate an above-ground nuclear waste disposal facility in Utah's western desert. ['Image'] Johanna Workman, Deseret Morning NewsLeon Bear, Goshute tribal leader, stands in November 2000 on the Goshute land that is the proposed site to store nuclear waste. Yes, PFS has invested nearly a decade of time, energy and money working toward its ultimate goal — establishing a temporary disposal site for a consortium of privately held nuclear power plants. But contrary to PFS Chairman John Parkyn's statements during a recent nuclear Regulatory Commission conference that "there is hope for our future," Parkyn surely understands that Utah is not done fighting this proposal. Not by a long shot. Although PFS has jumped through all of the necessary hoops to obtain a license from the NRC and has staved off a number of challenges during the licensing process, it also has been dealt blows in Congress and by investors who have pulled out of the deal. While Parkyn may pooh-pooh the recent creation of the Cedar Hills Wilderness Area, approved by President Bush in January, the fact remains the United State is a nation at war. Providing federal protection to land adjacent to the Utah Test and Training Range is a matter of national security. Fighter jets in training, some of them carrying live ordnance, and above-ground nuclear waste storage should not mix. Moreover, the wilderness designation protects the 100,000 acres adjacent to the test and training range from motorized vehicles, roads, mining and other intrusions. This acreage includes a portion of BLM land that PFS wants to use as part of its railroad to its proposed disposal site. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, says including the BLM land in the wilderness area cuts off that transportation option. Even Parkyn admits the wilderness designation makes it more difficult to use public land for a rail spur or construct a transfer station, although he does not rule out the possibility. Then again, why would he? He needs investors to climb aboard, especially after Entergy Corporation, Florida Power and Light, Xcel Energy and Southern Co. withdrew from the proposed disposal site late last year. Given that Parkyn and other PFS partners have invested nearly a decade of time, money and energy into this proposal, they aren't about to walk away from the project, which Time magazine has reported could be worth $100 million to the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Tribe over 40 years. (Neither the tribe nor PFS officials will confirm the numbers.) But it's not a sure thing. And Utah officials must continue to work diligently to ensure that a nuclear waste storage facility is not established in Utah. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ ***************************************************************** 66 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Last laugh is on Republicans March 11, 2006 GOP leader pokes fun at Democrats instead of looking inward at his own party's miscues The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, may have thought he would get a laugh when he used this line Friday in a speech to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference: "Not only can the Democrats not settle on an agenda, they can't even agree on a slogan." But the laugh, albeit a cynical one, is actually on Mehlman and his party. Midterm elections, coming up in November, are mostly about the party in power. They are an opportunity for the voters to express their views about the controlling party's performance. And their views are becoming well known already. The head of the Republican Party, President Bush, achieved just a 37 percent approval rating this week in a poll conducted jointly by the Associated Press and the international polling firm Ipsos. The poll also showed that only 31 percent of the nation's voters approve the performance by the Republican-led Congress. And 70 percent of those polled said they thought the nation was on the wrong track. It seems to us that the Republican Party's chairman has a lot more to worry about than whether the Democrats have published a platform or come up with a slogan. In fact, the Democrats have articulated what they stand for numerous times. A Democratic spokesman named a few standard bearers this week in an interview with Las Vegas Sun Washington reporter Benjamin Grove - strong national security, reformed health care, better schools, a smarter energy plan and more retirement security. And we would add stronger congressional ethics rules, better management of the environment, closer relations with our international allies, greater protection of civil liberties, more openness in government, a higher minimum wage, sufficient taxes to support our troops and infrastructure and to protect future generations from mountains of debt, efficiency in emergency responses, wiser federal appointments to key positions and a plan for nuclear waste that does not include Yucca Mountain. And that's just for starters. Republicans must answer for the state of affairs in Iraq. They must explain the collapse of ethics among their ranks in regard to the lobbying scandal that is still swirling. They must explain why Social Security reform crumbled under their watch and why Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff had to resign. They must account for a president who insists that the United Arab Emirates is right for our ports. They have to face seniors and tell them why the president wants to cut Medicare and why the prescription drug bill is a confusing mess. They will face angry questions about Hurricane Katrina and why the national debt limit is being raised. No wonder they'd rather hit the Democrats on the all-important slogan issue. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 67 reviewjournal.com: EDITORIAL: Fixated on 'broken' Yucca Mountain Opinion - Mar. 12, 2006 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Like French generals in red pants Once a decision is made, an effective leader will "stick with the plan" for a reasonable time to give it the greatest chance of success. Battles are rarely won by generals who send a brigade marching down one road, and then -- before it has reached its objective -- countermand those instructions, ordering the commander to turn his men around and rush off somewhere else. "Wait, I've had another thought ..." But such dicta can carry their own curse. How many hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in World War I because bull-headed generals refused to adapt their tactics to new technological realities -- not just for weeks, but for years? After $8 billion and years of "study," the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository -- eight years behind schedule and already the most expensive tomb-building project since the days of the Pharaohs -- seems much closer to the latter case. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman went before lawmakers in Washington last week and admitted the Yucca Mountain project is "broken." It would be hard to deny. Inspection audits by Mr. Bodman's department and by congressional investigators have raised persistent questions about the quality of work by the DOE and its management contractor, Bechtel SAIC, on the project 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. So unreliable was the ongoing process of documentation that work was actually ordered stopped on project design and research on canister corrosion. Just a year ago, it was revealed that several U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists in e-mails had discussed possible falsification of quality assurance documents concerning water infiltration at the site. The DOE "did not manage it very well," Mr. Bodman told members of a House subcommittee on Wednesday. "We really had a process that was broken, and we are trying to fix it." Asked by Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., when Yucca Mountain is going to open, Mr. Bodman replied, "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." "I think we have a very serious problem here," responded Rep. Visclosky. Members of Congress say it's reached the point where the inability to move Yucca Mountain forward could endanger efforts to license new nuclear plants, which would, of course, generate more nuclear waste. Under the circumstances, you'd think the congressmen would be anxious to consider any reasonable alternative to the repository. Though of course, you'd also have thought the World War I generals would have been anxious to consider any reasonable alternative to again sending their men up against the machine guns. Sure enough, the congressmen sounded like French generals in red pants, storming that all that's really needed is more resolve on the part of the men, more "elan," even as Mr. Bodman returned to the Hill the very next day, March 9, to explain the Bush administration's ambitious plans for an alternative that would considerably reduce the need for Yucca Mountain: nuclear waste reprocessing. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wanted no part of the technology -- which the modern-day French have been using for years. And why not? Because they fear it might distract attention from Yucca Mountain! "I am concerned that this sprawling new venture may divert DOE's attention from other immediate concerns such as fulfilling its current responsibility with respect to Yucca Mountain," explained Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. "I am not a supporter," agreed Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "I'm not going to start down that trail until we finish other trails we started" -- including Yucca Mountain. One can almost hear the ghosts of the Allied commanders along the Somme and Marne in 1914 and 1915, vowing that to equip their own enlisted men with automatic weapons would "only encourage the waste of ammunition," while to examine such alternatives as armored vehicles and flank-turning amphibious landings would only "sap the courage" needed by their men to keep charging those darned machine guns. We're in today's Yucca Mountain mess only because environmental concerns -- some legitimate, but some overblown -- aborted America's own fledgling waste-recycling program decades ago. Now, the administration is seeking $250 million this year -- more than $1 billion over the next several years -- to develop new recycling technologies that could produce fuels less attractive for terrorist hijacking while still useful for a new generation of fast reactors. Yes, it would be better if this responsibility were laid at the doorstep of the private concerns that profit from nuclear energy, rather than on the taxpayers. But either way, if recycling is the wave of the future -- and it may well be -- the plan to seal valuable nuclear waste deep underground could end up ranking right up there in the pantheon of looniness with the post-WWII attempt to develop a nuclear-powered airplane. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 68 Le Soleil du samedi: Trucks with dangerous cargo cause concern Trucks with Chateauguay as their destination or departure point are not being targeted.(Photo Michel Thibault) The ostensibly growing traffic through residential zones of trucks loaded with hazardous products is worrying the Quebec Transport Ministry and Chateauguay City Council alike. Council, directed by Mayor Sergio Pavone, announced at its twice-monthly meeting last Tuesday its intention of prohibiting heavy vehicles transporting dangerous materials from circulating on Chateauguay's main streets, such as St. Joseph and D'Anjou Blvds. and possibly St-Francis, Industrial, Principale and Primeau as well. Council is also pressuring the Ministry to do the same on St-Jean-Baptiste Blvd. All of which would serve to ban these vehicles from its territory altogether. They can bypass Chateauguay by taking Autoroute 30, or Route 132 through Kahnawake in the direction of St. Constant, if they are come from Montreal via the Mercier Bridge. Trucks coming to make a delivery in Chateauguay or which are leaving from that municipality are not affected. Service stations can continue to receive their fuel deliveries and Chateauguay industries will still be able to export their products. Council's action stems from fears from the Quebec Transport Ministry, says Chateauguay director general Paul Brunet. "The Ministry is preoccupied by the significant transporting of dangerous materials in the Montérégie," he explained, "to such a point that it is freeing up money to evaluate the risks on the highways crossing residential zones, such as Routes 132 and 138." How many trucks transporting dangerous materials travel through Chateauguay on a daily basis? What, precisely, are these products? The City has no information on this. "Where they come from and where they are going, we have no idea," replied the Mayor. "It's a lot like the freight trains of old," he deplored. Explosives such as TNT, fireworks and ammunition, propane, oxygen, gasoline, diesel fuel, sodium, arsenic, lead cyanide, radioactive materials, sulphuric acid, PCBs and asbestos are notably some of the hazardous substances which travel by truck and are governed by the law on dangerous materials.(Tr: D.R.) ***************************************************************** 69 Salt Lake Tribune: Panel: Rules for nuclear waste way off Article Last Updated: 03/12/2006 2:02 AM MST Rob Bishop, Republican Congressman, 1st district. It's a sad day when a landowner ends up being prosecuted for protecting his property. It just amazes me that something like this could happen here in Utah, in Box Elder County, let alone in America.” - Former state Sen. Eli Anderson, standing behind Bret Selman, a prominent Tremonton rancher charged for placing a locked gate on a road through his family's property. The amendments are not terrible, and they do make it better. But, until the entire thing comes to where I feel comfortable with it, I will be comfortable voting no." - Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, after splitting with his Republican Party on Tuesday and voting against the Patriot Act, which he still considers too expansive. He said, 'My sources are telling me that you were talking about firing me . . ..' I told him, 'Your sources are wrong.' " - Jazz owner Larry Miller, recounting a conversation with coach Jerry Sloan days after Miller's courtside tirade Monday at the Delta Center. Existing regulations for storing low-level nuclear waste - the type stored at EnergySolutions' dump in Utah - need a major overhaul to reflect the risk of storing different types of material, a National Academies panel reported Thursday. The existing low-level-waste rules are a “regulatory patchwork that has evolved over almost 60 years,” according to the National Academies' National Research Council. That means waste-management decisions are often based on who produced the waste - the Defense Department, the Energy Department or commercial reactors, for example - “rather than [on] the waste's actual radiological hazard or potential risk.” © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 70 Salt Lake Tribune: Huntsman hopes hardball works second time around Article Last Updated: 03/12/2006 2:05 AM MST By Rebecca Walsh The Salt Lake Tribune Huntsman addresses the House at session's end, with speaker Greg Curtis behind him. (Chris Detrick/Tribune file photo ) Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. will tell you the 2006 Legislature was hunky-dory. And you almost could believe him. If only things hadn't gone so terribly wrong for two of his highest priorities - tax reform and all-day kindergarten. While putting a carefully confident smile on his face and uttering conciliatory sentences, behind the scenes, the governor has switched tactics with recalcitrant legislators. Last week, Huntsman and his staff scrambled to schedule a special session before his March 21 veto deadline, allowing him to hold legislators' bills over their heads if they won't approve his flatter income tax. In the end, the machinations were unsuccessful and the session will go ahead as tentatively scheduled in May. The governor will not be able to use the threat of a veto to get his votes. Huntsman Deputy Chief of Staff Mike Mower said the unusual idea of an early session was simply an attempt "to strike while the iron is hot." Timid no more: Still, the strategy reveals a very different state executive from the timid diplomat of 2005. This Huntsman is willing to twist arms and stomp on toes. But with legislative leaders already complaining about Huntsman's "aggressive" lobbying efforts and blaming his overreaching for the short-term demise of two of his pet projects, how effectively his exertions will work remains to be seen. University of Utah political science professor Matthew Burbank says after a year in office, Huntsman finally used the power of his office this year. "If he's going to be a successful governor, he can't shy away from the fact that he is the governor," Burbank said. "He can get more attention than anyone else in the state. Legislators sometimes forget that." Last year, Huntsman was media-shy, lying low. Unlike previous governors, he avoided inserting himself in the legislative process with carefully timed appeals to the public. And lawmakers liked that governor - the quiet, diplomatic type. But a year is a long time. As the session opened in January, Huntsman said he would judge his success by four initiatives. Besides asking lawmakers to set aside $7 million to fund all-day kindergarten for at-risk kids and lower the state's income tax rate from 7 percent to 4.95, the governor also wanted to remove the sales tax on food and reserve $65 million in seed money to foster development of high-tech spinoffs from the state's universities. He highlighted all four in his State of the State speech Jan. 17. Lawmakers threw their own initiatives into the mix, proposing legislation to limit the governor's authority. One bill would have removed the governor's final say from the approval process for radioactive and other types of waste sites. Another would have stripped the governor's ability to hold up budget negotiations. Huntsman aggressively tried to hold off that assault while lobbying intensely for his priorities. Meantime, the governor made himself more available to the media, granting regular interviews about the session and confidently - some lawmakers would say arrogantly - placing himself in the lawmaking mix. Responding to the Utah Media Coalition's concerns, he threatened to veto legislation that would have allowed lawmakers to keep their e-mails private, forcing lawmakers to amend the bill. Though he voiced similar concerns about a bill to require environmentalists to post a bond before suing to stop a road or development, lawmakers still approved the legislation. Burbank credits Huntsman with limiting the number of problematic bills that he will have to review, essentially sidestepping more tension with lawmakers. Last year, the new governor vetoed just two bills. So far this year, Huntsman has vetoed the so-called "Envirocare bill" on waste-site approval. "Some of the worst relationships between governors and legislators are marked by a lot of vetoes," Burbank said. Though his opposition apparently influenced the prospects of particular bills, Huntsman was unable to avoid other confrontations. His two legislative fronts - protecting his office and pushing his agenda - intersected, and the resulting, ego-bruising backroom deals may have hurt his priorities. By the end, the governor had held off assaults on his office, but could claim credit only for completing 1 1/2 of his four key projects: Lawmakers granted his request for USTAR funding and cut the sales tax proposal in half. The day after the lawmaking session ended, the governor was flip about how his initiatives fared. "Nothing is guaranteed, not even whether the governor is going to show up for work tomorrow," Huntsman said. Undaunted, he gamely pledges to bring back next year all-day kindergarten and cutting another chunk of the state's share of the sales tax on food. Wondering what went wrong: But behind closed doors, the governor is frustrated, asking his advisers to analyze why House members they believed were in line to vote for tax reform revolted when the bill was opened for debate in the final hour of the session. Now, governor's office staff have shifted to bringing fractious lawmakers back into the fold in the next two months. Huntsman still wants to salvage tax reform. In many ways, his legislative session has not ended. "Some of them actually did their homework, while others probably did not," Huntsman said. "We have the data and the experts. We're going to make them available." Burbank says Huntsman's error was in not taking the case for tax reform to the public. He and his advisers prodded members of a legislative task force for months. Then, their attention shifted to lawmakers. Individual taxpayers were not brought along for the ride through news conferences nor through town meetings, Burbank says, one of the prerogatives of a chief executive. If the public had bought the concept, lawmakers would not have been able to deny the governor. "It wasn't a complete defeat. But it was a little surprising it was such a hard sale for a group of lawmakers who like a lower tax rate in general," said Burbank. Although he avoided taking his case to the public - a tactic lawmakers despise - Huntsman's priorities might have been indirectly doomed by Capitol Hill gamesmanship. The governor's efforts to protect his office and assert himself turned off many lawmakers. He forged an alliance with House leadership on the sales tax on food, forcing senators to abandon their high ideals about the state's tax structure and negotiate. Some read his confident comments to reporters after a news conference announcing the deal as gloating. Already bruised by Huntsman's opposition to the "Envirocare bill," senators were fed up. "The Senate really does not like [taking] the sales tax off of food," said Senate President John Valentine. "We still don't." About the same time, House leaders abandoned the governor's tax reform plan. Representatives faced with a complicated bill and frustrated as their own bills stalled, were reluctant to vote the governor's way. Both senators and representatives now say the governor pushed too hard. They rebuffed his attempt to schedule an early special session. "The one mistake I think the governor made was: He asserted himself this session," said House Speaker Greg Curtis, the day after lawmakers wrapped up. "It is a fine line between exerting yourself and totally frustrating those who you are exerting your pressure against and having a backlash. I think he crossed that line." Whether Curtis is analyzing what happened or trying to shape the governor's future behavior, Huntsman apparently is way over that line and unlikely to go back - as his play of strategy last week attests. "We're never supposed to be part of the same club," Huntsman said before the session opened. "I love the give and take with the Legislature. It won't always be harmonious. But it's not supposed to be." --- Tribune reporters Matt Canham and Glen Warchol contributed to this story. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 71 Salt Lake Tribune: Not just ports: Ships, trucks and trains are an issue Article Last Updated: 03/12/2006 12:47 AM MST By Ted Bridis The Associated Press WASHINGTON - Lapses by private port operators, shipping lines or truck drivers could allow terrorists to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States, according to a government review of security at American seaports. The $75 million, three-year study by the Homeland Security Department included inspections at a New Jersey cargo terminal involved in the dispute over a Dubai company's now-abandoned bid to take over significant operations at six major U.S. ports. The previously undisclosed results from the study found that cargo containers can be opened secretly during shipment to add or remove items without alerting U.S. authorities, according to government documents marked ''sensitive security information'' and obtained by The Associated Press. The study found serious lapses by private companies at foreign and American ports, aboard ships, and on trucks and trains ''that would enable unmanifested materials or weapons of mass destruction to be introduced into the supply chain.'' The study, expected to be completed this fall, used satellites and experimental monitors to trace roughly 20,000 cargo containers out of the millions arriving each year from Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Most containers are sealed with mechanical bolts that can be cut and replaced or have doors that can be removed by dismantling hinges. The risks from smuggled weapons are especially worrisome because U.S. authorities largely decide which cargo containers to inspect based on shipping records of what is thought to be inside. Among the study's findings: l Safety problems were not limited to overseas ports. A warehouse in Maine was graded less secure than any in Pakistan, Turkey or Brazil. ''There is a perception that U.S. facilities benefit from superior security protection measures,'' the study said. ''This mind-set may contribute to a misplaced sense of confidence in American business practices.'' l No records were kept of ''cursory'' inspections in Guatemala for containers filled with Starbucks Corp. coffee beans shipped to the West Coast. ''Coffee beans were accessible to anyone entering the facility,'' the study said. It found significant mistakes on manifests and other paperwork. In a statement to the AP, Starbucks said it was reviewing its security procedures. l Truck drivers in Brazil were permitted to take cargo containers home overnight and park along public streets. Trains in the U.S. stopped in rail yards that did not have fences and were in high-crime areas. A shipping industry adage reflects unease over such practices: ''A container at rest is a container at risk.'' l Practices at Turkey's Port of Izmir were ''totally inadequate by U.S. standards.'' But, the study noted, ''It has been done that way for decades in Turkey.'' l Containers could be opened aboard some ships during weekslong voyages to America. ''Due to the time involved in transit [and] the fact that most vessel crew members are foreigners with limited credentialing and vetting, the containers are vulnerable to intrusion during the ocean voyage,'' the study said. l Some governments will not help tighten security because they view terrorism as an American problem. The U.S. said ''certain countries,'' which were not identified, would not cooperate in its security study - ''a tangible example of the lack of urgency with which these issues are regarded.'' l Security was good at two terminals in Seattle and nearby Tacoma, Wash. The operator in Seattle, SSA Marine, uses cameras and software to track visitors and workers. ''We consider ourselves playing an important role in security,'' said the company's vice president, Bob Waters. In theory, some nuclear materials inside cargo containers can be detected with special monitors. But such devices have frustrated port officials in New Jersey because bananas, kitty litter and fire detectors - which all emit natural radiation - set off the same alarms more than 100 times every day. The study applauded efforts to install radiation monitors overseas. ''While there is clearly value in nuclear detection at a U.S. port, that is precisely the concern - it is already on U.S. soil,'' it said. Finding biological and chemical weapons inside cargo containers is less likely. The study said tests were ''labor intensive, time-consuming and costly to use'' and produced too many false alarms. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 72 PittsburghLIVE.com: Looking for a landfill - Patty Ameno speaks to other activists Steven Dietz/For the Valley News Dispatch By Wynne Everett VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH Sunday, March 12, 2006 Four months after activist uproar halted plans to bury nuclear-contaminated ash in a municipal landfill, the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority is again looking for bidders to accept the ash that was contaminated by water from former nuclear processing plants in Apollo and Parks. The Kiski Valley sewerage authority has advertised for new bids from landfills willing to accept 12,000 cubic meters of the ash from its former wastewater treatment lagoon. The state Department of Environmental Resources has declared the ash to be municipal waste, not hazardous waste. It has approved the plan to take it to a municipal landfill, just like household garbage. Last October, the authority scrapped a similar plan after neighbors of an East Huntingdon Township, Westmoreland County, landfill balked at the idea of uranium-contaminated waste going to a landfill in their community. The Greenridge Landfill there borders a complex of three schools. After the uproar from residents who objected to burying the waste in a municipal landfill, KVWPCA Executive Director Bob Kossak appealed to state and federal elected officials, as well as local officials from the authority's 13 Kiski Valley communities. He wanted help forming a new disposal plan and finding the money necessary to pay for it. He got no response. "The board weighed the issues here, and we weren't getting any help," he said. Now, the authority's board has returned to its original strategy of burying the waste in a municipal landfill and members hope for better results, he said. "We're going to try it again, see if we get any response," Kossak said. Bids from landfills willing to accept the ash are due March 29, according to a legal advertisement placed in a local newspaper last week. Kossak said the authority hopes to award the bid in April. Local activists who successfully blocked the first planned removal said they will mobilize again if the authority tries to place the uranium-contaminated ash in a municipal landfill. "It's not coming out of those gates," said Patty Ameno. "People will make a human chain." Ameno is the chairwoman of Citizens Action for a Safe Environment, a Kiski Valley-based group that has worked to clean up the former nuclear sites there. Last fall, residents of East Huntingdon Township organized a sister group called CASE South in response to plans to move the nuclear ash to a landfill in their community. The ash contains low levels of uranium, carried there between 1977 and 1984 via wastewater from the former Babcock &Wilcox facility in Apollo. In the early 1990s, the authority planned to remove the ash as part of a routine upgrade of its facilities, but was stopped when the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission found uranium contamination in the ash. The activists don't oppose plans to remove the ash from Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority property, but they want it taken to a low-level nuclear waste facility instead of a municipal landfill. Some also have suggested combining the lagoon clean up with a cleanup of the nearby Shallow Landfill Disposal Area in Parks Township. Nuclear waste from the processing plants was buried on the site in the 1960s and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is planning a clean up of that site for 2008. Ameno has suggested sealing the lagoon ash in barrels and moving it to the Parks site in the meantime. Parks officials have opposed the move, saying they prefer that the sewerage authority's lagoon be treated separately. "On behalf of the board of supervisors, I stress that Parks Township, under no conditions is interested in having that sludge moved to the SLDA site in Kiskimere," Supervisor Chairman Franklin Shannon wrote in a letter to sewerage authority members. Corps of Engineers officials also don't want to include the lagoon ash in their Parks Township project, saying that since the state and federal agencies have classified the ash as municipal waste, it cannot be included in the clean up of regulated nuclear waste. When the NRC discovered the lagoon ash was contaminated in 1994, it ordered the authority not to move the material. Last year, the NRC concluded the ash is safe to remove. The change in the commission's position is related to changes in the way the state and federal government measures radioactivity. In 1994, the NRC measured the concentration of uranium in the ash and ruled it was higher than acceptable levels for ordinary landfill waste. Now, however, the NRC measures uranium based on the dosage a person would receive from contamination. Based on that measurement, the agency concluded the ash was safe to move. Kossak said he and the authority board believe the NRC's conclusions are correct. He said opponents of the plan are just ill-informed. "I think they need to look at it from an educated point of view," Kossak said. "I have to go by what the experts say." Kossak also said the authority must pursue a plan that's best for its 10,000 customers who will have to bear the financial burden of the removal work. The landfill plan was expected to cost about $900,000 last year. Kossak said the cost may change, depending on the bids the authority receives this month. "If that plan wouldn't have been stopped, we could have had this all done with no rate increase," Kossak said. "Because the activists got involved, we're looking at a rate increase." He said the projected $17 million price tag for disposing of the ash in a low-level nuclear waste disposal site would cost authority customers more than $100 per-quarter more. Ameno said rate payers shouldn't have to pay for any of the clean up. Instead, she said B should foot the bill. Authority officials have acknowledged for several months that the group is negotiating with B, though they decline to say over what issues. Wynne Everett can be reached at weverett@tribweb.comor (724) 226-4676. Images and text copyright © 2006 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 73 VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH: Parks dump cleanup delayed until 2008 - PittsburghLIVE.com By Wynne Everett Sunday, March 12, 2006 The cleanup of a nuclear waste dump in Parks Township originally scheduled to start this year will not begin until 2008. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is still studying the best method to remove 10 buried trenches of nuclear contaminated waste from what the federal governments calls the Shallow Landfill Disposal Area along Route 66, project manager Bill Lenart said. The corps was charged with cleaning up the site in 2002 after local residents complained that a cleanup by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission was moving too slowly Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, succeeded in getting a bill through Congress transferring the project to the Corps of Engineers. Murtha's spokeswoman released a written statement from Murtha this week regarding the delay. "I know Parks Township residents have been waiting a long time for this project, and it's unfortunate that the remediation won't be finished as soon as we'd hoped," Murtha wrote. "But to protect Valley residents, it's more important for the work to be done safely than quickly. We'll keep an eye on it, but I think it's important that every safety precaution be taken even if that delays the project a little." Local activist Patty Ameno, who lives in Leechburg and pressed Murtha to get involved in the matter, is more disappointed. "I think somebody somewhere better stop giving lip service and start giving us action," Ameno said. "And I don't understand why this has to be delayed." The nuclear waste landfill occupies a 44-acre site in the Kiskimere section of the township. Now enclosed by fences that warn of radiation danger, the property was once the site of a plutonium processing plant owned by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. The company buried a toxic mix of radioactive isotopes and cancer-causing chemicals in the trenches during the 1960s. The beryllium, uranium and other contaminated materials buried there came from NUMEC's nuclear fuels processing plant in nearby Apollo. The company was one of the earliest providers of nuclear fuel for Navy submarines. The property was subsequently owned by Babcock &Wilcox and then Atlantic Richfield before nuclear processing halted in the Kiski Valley in the mid-1980s. Early tests by the Corps have revealed that the soil and water around the nuclear waste landfill is not contaminated. Corps engineers need to continue testing and draft proposals for a variety of plans for handling the site, Lenart said. One proposal isn't likely to make the final plan, according to Lenart. Since last fall some residents have argued that nuclear-contaminated ash from an old wastewater treatment pond in Allegheny Township should be sealed in drums and taken to the nuclear waste landfill site to be included in the larger clean up. Because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the state Department of Environmental Resources has officially categorized the lagoon ash as municipal waste -- no different than your household garbage -- it cannot be included in the clean up of the nuclear dump site, Lenart said. "It's difficult for us to do anything with that material at this time," he said. "Because of that decertification, that takes it out of our jurisdiction." Parks supervisors also oppose the plan. Once the corps finishes its feasibility study, it will schedule a series of public meetings on the matter this summer, Lenart said. The options will be narrowed to three and a final plan will be drafted, he said. Work should begin in 2008 and be finished in 2010. Wynne Everett can be reached at or (724) 226-4676. Images and text copyright © 2006 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 74 Kansas City Star: Energy Secretary talks about the future of power | 03/11/2006 | Q &A Q &A U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman came to Kansas City to promote the presidents energy initiatives. Were going to need nuclear energy. Were going to need biomass (fuels), solar energy, better battery technology for hybrid-type automobiles, he said Friday, all to maintain our standard of living. Meeting with about three dozen members of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, Bodman acknowledged, Its ambitious, but I think theyre attainable goals. Afterward, The Stars Rick Montgomery sat him down to pose some questions. They and the answers have been edited for length and clarity. Q: The president says we need to wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil. But needless to say, oil is oil in the markets. Just how soon do you expect our demand for oil  our consumption  to start going down, if ever? A: I think as long as our economy and population grow, were going to have increasing uses for motor fuels. The question is, Can we replace imported oil with domestically produced alternatives? Thats the goal.& Looking 20 to 25 years out, if we could manufacture 5 million barrels a day of ethanol to replace 5 million barrels of imported oil, that would be a major step forward. Q: Lets look 10 years out. Should anyone really expect to see ex-President Bush driving a hydrogen-powered pickup on his ranch? A: His goal when he started his $1.2 billion hydrogen initiative in 2003 & was to finish the research by 2015 so you could start manufacturing vehicles. I visited a General Motors facility near Rochester, N.Y., and their target for completion of the same work is 2010. So is it possible that the president could be driving around in 2015 on his ranch in a hydrogen-powered vehicle? They would say yes. Im not sure. I think it may be a little further out than that. Q: Does it make you queasy to see places like Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria  all big oil suppliers  getting more than a little scary, politically? Do you have a worst nightmare? A: Well, look, all any of us can do is our best. & Weve got oil coming from troubled parts of the world. Im not worried about the Venezuelans saying theyre not going to sell to Americans. If theyre not going to sell it to us, theyre going to sell it to someone else, and well go to whoever that is & and well buy it from them. Do I lose sleep over the (civil unrest) in Nigeria? Sure. & If we have a major producer that stops exporting, were likely to have a substantial increase in oil prices, which will be reflected in substantial increases in gasoline prices. Im certain of that. We have to find a way of increasing the gap between the available world supply and the demand, and right now we dont have that. Q: Getting back to our own country, The Star has reported that oil companies have shut down an awful lot of U.S. refineries over the last 20, 30 years. And now, guess what, we have this shortage of capacity. Thats tough to see as just coincidence, isnt it? A: Theyve shut down refineries, but they have not reduced refining capacity. They continue to expand some of their larger refineries. Were only six months after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and it takes a large organization some time to work through the engineering. I know for a fact there are a number of companies that are contemplating expansions, but they want to make sure they evaluate it, vote on it, so forth. I would caution you about associating closing refineries with reducing refining capacity. Theyre different matters. Q: With natural gas, this week we saw four Midwestern attorneys general come forth with accusations that supply and demand arent all that have come into play in rising heating bills. Theyre suggesting speculators, rather than tight reserves, are driving up prices. A: Ive heard of them collaborating on some accusations, the matter being, Do we need a federal law in terms of price gouging? There are pros and cons to that. & I can tell you that we had $15 natural gas four months ago and now its $7.50. The reason it was cut in half is that we were fortunate in having a fairly temperate winter and therefore had more supplies. Q: How worried should we be about China drinking so deeply from the worlds oil barrels? A: Weve had some success working with China on energy efficiency. &You could argue that the Chinese demand in some ways is a good thing, because (its the result) of a billion and a half people coming out of poverty. Theyre working on nuclear energy, though I doubt theyre into making plug-in hybrid cars over there. They are increasing their supply of electricity substantially at the present time. They have four nuclear reactors on order. Q: Where do you see nukes going in our own country? A: There are six new units that clearly are going to be built, and construction will start in 2010 or 2011. Q: Will the proposal to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain be on track by then? A: Yucca Mountain is not on track. And, you know, we dont need just six new units; we need 30. We need a bigger number of nuclear power plants over the next two or three decades. Those will only be built when we can deal with the question related to spent fuel. Right now that question relies on getting Yucca Mountain constructed, and weve had major delays and problems with getting that done. Q: You anticipate there will be 1 to 2 million homes in America that will be self-sufficient in the next decade & A: Using solar energy, yes. Q: Can you paint a broader picture of Americas energy usage, say, 15 years down the road: Will our lifestyles be dramatically different? A: I hope not. The goal here is to not have our lifestyles be meaningfully different. ***************************************************************** 75 Hanford News: Framatome ANP, Cogema announce name changes This story was published Friday, March 10th, 2006 By the Herald staff Framatome ANP, the Richland plant that produces commercial nuclear fuel, has changed its name to Areva NP Inc., and Cogema Inc., which operates a Richland subsidiary, has changed its name to Areva NC Inc. The name changes were announced by Areva, the Paris-based corporate parent of the companies. News | History | Related Links | Opinions Press Releases | Documents © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed ***************************************************************** 76 Hanford News: Battelle CEO visits Tri-Cities; Says Battelle committed to keeping DOE contract This story was published Friday, March 10th, 2006 By John Trumbo, Herald staff writer Battelle Memorial Institute will put its "A+ team" to work to retain its contract for operating the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland when the contract comes up for competitive bid later this year. Carl Kohrt said the Department of Energy's announcement earlier this year that the $750 million contract will be rebid instead of renewed guarantees there will be vigorous competition. "This is our most important lab. We are very committed to staying here," he said Thursday while meeting with the Herald's editorial board. "It will be hard work, and it will be disruptive to what we have been doing, but we are well positioned for this," he said. Kohrt, who is based at Battelle's corporate offices in Columbus, Ohio, came to the Tri-Cities to be the keynote speaker at 11:30 a.m. today at the annual meeting of the Tri-City Industrial Development Council (TRIDEC) at the Three Rivers Convention Center in Kennewick. He said PNNL, which has been operated by Battelle under a DOE contract since 1964, has important research work to continue on energy, global climate issues, genomics and proteomics. "Just as the last century was the age of physical sciences, this will be the age of biology," he said. The lab's mission in those areas and its commitment to fostering education and economic development through science will increase the value of Battelle's bid, he said. The lab, with approximately 4,200 employees, does government work and private work under a dual contract arrangement that is unique among national labs. The private work, which constitutes approximately 10 percent of the annual budget and involves about 400 to 500 full-time equivalent employees, is a big consideration in the rebidding, Kohrt said. "We'll be interested to see how DOE addresses it," he said, noting that DOE's draft request for proposals should be released during the summer. The future of that private work also is tied to the fact that Battelle owns about 30 percent of the facilities at PNNL. Lab director Len Peters said if DOE decides not to continue the dual contract arrangement and exclude private work in federal facilities, Battelle would have to "untangle" the current situation, which has researchers working on both private and public projects in Battelle-owned and federally owned facilities. "We could continue to do the private work, just in a different way," Peters said. Kohrt said it is too early to say who else might want to bid on the PNNL contract. "The (request for proposals) is not out, so we can't say what DOE expects. We can't say whether we will team up or not," he said. Kohrt said Battelle, which is involved in running five national labs, understands the competitive bidding process and has been highly successful. "We understand how to collaborate on programs," he noted, including shared contracts for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls and Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Kohrt said he believes Battelle will have the edge in the bidding because it has shown efficiency in doing the work for less money and has a commitment to community involvement. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 77 Hanford News: Panel suggests NRC takeover at Hanford This story was published Friday, March 10th, 2006 By Les Blumenthal; Herald Washington, D.C., bureau WASHINGTON - The Department of Energy's management of Hanford's troubled Waste Treatment Plant faced another round of criticism Thursday from members of a key House panel, with several suggesting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should take control of the facility. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House energy and water appropriations subcommittee, and Indiana Rep. Peter Visclosky, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, both indicated the department may want to review whether the NRC should be given broad authority over the plant. "Why shouldn't the NRC license the plant?" Hobson asked James Rispoli, DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management. "Why don't we want them around?" Rispoli said he was uncertain whether the NRC, which licenses commercial nuclear power plants, would have jurisdiction over a plant like the one at Hanford, which is owned by the federal government. In addition, the Hanford plant will process defense rather than civilian waste, resulting from the production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear arsenal. But Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, pointed out that the NRC eventually will be asked to license the department's permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and has issued a license for a plant at Savannah River that will produce so-called mixed-oxide fuel for reactors. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has jurisdiction over plants like the one being built at Hanford, Risploi said. He said he meets with members of the independent board once a month to discuss cleanup and safety issues at DOE sites. Rispoli said he would get back to the subcommittee with more information about possible NRC licensing of the Hanford plant. The Waste Treatment Plant is critical to the eventual cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation. It will be used to process 53 million gallons of radioactive waste held in aging and leaking underground tanks into glassified logs suitable for long-term storage. Rispoli also indicated the Waste Treatment Plant eventually could end up costing close to $11 billion. He said a panel of 40 outside experts had raised 20 new technical issues about the facility. "They believe they can be resolved," Rispoli said. But Hopson remained skeptical. "Do we know how to do this?" he asked. "Forty technical experts have indicated the answer is yes," said Rispoli. "The technical issues are solvable and we can build this plant." The estimated cost of the plant nearly has doubled in a year to about $10 billion, and its completion date has slipped by six years, from 2011 to 2017. Bechtel National, which is building the plant, is expected to provide new cost and schedule estimates by early summer. On Wednesday, Hobson and other members of the subcommittee grilled Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman about the Hanford plant. On Thursday, it was Rispoli's turn. "We have to get control of this," said Hobson, demanding Rispoli provide him with information about any DOE employees or contractors who have received bonuses for their work on the plant. "It's a bottomless pit," Visclosky said of the plant and its costs. "It goes on and on and on." Hobson and Visclosky made clear the department should not expect to receive the $690 million in funding it has requested for the plant in the next fiscal year. "To use polite language before a mixed audience, 'Hanford is a mess,'" Visclosky said. "That is being generous," Hobson added. Rispoli said the department remained committed to finishing the plant and resolving the construction and design problems. In 2000, Rispoli said, the estimated cost of the plant was $4.3 billion, and the design called for a facility that would treat 40 percent of the waste. A second plant would need to be built at a cost of $6.6 billion to finish the job. But Rispoli said the plant's design has been upgraded and it now should be able to process all the waste. "A second plant won't be needed," he said. At an earlier briefing by Hanford and Bechtel officials for members of Congress and staff, Rep. Doc Hasting, R-Wash., whose district includes Hanford, said he believed he could work with Hobson to ensure adequate funding. "I have a close working relationship with him," Hastings said. "He understands the challenges." But Hastings also added that DOE and Bechtel need to fix the problems. "We are spending taxpayer dollars and should not hesitate to get a bang for our buck," he said. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 78 IBA: Former lab director supports nuke plan [Inside Bay Area] Article Last Updated: 03/12/2006 3:48 AM PST Bush idea to redesign such weapons brings up concerns that they may be vulnerable to defects By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER LIVERMORE — An influential Pentagon adviser on nuclear weapons threw his support last week behind Bush administration plans to redesign the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal but said the nation needs twice as many new bomb designs as insurance against any one of them failing. Former Lawrence Livermore lab director and Pentagon research chief Johnny Foster, now co-chair of a Defense Science Board task force on U.S. nuclear capabilities, said that even though weapons scientists have found fixes for defects in U.S. nuclear arms, he fears existing and newly designed weapons could be vulnerable to undetected and unforeseen breakdowns. "We have discovered warheads that would fail to operate properly," Foster said at Sandia National Laboratories-California. "Wehave also realized failure modes that were overlooked" as weaponeers carried bomb designs from conception to testing to production. "But what about the possibility that there are still other failure modes that we have not yet discovered?" Foster said. They are "unknown unknowns — Unk Unks, for short." His answer is a more rigorous hunt for defects in weapons, as well as studies of why those defects were not discovered originally, and a doubling of nuclear explosive designs capable of riding on the nation's land- and sub-based intercontinental missiles, its bombers and its cruise missiles. "We should consider deploying two different, competitively designed warhead types for each nuclear delivery system," he said. "Then, should a failure mode be discovered in one type, we would have a better chance that the other half of the warheads in that operational system would be reliable and available." Critics of the new "reliable replacement warhead" program said Foster's proposal sounds like dramatic and costly expansion. "I'm tired of it," said former Sandia National Laboratories weapons executive Bob Peurifoy. "The stockpile is healthy, it is reliable. It meets all the safety standards, it is ready to go, and it will kill you. It is showing little aging. We will someday reach a point where aging will be a concern for some component. When that happens, you replace it." He observed that the majority of U.S. nuclear explosives ride on a single delivery vehicle — Ohio class submarines and D5 missiles for the Navy, Minuteman IIIs for the land-based ICBMs and Tomahawks for the cruise missiles. "This is gigantic hoax on the taxpayer. It is stimulated by the self interest of NNSA and the (weapons) design labs based on the desire to extract ever more money from the taxpayer," he said. "You think our weapons don't work? Go stand under one. But don't take your wife and kids." The United States already stockpiles two nuclear explosive designs for every delivery vehicle. Bush administration officials argue those weapons are overpowered, were finely tuned for maximum explosive energy in a compact, lightweight package. Administration weapons managers and officials at the weapons labs are starting to design a limited number of new, supposedly more robust thermonuclear explosives as replacements that would be less expensive to maintain. Stanford physicist Sidney Drell, a frequent government adviser on nuclear weapons and intelligence, said the existing arsenal is healthy and said fielding newly design replacements poses a risk of restarting nuclear testing globally to ensure they work. "If you talk about designing new weapons, I don't think you can do that without testing," he said Friday. "I don't think that should be, and I'm going to do what I can to make sure it's not done." © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************