*****************************************************************
03/19/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.66
*****************************************************************
   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 SF Chronicle: THE DEFIANT WAR / When it began three years ago, few p
2 WorldNetDaily: Preventing international crimes
3 [NYTr] Russia Rejects UN Proposals on Iran
4 Guardian Unlimited: Britain May Push for New Talks With Iran
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Called on to Resume Nuclear Talks
6 Guardian Unlimited: ANALYSIS: Talks With Iran Could Help Bush
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, N.Korea Nukes Cause 'Grave Concern'
8 IRNA: China requires IAEA report on Iran at Security Council 
9 IRNA: Access to nuclear research, Iran minimum demand for talks - FM
10 IRNA: US call to hold talks with Iran, not new: Boroujerdi
11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: No agreement yet on UNSC statement 
12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Enrichment, minimal demand - Mottaki 
13 AFP: Iran refuses to suspend nuclear activities 
14 AFP: Top officials of six major powers to meet on Iran
15 AFP: Security Council close to agreement on Iran statement - diploma
16 IRNA: UNSC Iran talks yield no result 
17 IRNA: Kyrgyzstan hopes Iran's nuclear issue will be settled via talk
18 Daily Times: Targeting countries dealing with Iran is bad policy
19 Guardian Unlimited: General: Not Much Confidence in Iran Talks
20 US: Las Vegas SUN: Corporations Stiffing Government on Fines 
21 US: BBC: Can a bush solve rural energy
22 US: Chronicle Herald: Author believes U.S. was testing atomic detona
23 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Chalk one up for industry
24 US: reviewjournal.com: WASHINGTON DIGEST: Senate approves
25 Guardian Unlimited: Pakistan Rejects U.S.-India Nuke Deal
26 Guardian Unlimited: Whatever happened to ... CND?
27 Leaked plan: G8 Seeks to Promote "Trillions" of Dollars of
28 BBC: Tories call for new nuclear subs
29 AFP: Australia, US, Japan praise China, seek to enhance Asian cooper
30 Independent: 'Enough is enough': wind farm builder threatens to quit
31 Xinhua: Funds earmarked for protection of retired atom bomb base   
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
32 US: Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water
33 Leaked plan: G8 Seeks to Promote "Trillions" of Dollars of
34 US: Clarion-Ledger: 2nd reactor being considered for Grand Gulf 
35 US: The Clarion-Ledger: Grand Goof? - 
36 US: NYT: Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water
37 US: Public Citizen: Duke Energy Should Be Denied Taxpayer Subsidies 
38 US: Joplin Globe: Eagle-Picher plant, Mid-America take part in nucle
39 El Universal Online: Nuclear plant foibles suggest candidates should
40 IRNA: Larijani: Peaceful nuclear activities pursued regardless of ta
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
41 News24:  10 exposed to radiation in Japan
42 US: Detroit Free Press: Nuclear safety left hanging as crane dangled
43 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Sick Ames Lab workers may get benefits
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
44 Sunday Herald: Dounreay nuclear store is leaking - 
45 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nuke firms seek support for Utah site 
46 US: Clarion-Ledger: Security, storage still major concerns 
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
47 DOE: DOE Seeks Public-Private Sector Expressions of Interest for 
48 Santa Fe Mexican: LANL Udall aims to save health records     
49 Hanford News: Energy Department fines Bechtel for violations at Hanf
50 Hanford News: Bechtel National faces $198,000 fine
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 SF Chronicle: THE DEFIANT WAR / When it began three years ago, few people
could have anticipated that the combat in Iraq would last so long 
or that the enemy would become a stubborn and resilient 
insurgency /Judged only on ethics, Iraq war gets just a C
 
THE DEFIANT WAR 

When it began three years ago, few people could have anticipated
that the combat in Iraq would last so long or that the enemy
would become a stubborn and resilient insurgency /Judged only on
ethics, Iraq war gets just a C
 
John Arquilla 

Sunday, March 19, 2006

On the third anniversary of the beginning of war in the harsh
environment of Iraq, the physical well-being of U.S. forces
seems far better than the state of the ethical health of our
country's military and civilian leadership. 

Our troops have learned to cope with extreme heat, pestilential
conditions and wily, dogged insurgents. But those at the top
rungs of managing the war for the United States have not done
nearly so well in meeting the challenge of maintaining good
moral conduct -- a failure whose contagion has even spread to
some American soldiers. 

The abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, the thousands of innocent
Iraqis killed and the hundreds of billions spent to force a
fruitless search for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction are
the symptoms of moral malaise. These problems should impel us,
at the three-year mark in this war, to look unflinchingly at our
own behavior. 

Such soul-searching can be greatly assisted if we review our
actions against the long-standing guidelines of the medieval
theologian Thomas Aquinas, whose "Treatise on Law" advanced
principles about what makes a war just or unjust. For more than
seven centuries, his ideas have stood as the ethical standard in
conflict, from the Hundred Years' War to what the Pentagon now
calls the Long War in Iraq. 

Aquinas broke the whole matter down into two main categories,
each with three components. First, moral action requires going
to war justly. One must demonstrate "right purpose," act with
"duly constituted authority," and fight only as a last resort.
In practical terms, this means not starting wars, making war
only with the authorization of governments or allies, and
exhausting all avenues of negotiation before fighting. 

With regard to conducting military operations ethically, Aquinas
emphasized the need to avoid excessive force, to protect
civilians and those we capture, as well as to try always to do
more good than harm. So, for example, President Harry Truman's
decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly violated
Aquinas' concepts of "proportionality" and "noncombatant
immunity." 

Truman defended his decision by arguing that using atom bombs
ended the war immediately, saving lives and, overall, doing more
good than harm. This is all still hotly debated, though, with
most ethicists tending to agree that Truman broke the rules for
fighting in a moral manner. 

The question now, regarding Iraq, is how we match up with
Aquinas' six basic measures of ethical behavior, referring
solely to our actions, because Aquinas believed that the evil
done by others is never an excuse for one's own transgressions. 

Let's take a look at our scores in all six categories. 

Right purpose: Our invasion of Iraq was not in response to an
imminent threat, but rather in anticipation of a gathering one.
Good ethical behavior allows self-defense, perhaps even
pre-emption when the enemy is massing for an attack. But it does
not countenance starting a preventive war. Grade: F. 

Duly constituted authority: Although there was no formal
declaration of war, more than 60 senators did vote to authorize
the invasion of Iraq. What was lacking was agreement by the
United Nations, an assent we obtained in 1950, at the outset of
the Korean War, and again in 1990 before the first Gulf War.
Grade B. 

Last resort: In some respects, it's amazing that we didn't go to
war again with Iraq much sooner. An Iraqi-American antagonism
had persisted throughout the 1990s, with much sniping back and
forth. And before invading three years ago, President Bush did
engage in several months of crisis bargaining. But one more
round of inspections was still possible, as Saddam Hussein was
dismantling missiles as we had demanded, right up until the
moment our tanks crossed the border. Grade: A-. 

Proportionality: Was shock and awe aerial bombing required to
defeat the Iraqi army? Hardly, because Hussein's 400,000 troops
simply melted away in the face of our advance. But we score well
in terms of the size of the force employed, which at
200,000-plus was less than half what senior generals wanted.
Further, the rubble-ization of Fallujah has been by far the
exception rather than the rule. Grade: B+. 

Noncombatant immunity: Estimates of the numbers of noncombatants
killed in the aftermath of our invasion vary, from official U.S.
figures of about 30,000 to a British study that puts the number
at as many as 100,000. The truth is somewhere in between.
Whatever the magnitude, it reflects a campaign fought with too
little care for civilian safety, and has featured serious abuses
of those we have taken into captivity. However, we have been
improving. Grade: C. 

More good than harm: This is another very poor category for us.
The war's cost is more than $300 billion, more than 2,300 of our
soldiers have been killed, with about 16,000 wounded. Iraqis no
longer suffer under Hussein, but the internal war that ignited
during our occupation has made the past three years even worse.
Also, we have to weigh the loss of respect the United States has
suffered in the world because of our invasion of Iraq. Grade:
D-. 

On a four-point scale, an average of these grades comes out a C. 

But the better thing to do is to home in on the marks in a more
diagnostic way. For example, had we obeyed the ethical stricture
to behave with right purpose, the war might not have happened at
all. Or, if we had striven for an A in seeking duly constituted
authority for the war, or negotiated a little more before
invading, we would have had much greater international support
and improved our chances of achieving more good than harm. 

In judging how we have fought in Iraq, it's clear that we needed
to behave far better toward Iraqis, and that our excesses have
fueled an insurgency that is waged, overwhelmingly, by Iraqis.
Had we behaved better, there would be fewer Iraqis fighting us
today. 

It is obvious from our performance in Iraq that we need to give
more attention to ethical concerns before going to war, for our
own good if nothing else. And, although it is too late to undo
the damage we have done in Iraq these past three years, we have
time right now to begin making moral matters a top priority
during the remainder of our occupation and in all future
military plans. We should also emphasize Aquinas' precepts in
all public debates about going to war. 

A world leader, and beacon of human rights, cannot hope to get
by with a C average in ethics. 

John Arquilla is professor of defense analysis at the United
States Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. The views
expressed are his own. Contact us at . 				
Page D - 1 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 2 WorldNetDaily: Preventing international crimes

 [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] 
 
Posted: March 18, 2006

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com 

When Bush went to Congress in September 2002, seeking "specific
statutory authorization" to invade Iraq, he based his case on
what we now know was "fixed" intelligence – a hastily completed
National Intelligence Estimate, which supposedly contained – but
did not – positive proof that Saddam was reconstructing his nuke
and chem-bio programs with the intention of supplying them to
Islamic terrorists for use against us. 

Of course, practically everyone in Congress already knew that
Bush intended to invade Iraq irrespective of what Saddam had
done, was doing or intended to do. 

In Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy Statement, he accused
Iraq, Iran and North Korea of being "rogue states" who: 


  + brutalize their own people and squander their national
resources for the personal gain of the rulers; 


  + display no regard for international law, threaten their
neighbors and callously violate international treaties to which
they are party; 


  + are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along
with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats
or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these
regimes; 


  + sponsor terrorism around the globe; and 


  + reject basic human values and hate the United States and
everything for which it stands. 

Now, hardly any member of the U.N. Security Council agreed with
Bush that Iraq then constituted a threat to any of its
neighbors, much less to the United States. 

Hence, this explicit threat by Bush in his National Security
Strategy of 2002 was extremely troubling: 

The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive
actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. 

The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction –
and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action
to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time
and place of the enemy's attack. 

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries,
the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively. 

On the eve of Bush's pre-emptive attack on Iraq, former Senate
Majority Leader Robert Byrd tried to get Congress to stop Bush
from misusing the highly conditional authority provided a few
months earlier in the Resolution Authorizing the Use of U.S.
Armed Forces Against Iraq. 

Byrd had this, inter alia, to say: 

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a
revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an
unfortunate time. 

The doctrine of pre-emption – the idea that the United States or
any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not
imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future – is
a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. 

It appears to be in contravention of international law and the
U.N. Charter. 

And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making
many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on
our – or some other nation's – hit list. 

Undeterred, on March 20, 2003, Bush informed Congress that he
was exercising the highly conditional authority Congress had
given him because he had "determined" that no "further
diplomatic or other peaceful means will adequately protect the
national security of the United States from the continuing
threat posed by Iraq." 

Has Bush been fazed by the horrific results of his –
unauthorized by either Congress or U.N. Security Council and
hence a violation of U.S. and international law – pre-emptive
attack against an utterly defenseless Iraq? 

Apparently not, because his just released the 2006 National
Security Strategy, which contains almost everything scary
contained in the 2002 version, with additions such as this: 

We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from
Iran. 

For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key
nuclear efforts from the international community. 

The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to
pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide
objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for
peaceful purposes. 

This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be
avoided. 

But, according to the Russians, Iran has met all its
international obligations. 

And, according to the director-general of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has provided objective guarantees –
above and beyond those required by its Safeguards Agreement with
the IAEA – that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes
only. 

So, perhaps Sen. Byrd can reprise his speech that an
unsanctioned pre-emptive attack "appears to be in contravention
of international law and the U.N. Charter." 

Besides, Iran may not be "utterly defenseless."
 
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. 	   	     

*****************************************************************
 3 [NYTr] Russia Rejects UN Proposals on Iran
 
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:57:40 -0600 (CST)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
AP - Mar 17, 2006
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_IRAN?SITE=WRKO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Russia Rejects Proposals to Demand Quick Progress Report 
on Iran's Suspect Nuclear Program

By NICK WADHAMS
Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Russia's U.N. ambassador on Friday rejected proposals
for the U.N. Security Council to demand a quick progress report on Iran's
suspect nuclear program, saying - only half in jest - that fast action could
lead to the bombing of Iran by June.

Andrey Denisov spoke just before a Security Council meeting where diplomats
considered a revised list of British, French and American proposals for a
statement on Iran. The latest drafts retain many elements that Russia and
China have opposed.

A key sticking point for Russia is a proposal asking Mohamed ElBaradei, the
chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to deliver a progress
report in two weeks on Iran's progress toward clearing up suspicions about
its nuclear program. Russia and China say two weeks is far too soon.

"Let's just imagine that we adopt it and today we issued that statement -
then what happens after two weeks?" Denisov told The Associated Press. "In
such a pace we'll start bombing in June."

Denisov chuckled after he made the remark, but it reflected Russia's fears
that the international community has not yet decided how to respond if Iran
continues to resist demands that it make explicitly clear it is not seeking
nuclear arms.

But U.S. Ambassador John Bolton betrayed an increasing frustration with
Russia, which along with China wants the council to take only mild action.
Bolton warned that as he spoke, Iran's centrifuges were enriching uranium -
a crucial step toward producing weapons-grade fissile material.

"If I were as near to Iran as Russia is, I'd certainly want to get this
resolved quickly," Bolton said. "I think in the Russian nuclear
establishment, I think they know exactly what Iran is doing."

The ambassadors of Britain, France and the United States said they were
flexible on the 14-day deadline, and diplomats suggested that the council
could ultimately ask for a report in 30-45 days as a concession to Russia
and China.

"We have signaled that there's flexibility on the assumption that we adopt
this text soon, but the longer it takes, then the shorter the time will be,"
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry said.

The council planned to meet again Tuesday.

In the meantime, senior officials from six key countries involved in
negotiations over Iran's nuclear program will meet Monday to discuss both
initial council action and the larger strategy toward Iran. The officials
from Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany will talk
about both the proposals circulated Friday and overall strategy.

The Security Council is split on the issue of Iran's nuclear program between
Britain, France and the United States, which want a statement spelling out a
number of detailed demands, and Russia and China, which believe that such
action would send the wrong message to Iran.

Russia and China, which are allies of Iran, have said in the past that tough
council action could spark an Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. They also fear council action could eventually lead
to tougher measures, such as sanctions.

Backed by the United States, Britain and France have proposed a statement
that would spell out demands that have already been made by the IAEA. They
include a demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and take steps toward
greater transparency and more cooperation.

Uranium enrichment can be used either in electricity generation or to make
nuclear weapons. Iran insists its program is to produce nuclear energy - not
weapons, as the United States believes.

Denisov said that even though the IAEA demands were not new, Russia
nonetheless wants the council simply to refer to IAEA documents where they
were first expressed.

The primary concern of Russia and China throughout has been that the IAEA -
and not the Security Council - play the main role in handling Iran.

"I think the basic message - if we do have a message - is to be a short,
brief, clear-cut message to support the IAEA," China's U.N. Ambassador Wang
Guangya said after Friday's meeting.

) 2006 The Associated Press.

       
                                *
================================================================
.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 Guardian Unlimited: Britain May Push for New Talks With Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday March 18, 2006 8:16 PM

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Britain has come up with a plan to bring
the United States into new talks with Iran over its nuclear
program and may float the idea Monday at a high-level diplomatic
meeting outside the U.N. Security Council, a U.N. diplomat said
Saturday. 

With Washington now ready to meet with Iran over Iraq, any such
plan put forward by a staunch ally may offer the Americans a
face-saving way to talk to Tehran about its nuclear program
after years of refusing direct contacts on the issue. 

The diplomat, who is well-informed about international efforts
to pressure Iran to make concessions on its nuclear program,
spoke on condition of anonymity because the strategy was
confidential. He said the British proposal would have the five
permanent U.N. Security Council members sit at the same table
with the Iranians, along with Germany. 

The British are planning to make the proposal at a meeting of
senior government officials from China, France, Germany, Russia,
and the United States, the diplomat told The Associated Press. 

They would offer Tehran a new package of unspecified incentives
in exchange for a negotiated settlement on Iranian plans for
uranium enrichment, the diplomat said. 

A White House spokesman said Saturday he would not speculate on
the possible outcomes of Monday's meeting. He said the United
States will be discussing the issue further in the Security
Council and with members of the international community, which
has sent a clear warning to Iran about its pursuit of nuclear
weapons. 

Iran maintains its program is for generating electricity. 

Any talks with U.S. involvement likely would need to focus not
only economic but security guarantees meant to reassure Tehran
that Washington has no plans to force regime change. Critics of
U.S. policy have maintained for years that Tehran was unlikely
to compromise on its nuclear program without such a direct
guarantee. 

While not discounting such a British plan, two other U.N.
diplomats who have been following the issue less directly said
they were unaware of it. 

The idea for the new talks appeared to be emerging as a
compromise only if there is no progress among the five permanent
council members in agreeing on a strategy on Iran and if Tehran
remained uncooperative, the one diplomat said. 

Any such negotiations would begin by early summer, he added. 

Similar negotiations between Iran and France, Germany and
Britain collapsed in August after Tehran rejected a basket of
economic and political incentives offered in return for a
permanent end to uranium enrichment, which it voluntarily
suspended in 2004 under a deal with the Europeans. 

Its subsequent moves to develop full-blown enrichment
capabilities led the International Atomic Energy Agency's
35-nation board to ask for Security Council involvement earlier
this year. Uranium enrichment can create both fuel and the
fissile core of nuclear warheads. 

Any formal push by the British of such a plan is significant
because they have been among the most stalwart backers of
Washington's call for strong pressure to be applied to Tehran,
including the possibility of Security Council sanctions. 

If raised by Britain, the plan would put the Americans under
some pressure to accept. 

It is bound to be supported by Russia and China, which oppose
any Security Council action beyond an appeal to Tehran to
cooperate with the Vienna-based IAEA probe of its nuclear
activities and to re-impose a freeze on uranium enrichment. 

Germany too, would be expected to back such negotiations,
leaving the Americans and French potentially isolated. 

Still, such a British proposal might be welcomed by more
moderate U.S. administration officials as a way of engaging Iran
directly without losing face. 

One of the diplomats suggested Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice was prepared to consider such talks while senior Pentagon
and U.S. National Security Council officials were opposed. 

With talks stalled in the Security Council, moderate Bush
administration officials might be ready to contemplate direct
multilateral talks with Tehran similar to the six-nation talks
with North Korea designed to get it to give up its nuclear arms
aspirations. 

The concept of U.S. involvement in such talks seems more
realistic after the Bush administration's decision earlier this
week to talk to Iranian officials about Iraq after a nearly
three-decade break in diplomatic ties between the two countries.
U.S. officials have emphasized those talks would not touch on
the nuclear issue. 

There was a split in Iran on Saturday over the proposed
Tehran-Washington talks on Iraq, with hard-liners criticizing
them as a ``trap'' but reformers praising them as a step
forward.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Called on to Resume Nuclear Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Saturday March 18, 2006 4:16 AM

AP Photo TOK211 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and
her counterparts from Australia and Japan urged Iran on Saturday
to suspend all uranium enrichment activities and resume
negotiations over its disputed nuclear program. 

``We have grave concerns about Iran's nuclear program and
discussed the need for concerted action at the U.N. Security
Council to convince Iran to promptly suspend all enrichment
related activities, fully cooperate with the IAEA (International
Atomic Energy Agency), return to negotiations and take all steps
called for by the IAEA board,'' Rice, Australian Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso
said in a joint statement released after three-way security
talks. 

Iran offered Thursday to enter into talks with the United States
aimed at stabilizing Iraq. But White House national security
adviser Stephen J. Hadley said Friday that Iran's offer is
probably a ploy designed to ``divert pressure and divert
attention'' from international concern that Tehran wants a
nuclear bomb. 

The United States has accused Iran of using a civilian nuclear
program as a cover to build atomic weapons, an allegation Tehran
denies. The U.N. Security Council is expected to discuss Iran's
nuclear program this month, with Washington pressing for
penalties. 

In a joint statement released after their talks, Rice, Downer
and Aso also called on North Korea to unconditionally and
immediately return to six-party nuclear talks. 

North Korea has stayed away from negotiations over its nuclear
program since November, demanding that Washington lift financial
restrictions imposed on a Macau bank and North Korean companies
for alleged complicity in counterfeiting and money laundering. 

The six-party talks, involving the two Koreas, China, Japan,
Russia and the United States, had appeared to reach a
breakthrough in September when the secretive regime agreed to
give up its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security
guarantees. No progress has since been made on implementing the
agreement, however. 

The talks held Saturday by Rice and the Japanese and Australian
ministers also explored China's rapid economic and military
expansion. 

Prior to leaving Washington last week, Rice said the three
countries must ensure that a buildup in China's military
spending was ``not outsized for China's regional ambitions and
interests'' - sparking concern that the United States would
pursue a policy of containment. 

Downer sought to downplay such concerns when he addressed
reporters following the talks. 

``It is not for China to think we are ganging up on China or
that Australia is suddenly changing its policy on China,'' he
said. ``We certainly don't have a policy of ... containment.'' 

The joint statement made scant reference to China, merely
welcoming the country's ``constructive engagement in the
region.'' 

Rice prodded Japan and China on Friday to improve relations
recently strained by security and territorial disputes. 

``We have encouraged good relations between China and Japan and
even though there are difficulties in that relationship, China
and Japan also share a lot of interests,'' including extensive
economic ties, she said. 

Japanese leaders are nervous about China's military expansion,
planned for more than 14 percent next year. In Beijing on
Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang insisted
that China is open about its military spending. 

In their statement Saturday, Rice, Downer and Aso agreed to meet
regularly to discuss regional security issues. 

^-- 

Associated Press Writer Mike Corder contributed to this report. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: ANALYSIS: Talks With Iran Could Help Bush
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday March 18, 2006 9:01 AM

AP Photo WHRE106 

By BARRY SCHWEID 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Possible negotiations between the United
States and Iran and the convening of the first session of a new
Iraqi parliament could give the Bush administration a
long-needed lift. 

The recent inaugural session of Iraq's parliament is a positive
step toward the new Iraq that President Bush envisions as he
pursues a war that's unpopular with many Americans. Progress
toward forging a unity government representing all of Iraq's
sects would be a boost for a country that has been veering close
to civil war. 

U.S. intelligence strongly suspects Iran has been arming Iraqi
Shiite militia and some insurgent groups. If talks with Iran
come off, the administration would try persuading Tehran to curb
its activities with the argument that instability in Iraq could
envelop the area, including Iran. 

For Bush, whose dive in the polls reflects Americans' eroding
confidence in his Iraq strategy, progress on either front would
be welcome relief - especially with midterm elections for
control of Congress just eight months away. 

There are troublesome developments as well. The eruption of
violence among Kurds in northern Iraq poses new security
problems for already strained Iraqi forces, particularly if
Islamic radicals were behind the outbreak in Halabja. 

Indications are the stone-throwing Kurds were registering
displeasure with their own leaders and not threatening conflict
with other Iraqi groups. 

The disorder distracts from an aggressive U.S.-Iraqi military
campaign against insurgents in a Sunni Arab-dominated area
outside Samarra, where the bombing of a Shiite shrine three
weeks ago ignited the most recent siege of violence. 

Referring to the volatile situation in the country, U.N. envoy
Ashraf Qazi said Friday that it has deteriorated since he took
up the post 19 months ago. 

Qazi, speaking at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington,
said Iraq was not on the brink of civil war. But he described
the situation as serious and said it ``could lead to a breakdown
of order'' if left unchecked. 

Bush administration officials are convinced Iran is playing a
mischievous role in Iraq, especially in arming militias with
explosives and other weapons. 

They said Friday that Tehran's willingness to have face-to-face
discussions with U.S. officials about Iraq could be an effort to
divert attention from an approaching confrontation at the United
Nations over Iran's nuclear program. 

``The concern, therefore, is that it is simply a device by the
Iranians to try and divert pressure that they're feeling in New
York,'' White House national security adviser Steven Hadley
said. 

``Obviously, this is something that we and those who are working
with us on these issues will not let happen,'' he added. 

Despite the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, the
administration has been seeking talks with Tehran narrowly
limited to its intervention in Iraq. Despite its skepticism,
some in the administration want to try setting up the talks, at
the very least to avoid criticism in case Iran turns out to be
serious about seeking a solution in Iraq. 

Ruled out by U.S. officials is discussion of any attempt by Iran
to gain a political foothold in Iraq, and the nuclear dispute,
which could soon come before the U.N. Security Council. 

The talks, which would be held in Baghdad, are not the first
between the United States and Iran even though the two foes do
not have diplomatic relations. They have met in the past for
cooperative efforts in stabilizing Afghanistan and countering
narcotics, for instance. 

The antipathy is immense, however. American officials have
denounced Iran repeatedly as the world's No. 1 supporter of
terrorism. 

--- 

Barry Schweid has covered diplomacy for The Associated Press
since 1973. 

On the Net: 

State Department: http://www.state.gov 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, N.Korea Nukes Cause 'Grave Concern'
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday March 18, 2006 10:16 AM

AP Photo TOK218 

By ANNE GEARAN 

AP Diplomatic Writer 

PAGO, PAGO, American Samoa (AP) - The United States, Japan and
Australia said Saturday they share ``grave concerns'' about
Iran's nuclear program, along with the view the U.N. security
council must act to deter Iran from activities that could
produce an atomic bomb. 

In a joint statement following first-ever three-way security
talks, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her counterparts
also said North Korea should unconditionally and immediately
return to six-party nuclear talks. 

``We have grave concerns about Iran's nuclear program and
discussed the need for concerted action at the U.N. Security
Council to convince Iran to promptly suspend all enrichment
related activities, fully cooperate with the IAEA (International
Atomic Energy Agency), return to negotiations and take all steps
called for by the IAEA board,'' Rice, Australian Foreign
Minister Alexander Downer and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso
said in a joint statement released after three-way security
talks. 

Iran insists its nuclear program is intended only to generate
electricity, but the United States and others suspect the regime
is seeking the technology to build a nuclear weapon. 

The U.N. security council is currently locked in discussions
over what action to take against Iran for resuming its uranium
enrichment activities. 

Meanwhile, North Korea has stayed away from the negotiating
table over its nuclear program since November, demanding that
Washington lift financial restrictions imposed on a Macau bank
and North Korean companies for alleged complicity in a
counterfeiting and money laundering scheme. 

The six-party talks, involving the two Koreas, China, Japan,
Russia and the United States, had appeared to reach a
breakthrough in September, when Pyongyang agreed to give up its
nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees.
However, no progress has been made since to implement an
agreement. 

The talks in Australia also covered the Iraq war, the recent
U.S.-India deal covering India's nuclear energy program and
regional efforts to combat terrorism, State Department spokesman
Sean McCormack said. 

The influence of China in the Pacific region was part of the
discussion, but was not a defining topic, the spokesman said. 

The joint statement made scant reference to China, merely
welcoming the country's ``constructive engagement in the
region.'' 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 IRNA: China requires IAEA report on Iran at Security Council 

New York, March 18, IRNA                                                                                                                 

Iran-Security Council-China 

China on Friday offered a plan to ask the head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency to report to the UN Security
Council on Iran's compliance.

 China backed by Russia have argued that the IAEA chief should
first report to his 35-nation board, which would diminish the
role of the UN Security Council.

 Chinese ambassador to UN, Wang Guangya, told reporters before
all 15 council members met on the Iran crisis, the report should
be given to "both the IAEA and the Security Council"
simultaneously.

 Wang said Russia and China still had differences with a draft
statement backed by the United States, Britain and France that
expresses "serious concern" about Iran's nuclear program and
asks the IAEA to report on whether Tehran had complied with its
demands.

 "We need to send a message that the Security Council is
supporting reinforcing the role of the IAEA, not to replace or
take it over from IAEA," Wang said.

 The resolution suggests that a report from IAEA director
general Mohamed ElBaradei on Iran's progress to be sent to
Security Council within two weeks. But China, Russia and others
say this is too short.

 "I think at least four weeks to six weeks," Wang said.

 Russian ambassador to UN, Andrei Denisov, told reporters: "The
crux of the idea is that the leading agency is the IAEA."
 "It must pilot the whole process," while the Security Council
should remain "informed," he said.

 A statement needs the approval of all 15 council members while
a resolution requires a minimum of nine votes and no veto from
the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

 Both China and Russia have expressed fears that council
involvement could result in a cut-off by Iran of IAEA
inspections.

 No decision is expected until next week, after senior foreign
affairs officials from the five powers and Germany meet in New
York on Monday to discuss future strategy on Iran.

*****************************************************************
 9 IRNA: Access to nuclear research, Iran minimum demand for talks - FM -
      
Tehran, March 18, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-FM-Nuclear 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Saturday that
access to nuclear research is the minimum demand and condition
of the Iranian nation for talks which are currently underway.

 Mottaki made the remark while talking to reporters at the end
of a conference of Iran's missions abroad.

 "The negotiating parties with Iran are well aware of this
explicit stance of the country," he said.

 He added, "There are different views in the United Nations
Security Council but our rights should be respected by decisions
which will be made.

 "Otherwise, we will not accept such decisions. We will accept
those decisions of the Security Council which respect our rights
enshined by Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 "There are countries in the council who believe in our right
(on access to nuclear research). We hope these countries will
adopt wise, fair and multilateral stand."
 The minister stated that talks with the United States would
only include issues on Iraq, saying, "The problems are
originated from contradiction between the US words and action in
Iraq."
 Mottaki added the talks are aimed to help complete the
political trend, establish a broad-based government and support
its nation.

 He said Iran, as a country in the region, has opinion on
regional developments, adding, "We have explicit and clear
stance on support for the Iraqi nation which will be declared in
the future talks (with the US)."


*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: US call to hold talks with Iran, not new: Boroujerdi

Tehran, March 18, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-US-MP 

The United States call to hold direct talks with Iran is not
new, Head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy
Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi said on Saturday.

 Leader of Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
(SCIRI), Abd al-Aziz Hakim, appealed to Iran to accept
Washington's offer to hold talks with Iran with the aim of
improving situation in neighborly country of Iraq.

 He said Iraqi people expect Iranian leadership to open a clear
dialogue with America regarding Iraq, a dialogue for the benefit
of the Iraqi people.

 "Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Ali
Larijani, has announced our policy in this regard but the trend
of this issue demands more study," Boroujerdi told IRNA.

 Larijani, addressing a closed-door session of the Majlis on
Thursday, voiced Iran's readiness to hold talks with the US on
Iraqi issues.

 "Since the call is made by a prominent Iraqi Muslim leader,
Tehran accepts it in order to resolve problems in Iraq and to
help establish an independent government and real freedom in
that country," Larijani noted.

 "We will appoint a negotiating team for talks soon," he further
announced.

 The MP added, "Members of the Majlis commission held no session
to discuss the issue because they were debating on the budget
bill for the next Iranian fiscal year of 1385.

 "The US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad had requested talks
with Tehran several times but Iran accepted Hakim's request.

 "Such proposals are basically natural but adoption of any
decision in this regard needs more study."
 Asked about Majlis sensitivity towards the offer, Boroujerdi
said, "The issue has been previously considered at the Supreme
National Security Council. All its aspects will be discussed.

 "The issue was also raised at Majlis Commission on National
Security and Foreign Policy, but, as it was previously announced
Majlis will precisely discuss the case in line with decisions of
the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC)."

*****************************************************************
 11 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: No agreement yet on UNSC statement 

2006/03/18   
  
Tehran, March 18 - Members of the UN Security Council Friday
failed to reach agreement over a number of articles of a draft
statement on Iran's nuclear program.
 
During the behind closed door meeting, members of the council
expressed their viewpoints over the new draft which had little
difference with a previous one. The draft expresses concern
about Iran's enrichment activities and urges for Iran to
cooperate and adopt tranparency measures beyond normal IAEA
inspections and the additional protocol.
 
The draft calls on Iran to suspend all activities related to
uraneum enrichment, even the research and discovery activities
and reconsider decition to build a heavy water moderated reactor.
 
The draft, scheduled to be discussed again on Tuesday,
underlines role of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to
resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and asks the agency's Director
General to report to the Security Council on Iran's cooperation
within two weeks.
 
Representatives of the United States, France and Britain claimed
the council has closed an agreement over a statement, while
Chinese representative maintained that negotiations must
continue.
 
Meanwhile, France's ambassador said that provided Iran suspends
enrichment, the Europe will soften stance in the negotiations.
 
The British ambassador for his part said that a clear message
must be given to Tehran in order to show that the Security
Council backs the resolutions of the IAEA's Council of
Governors.   

  Copyright 2004, 
All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
News Network 
*****************************************************************
 12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Enrichment, minimal demand - Mottaki 

  2006/03/18   
  
Tehran, March 18 - "Iran's minimal demand for ongoing
negotiations (on its nuclear program) is to enjoy peaceful
nuclear technology as well as uranium enrichment," Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters Saturday.

 Pointing to the idea of some members of the UN Security Council
on considering Iran's right to use peaceful nuclear technology,
Mottaki expressed hope that the council's decision would be
logical, just and broadbased.

 Asked about ad hoc Iran-US negotiation over Iraq, the Foreign
Minister said that "the negotiations, which Iran is called for,
are aimed to help final establishment of the Iraqi government
and to support the country's people".

 Mottaki blamed the United States for the Iraqi imbroglio,
saying "the main problem is that there are contraditions between
US word and deed."
 
"Following the call of the Head of Supreme Council of Islamic
Revolution in Iraq, Sayed Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, Iran decied to
take steps in aid of the country."

  Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: Iran refuses to suspend nuclear activities 

 Sat Mar 18, 7:37 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranvowed again that it would refuse to
suspend its uranium enrichment research despite the UN Security
Council's ongoing discussions mulling sanctions against the
Islamic republic. 

"There is no reason for us to accept the suspension of our
research activities nor to renounce our rights which conform
with international rulings," government spokesman Gholamhossein
Elham said at his weekly press conference. 

"The Iranians will not permit this," he said Saturday. 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the student news
agency, ISNA, that "if the Security Council asks us something
that does not include our rights, it will be unacceptable for
us. 

"Iranian people want to have peaceful nuclear technology and
uranium enrichment as their basic requirement," he added. 

The Security Council met Friday and inched toward agreement on a
revised Franco-British draft urging Iran to suspend uranium
enrichment. 

It would be a first step on the road to UN-imposed sanctions for
Tehran over its controversial nuclear activities. 

The 15-member council met for more than one hour to review the
text, which incorporated comments made by members after a series
of informal sessions earlier this week. Members agreed to meet
again Tuesday after getting reactions from their capitals. 

Elements of the revised draft released Friday said the
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agencywould report "to the Security Council as well as to
the IAEA board of governors, in (14) days on Iranian compliance
with the requirements set out by the IAEA board". 

These include suspending immediately all uranium enrichment
activities and resuming implementation of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty's Additional Protocol that allows for
wider inspections of a country's nuclear facilities. 

However, both Russia and China said the 14-day deadline was too
short. 

Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to acquire
nuclear weapons and insists it has a right to conduct uranium
enrichment in order to furnish nuclear fuel for its power
plants. 

*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: Top officials of six major powers to meet on Iran

 Sun Mar 19, 4:33 AM ET                          

NEW YORK (AFP) - Top foreign ministry officials of the five
veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council and Germany are
to meet to plot long-term strategy on how to tackle the Iranian
nuclear crisis. 

 Participants at the meeting, to be held at Britain's UN
mission, will be US Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs Nicholas Burns, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei
Kislyak and foreign ministry political directors John Sawers of
Britain, Stanislas de Laboulaye of France, Zhang Yan of China
and Michael Schaefer of Germany, officials said. 

Germany is one of three European powers -- along with France and
Britain -- which have pursued three years of inconclusive
negotiations to coax Tehran into renouncing plans to seek
nuclear weapons in exchange for economic incentives. 

The high-level meeting comes as the 15-member Security Council
is reporting progress in efforts to agree a revised
Franco-British draft urging Iran" /> Iranto comply with demands
of the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International
Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) that it restore international
confidence in the peaceful nature of its atomic program. 

The text aims to reinforce the IAEA demands, including immediate
suspension of all uranium enrichment activities and resumption
of implementation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT)'s Additional Protocol that allows for wider inspections of
a country's nuclear facilities. 

France and Britain hope that their draft can be adopted by the
full Council next week. 

In announcing the six-nation meeting, a US State Department
official said Thursday that the participants would discuss the
Franco-Britsh draft, but added: "I wouldn't be surprised if they
talked about the broader issue of Iran's nuclear program." 

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said Friday that the New
York meeting "will basically look at the longer range", a
reference to future steps the international community might take
if Iran continues to defy the IAEA. 

His Chinese counterpart Wang Guangya said Friday that the
meeting aimed to "consider the next step of activities by the
IAEA". 

Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to acquire
nuclear weapons and insists it has a right as a signatory to the
NPT to conduct uranium enrichment. 

Western powers see adoption of the Franco-British non-binding
statement as the first step in a graduated response from the
Security Council that could ultimately lead to sanctions against
Tehran if it refuses to cooperate. 

But Russia and China, which have close economic and energy ties
with Tehran, are cool to sanctions and insist on the IAEA
retaining the lead role in handling the issue. 

Wang said Friday that Tehran should be given up to six weeks to
comply with the IAEA demands rather than the 14 days proposed by
France and Britain in their draft. 

Meanwhile Iran remained defiant Saturday. 

"There is no reason for us to accept the suspension of our
research activities nor to renounce our rights which conform
with international rulings," said Iranian government spokesman
Gholamhossein Elham at his weekly press conference. 

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the student
news agency, ISNA, that "if the Security Council asks us
something that does not include our rights, it will be
unacceptable for us. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: Security Council close to agreement on Iran statement - diplomats
     
 Fri Mar 17, 7:59 PM ET 		 	 

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The Security Council is inching toward
agreeing a revised Franco-British draft urging Iran" /> Iranto
suspend uranium enrichment, diplomats said as China suggested
that Tehran be given up to six weeks to do so. 

 The 15-member council met for over one hour Friday to review
the revised text, which incorporated comments made by members
after a series of informal sessions earlier this week. Members
agreed to meet again Tuesday after getting reactions from their
capitals. 

"The response we got from our colleagues today suggests that we
are pretty close to where they wanted us to be," Britain's UN
envoy Emyr Jones Parry told reporters. 

"Our wish remains that the council should act expeditiously on
this text and send the clearest possible signal (to Tehran) ...
to reinforce the activities of the ( International Atomic Energy
Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency) Agency," he
added. 

French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere also said he was
"encouraged by the reaction" to the revised text, which he noted
was "getting a lot of support." 

"We are not very far now from the end of the discussion," the
French envoy said, adding that the co-sponsors were awaiting
reactions from their capitals to the text. "I hope the reactions
will be positive." 

Elements of the revised draft released Friday said the UN
nuclear watchdog would report "to the Security Council as well
as to the IAEA board of governors, in (14) days on Iranian
compliance with the requirements set out by the IAEA board". 

These include suspending immediately all uranium enrichment
activities and resuming implementation of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty's Additional Protocol that allows for
wider inspections of a country's nuclear facilities. 

But speaking before the meeting, Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya
said the 14-day deadline was too short. 

"We must leave sufficient time for diplomacy and for the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency) to work ... at least four
weeks to six weeks," he noted. 

The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, responded: "I don't
think there's really been much support to go beyond a month,"
adding, however, that there was some flexibility on the US side
on this point. 

"The main intent here is to get the Iranians to reconsider the
mistake that they've made these last 18 years, trying to pursue
nuclear weapons, so the sooner we get that message out and the
sooner we hear their response I think the better," Bolton added. 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in an interview with The
Financial Times on Friday, also dismissed the 14-day period as
"not very feasible". 

Lavrov said he saw "a parallel" between the current Iranian
crisis and the run-up to the US-led invasion of Iraq" /> Iraqin
2003 when the Security Council intervened before UN inspectors
had done their job. 

"We would not like to see the situation where the value of the
professional agencies would be underestimated ... at the expense
of us getting to the bottom of the facts," Lavrov said. 

Russia's UN envoy Andrei Denisov welcomed the Franco-British
draft's reference to the need for IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to
send his report on Iranian compliance to both the Security
Council and the IAEA board of governors. 

"This is movement in the right direction but we think it is not
enough," he said. "We still think the IAEA should play the
leading role." 

"It would be logical that ElBaradei report be reviewed by the
(IAEA) board first and then sent to the Security Council,"
Denisov said, stressing that the IAEA was the proper place to
assess technical aspects of the nuclear dossier. 

Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to acquire
nuclear weapons and insists it has a right as a signatory to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty to conduct uranium enrichment. 

Meanwhile Wang said a meeting of senior foreign ministry
officials of the Security Council's five permanent members and
Germany in New York Monday aimed to "consider the next step of
activities by the IAEA". 

US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas
Burns, and his counterparts from China, France, Russia and
Britain, which are permanent members of the Security Council and
have veto-wielding power, plus Germany, will attend the meeting,
a State Department official said Thursday. 

Germany is one of three European powers -- along with France and
Britain -- which have pursued three years of inconclusive
negotiations to persuade Tehran to renounce plans to seek
nuclear weapons in exchange for economic incentives. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 16 IRNA: UNSC Iran talks yield no result 

United Nations, New York, March 18, IRNA                                                                                                

Iran-UNSC-Nuclear 

The members of UN Security Council (UNSC) here Friday ended
their 90-minute talks behind closed doors on Iran's nuclear
program, failing to reach agreement on adopting any statements.

 France and Britain made revisions in the previous statement to
narrow the gap between the stances of China and Russia on the
one hand and that of the United States on the other. The
changes, however, were not accepted.

 Representatives from China and Russia said they should consult
the adopted changes with their governments and announce the
results afterwards.

 The five veto-wielding states of the Security Council, the
United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, have held
four rounds of unsuccessful talks in recent days.

 Russia and China are resisting a resolution from the other
three members.

 The US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who takes
every opportunity to talk against Iran, told reporters the next
session is slated for Tuesday.

*****************************************************************
 17 IRNA: Kyrgyzstan hopes Iran's nuclear issue will be settled via talks
      
Tehran, March 19, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-Kyrgyzstan-Nuclear 

Kyrgyz Ambassador to Iran Avaz Bek Atahanov here Sunday said
that his country hopes that Iran's nuclear issue will be solved
through negotiation, diplomacy and within the framework of
international laws.

 Speaking to reporters on the occasion of the 24th anniversary
of Kyrgyzstan's Revolution (March 24) at Kyrgyz Embassy in
Tehran, he underlined that Iran's nuclear dossier is highly
important to all countries.

 "Iran's success in its nuclear program can serve as a model for
many countries which either intend to initiate their nuclear
activities for peaceful purposes or are determined to develop
their relevant plans.

 "The majority of the Central Asian states are doing their best
to protect the area from being polluted by nuclear weapons. But
many of them wish to access nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes," he added.

 Elsewhere in his remarks, the diplomat said that his country is
facing the question about the role it can play in case Iran is
attacked by the US.

 Atahanov added that currently Ganci air base situated in
Bishkek, which was established during the war in Afghanistan, is
merely used by the US to support its Afghan-based troops.

 Turning to Russia's air base in northern Kyrgyzstan, he said
that Ganci air base will be in operation so far as the US forces
remain in Afghanistan.

 He sincerely thanked Iran's government for granting a
 1.7-million-dollar grant for his country's development.

 "Iran's decision to earmark a 50-million-euro credit to Iranian
companies for investment in Kyrgyzstan will promote our economy.

 "Kyrgyz industries, mines, economic and production centers,
foreign trade and agriculture are among the sectors quite
suitable for foreign investment," he added.

 He pointed to the high priority given to economic growth in his
country and stressed that his country's revolutionary government
is determined to comply with all of its former commitments.

 Besides, Kyrgyzstan will attempt to expand its relations with
the neighboring states, in particular Iran.

 Meanwhile, Atahanov briefed the media on the trend of formation
of the March 24, 2005 people's revolution in Kyrgyzstan Republic.

 Kyrgyzstan is one of the five Central Asian states, which
gained independence upon disintegration of the former Soviet
Union.

 With a five million population, this Central Asian country
enjoys a favorable status among the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) because of its great number of mines, particularly
that of aluminum and generation of 12.5 billion kilowatts of
electricity.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 18 Daily Times: Targeting countries dealing with Iran is bad policy

Editorial: 

Pakistan Daily Times

Friday, March 17, 2006

EDITORIAL: Targeting countries dealing with Iran is bad policy 
In a move that is likely to up the ante between the United
States and Iran, already locked in a confrontation, the
50-member US House International Relations Committee voted 37-3
to pass legislation that will end US economic aid to any country
that helped Iran by investing in that country’s energy sector or
permitted a private entity to make such investment. In 1996,
President Bill Clinton had signed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Bill
(ILSA), which called for sanctions against foreign companies
investing in the energy sector of Iran and Libya. ILSA also
barred, through executive order, American oil and gas companies
from trading with Iran and Libya. By all indications, the
legislation is set to pass through the House easily, though it
may encounter some hurdles in the Senate.

Interestingly, it appears that the House Committee pushed the
legislation through in the face of State Department objections.
According to reports, the administration outlined its position
in a letter from the State Department’s legislative affairs
chief, Jeffrey Bergner, to the committee’s chairman, Rep Henry
Hyde. The department argued that “the legislation would inhibit
the administration’s ability to build and maintain an
international consensus to confront Iran’s violations
collectively ... [and] create tensions with countries whose help
we need in dealing with Iran and shift the focus away from
Iran’s actions and spotlight differences between us and our
allies.” A sympathetic view would be that the House Committee
has ignored the executive branch and done its own thing. But
that may be too simplistic given the sequence of events.
Consider.

The policy to isolate Iran has flowed directly from the White
House, beginning with President George Bush’s “axis of evil”
speech in 2002. Since 2003, when Iran conceded that it had kept
some aspects of its nuclear programme hidden from the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the Bush administration has
taken the lead in collaboration with the European Union to put
the squeeze on Iran. As part of a multilateral effort to corner
Iran, the Bush administration has also shown its opposition to
the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, which was fast
becoming the flagship of the Pakistan-India normalisation
process. The level of opposition to the project reached a point
where the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, after signing
the July 2005 nuclear deal in Washington, told the media that he
did not see how banks and IFIs would underwrite the deal given
the Bush administration’s opposition to it. Mr Singh’s statement
created a furore in India and he had to put a spin on it at the
time. However, events since then, including the removal from the
petroleum ministry of Mani Shankar Aiyar, the leading advocate
in India of the deal and a larger energy grid, showed that New
Delhi was moving away from the IPI project.

During the recent visit to South Asia by Mr Bush, one of the
reasons given by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for the
deal with India was to reduce New Delhi’s reliance on fossil
fuels, a reference to the energy-grid project and the IPI. In
Pakistan, Mr Bush said that he had “no beef” with the
Pakistan-Iran deal but it seems that the policy is more nuanced
than it appeared. The passage of the bill at the committee level
has an interesting waiver clause. A presidential waiver of the
aid cut-off is permitted if he considers it to be in US
interest. This does two things: it allows the executive branch
to play around with whom to target and when. In other words, the
US intends to brandish its Damocles’ sword. From this it seems
that the executive branch has got the legislature to do what it
would not have wanted to do directly while retaining its exit in
order to apply the law on a case-to-case basis.

This move should also be seen in conjunction with US efforts to
launch the so-called Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
last month as part of Mr Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative. The
idea is to supply low enriched uranium to countries that have
signed the NPT to take care of their nuclear energy requirements
without the risk that some of them may seek to develop nuclear
weapons through the fuel cycle. As US Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman said ahead of a G8 energy meeting in Moscow, “We have a
choice: we can play a risky game of catch-up in the coming
decades or we can engage the world with a new, safer and more
secure approach to nuclear energy.”

The problem, however, is that nuclear energy and
non-proliferation make two of the three pillars of the NPT, the
third and forgotten one being disarmament. The Bush
administration through its actions has shown its utter disregard
for the third pillar. It seeks to advance America’s own weapons
programme and it is prepared to help select allies do the same.
Simultaneously, however, the Bush administration is bent on
ensuring that no other country develops a weapons capability —
most definitely not Iran. This approach is likely to fail, not
least because it is predicated on precipitating the existing
imbalance of power. While the NPT was a discriminatory treaty it
included Article VI which the legitimate nuclear weapon states
accepted and which stipulated that they would negotiate their
way towards disarmament. That article is now dead for all
practical purposes. And its demise does not bode well for the
world. * 

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 19 Guardian Unlimited: General: Not Much Confidence in Iran Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday March 19, 2006 6:01 PM

AP Photo UNDK119 

WASHINGTON (AP) - A top commander of U.S. forces expressed doubt
Sunday that negotiations between the United States and Iran over
Iraq would help bring peace and stability in the Middle East. 

``I don't have a lot of confidence that these will turn out to
be productive, but I could be wrong,'' said Gen. George W.
Casey, the top commander in Iraq. 

``They're playing, I think, a very delicate balancing act,'' he
said of Iran. ``On the one hand, they want a stable neighbor. On
the other hand, I don't believe they want to see us succeed
here.'' 

The Bush administration agreed last week to talk to Iranian
officials about Iraq after a nearly three-decade break in
diplomatic ties between the two countries. U.S. intelligence
strongly suspects Iran has been arming Iraqi Shiite militia and
some insurgent groups. 

Casey said on ``Fox News Sunday'' he didn't have much faith in
the talks but that it was a ``political call.'' Any negotiations
should involve the Iraqis' use of ``improvised explosive device
technology'' against coalition forces that he says are coming
from Iran. 

``That needs to stop,'' Casey said. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 20 Las Vegas SUN: Corporations Stiffing Government on Fines 

Today: March 19, 2006 at 10:30:33 PST 

By MARTHA MENDOZA and CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN
 ASSOCIATED PRESS 

When a gasoline spill and fiery explosion killed three young
people in Washington state, officials announced a record penalty
against a gas pipeline company: $3 million to send the message
that such tragedies "must never happen again." 

When nuclear labs around the country were found exposing workers
to radiation and breaking other safety rules, assessments
totaling $2.5 million were quickly ordered. 

When coal firms' violations were blamed for deaths, injuries and
risks to miners from Alabama to West Virginia, they were slapped
with more than $1.3 million in penalties. 

What happened next with these no-nonsense enforcement efforts?
Not much. The pipeline tab was eventually reduced by 92 percent,
the labs' assessments were waived as soon as they were issued,
and the mine penalties largely went unpaid. 

The amount of unpaid federal fines has risen sharply in the last
decade. Individuals and corporations regularly avoid large,
highly publicized penalties for wrongdoing - sometimes through
negotiations, sometimes because companies go bankrupt, sometimes
due to officials' failure to keep close track of who owes what
under a decentralized collection system. 

These are conclusions of an Associated Press examination of
federal financial penalty enforcement across the nation, which
also found: 

-The government is currently owed more than $35 billion in fines
and other payments from criminals and in civil cases, according
to Justice Department figures. This is almost five times the
amount uncollected 10 years ago - and enough to cover the annual
budget of the Department of Homeland Security. A decade ago,
Congress mandated that fines be imposed regardless of
defendants' ability to pay, which has added tremendously to
outstanding debt. 

-In 2004, federal authorities ordered $7.8 billion in 98,985
fines, penalties and restitution demands in criminal and civil
cases, but collected less than half of that. 

-White-collar crime cases account for the largest amount of
uncollected debt. In a study, Government Accountability Office
investigators found that just 7 percent of restitution in such
cases is paid. 

"Fines and orders to pay restitution are an important part of
how we punish convicted criminals. When so little effort is made
to collect that money, we allow convicted criminals to avoid
punishment for their crimes, weaken our criminal justice system
and ultimately deny justice to the victims of crimes," said Sen.
Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who has pressed for closer scrutiny for
years. 

The mechanisms of financial penalty enforcement are complex. To
glimpse them, the AP filed Freedom of Information Act requests
with a dozen federal agencies, seeking records on why and how
they issue and collect administrative penalties and other
assessments. 

The AP reviewed the responses, which ranged across the spectrum
of regulation - from penalties for an Illinois company's shoddy
bike handlebars that resulted in knocked-out teeth to fines for
selling tainted meat in Tennessee. The AP also reviewed more
than a decade of congressional and Justice Department reports on
uncollected debt, and interviewed agency officials, prosecutors
and individuals who were fined. 

Although the government does collect billions each year in
fines, penalties and restitution - including hundreds of
millions in long-outstanding debt - success rates vary from
agency to agency, region to region, case to case. 

In many high-profile cases, fines are touted by authorities as
proof that they are cracking down. Yet frequently those orders
are quietly negotiated to just a fraction of their original
amounts - as if drivers, faced with fines for speeding, offered
the traffic court judge pennies on the dollar, and the judge
agreed. 

Documents provided to the AP by the Labor Department's
Employment Benefits Security Administration, whose job is to
protect pension and welfare benefits, showed that $2,000 was the
maximum amount paid on nearly a dozen penalties ranging from
$86,500 to $180,000; these were for various kinds of violations,
everything from failure to file reports to self-dealing by
pension fund managers. 

Why the reductions? Officials explained that compliance is the
agency's goal, and that the law allows penalties to be reduced
when companies make amends. Violators who don't comply risk
being referred to the Treasury Department, which can collect by
seizing federal benefits. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's written
policy explains to inspectors that they can reduce penalties by
as much as 95 percent, "depending upon the employer's `good
faith,' (25 percent) `size of business,' (60 percent) and
`history of previous violations.' (10 percent)" 

Internal documents from U.S. Customs show that dramatically
large fines may be cut sharply. 

Agency documents released under AP's FOIA request listed, for
example, a $60,911,316 "commercial fraud" assessment for one
company - but the case ended with a $15,000 collection by
Customs. 

The company, Richemont North America, contradicted the Customs
reports, saying the case never reached the point of an actual,
multimillion dollar fine. 

Admittedly, some paperwork was not in order, company lawyer Alan
Grieve said, but he added: "Ultimately, the size of the
settlement does reflect the fact that Richemont had no major
problem at all." 

The Energy Department routinely issues substantial fines it
isn't even allowed to collect. 

Federal law exempts the national nuclear laboratories from most
financial liability, but the Energy Department has issued some
$2.5 million in fines against Los Alamos, Livermore and Argonne
national laboratories since 2000. The fines - issued and waived
in the same sentence - involved 31 different workers who inhaled
or touched radioactive or toxic materials. 

In 2004, Energy's National Nuclear Safety Department fined Los
Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico $770,000 for five
separate violations after two workers were exposed to
dangerously high levels of plutonium. The violation notices add
in parentheses: "Waived by Statute." 

"This is kind of an exercise in absurdity," said Greg Mello, who
heads the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear disarmament activist
organization in Albuquerque. 

Even so, the Energy Department includes the fines in its annual
reports to Congress and often announces them in press releases. 

Last year, Congress tightened the rules so that as nuclear
laboratory contracts are renewed, the fine waivers are
eliminated. Eventually, said DOE spokesman Jeff Sherwood,
nuclear labs will have to pay imposed fines. 

The reason DOE issued fines it could not collect was to show
what the problems were and how bad, he said: "A $1 million fine
says something different than a $10,000 fine." 

Financial penalties are regularly touted by agencies and
prosecutors as a strict consequence of lawbreaking. The message
- that violators can expect to pay dearly - can be misleading. 

The Office of Pipeline Safety, a Transportation Department
bureau, is one of a number of agencies chastised by members of
Congress for failing to follow through on enforcement. 

Nearly seven years ago, a pipeline ruptured, spilling 230,000
gallons of gasoline into a creek near Bellingham, Wash. The fuel
exploded into a fireball that ravaged the surrounding woods. And
it killed two 10-year-old boys playing in the woods and a young
man, 18, who had gone to the stream to fish. 

Authorities vowed to punish those at fault, and indeed some
company officials eventually served prison time. 

But on June 2, 2000, the Transportation Department issued a
forceful press release, announcing a $3.05 million
administrative penalty against the pipeline owner, Olympic Pipe
Line Co. This, it said, was the largest in the history of the
federal pipeline safety program. 

"Tragic events like this pipeline failure must never happen
again," then-Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater said at
the time. "This civil penalty is one of a series of actions we
have and are taking to help protect the people and environment." 

But last year, with the memorials in place, fish returning to
the creek and the forest budding with new growth, the penalty
was quietly reduced to $250,000. 

"They let them off with a slap," said Carl Weiner, who heads the
Bellingham-based Pipeline Safety Trust. 

Olympic Pipe Line officials disagree, saying they already paid
$11 million in state and Justice Department assessments and $15
million in restoration and improvements. 

Still, the case illustrates how the value of assessed penalties
is merely a starting point for some officials. 

The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, is often
willing to reduce penalties in exchange for polluters agreeing
to spend money cleaning up. 

"We trade off a portion of the penalty in return for them doing
supplemental environmental projects," said the EPA's Tom
Skinner. 

The recent West Virginia coal mine deaths focused new criticism
on enforcement tradeoffs made by mine safety inspectors. 

During hearings in January, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., voiced
outrage at how coal operators can whittle down fines. He cited
assessments by the Mine Safety and Health Administration against
a company in an Alabama mine where 13 people were killed in
2001. 

"Incredibly, ... an Administrative Law Judge reduced these fines
from $435,000 to a mere $3,000 - a decision that harms workers
and erodes MSHA's authority," Specter and three fellow senators
elaborated in a letter to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. 

The Labor Department later announced plans to raise fine
amounts, and in a case it called "precedent-setting" sought an
injunction against a Kentucky mine operator and two companies he
owns, which paid nothing on $200,000 in penalties. 

AP's Freedom of Information filing turned up numerous cases in
which administrative penalties were ordered against mining
companies for dangerous laxness in following rules - and yet
records showed many went unpaid. Sometimes, in the narrow-margin
world of small coal companies, the violator escaped paying by
declaring bankruptcy or ceasing operations. 

On Feb. 20, 2002, near Rupert, W.Va., a section of mine roof up
to 10 feet thick collapsed, killing one miner and seriously
injuring another. It took more than four hours to dig them out. 

The MSHA investigators' report concluded: "Root cause - Mine
management condoned unsafe work practices and ... demonstrated a
reckless disregard of the dangers posed by conditions created
when faulty pillar recovery methods were used." Some supervisors
were eventually ordered jailed and fined, prosecutors said; two
companies that ran the mine were placed on a year's probation. 

The companies also were hit with $165,000 in administrative
penalties each. But MSHA has no record of any payment four years
later. When contacted by AP about why, the agency cited records
showing the mine was sealed and, in one case, a bankruptcy
filing made. 

"They probably figured it wasn't worth it financially to stay in
business," said the agency's Allen K. Watson. 

When agencies can't get debtors to pay, the Justice Department
may get the task of collecting a fine or penalty. But the
process is decentralized. The collection legwork falls to the 93
U.S. Attorney offices around the country, where "financial
litigation units" have the task of pursuing the money. 

Although the backlog of uncollected debt has drastically
increased, from $6 billion in 1995 to more than $35 billion in
2004, the number of financial litigation unit lawyers has
remained steady, usually just one or two per office,
supplemented by paralegals. 

Reviewing the adequacy of staffing was one of 14 recommendations
made by the GAO in 2001 to improve collection. A followup report
two years ago noted progress in streamlining procedures but
still said "fragmented processes and lack of coordination"
remained. 

Until these problems are fully addressed, GAO said then, "the
effectiveness of criminal fines and restitution as a punitive
tool may be diminished." 

An attempt by the prosecutors and court system to create a
National Fine Center, centrally coordinating collections across
myriad jurisdictions, collapsed and was abandoned a decade ago. 

The Justice Department office overseeing U.S. attorneys said it
has made strides toward better coordination, including links
with Treasury's program to offset certain federal benefits to
repay debt. Justice also published a "Prosecutors Guide to
Criminal Monetary Penalties." 

A major factor in the high rate of uncollected fines and
penalties was a change in the law. 

The 1996 Victims Mandatory Restitution Act requires judges to
order payments regardless of a defendant's ability to pay. It's
no coincidence, says Natalie Collins, a spokeswoman for the U.S.
Attorney's office in Las Vegas, Nev., that the uncollected debts
have steeply increased since the law was passed. 

"These people come out of prison with a huge restitution debt
and if they can't pay, they have that judgment just hanging over
them," she said. "We can't squeeze blood out of a turnip." 

That said, some prosecutors' offices are more successful than
others in going after the money. 

For example, in 2003, Delaware's U.S. Attorney's office was the
top collector in the country, bringing in $365 million in
criminal and civil debt and leaving just $19 million
outstanding. 

At the other end of the spectrum that year was the Montgomery,
Ala., office, which collected $914,676 and ended 2003 with
almost $30 million uncollected. 

Steve Doyle, an assistant U.S. Attorney in Montgomery, said the
small office has just one attorney and one paralegal, assigned
part-time to collecting debts - which are often uncollectable. 

"Other than in white-collar cases, most criminal defendants
don't have any money," said Doyle. "We attempt to collect
everything that can be collected." 

Sometimes even as financial penalties are being ordered, it's
obvious that the money is never going to be paid. 

"I've had clients who have had millions of dollars of
restitution imposed, and every one in the courtroom knows that
this person will never be able to pay," said Mike Filipovich, a
federal public defender in Seattle. 

Five years ago, Filipovich represented Leonard Fridall Terry
Antoine, a member of Canada's Cowichan band of the Salish tribe,
who was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay
$147,000 for paying people to shoot bald eagles and selling
their parts. Prosecutors charged him $3,000 for each of 49
eagles. 

"It is absolutely right that this defendant serve time for such
an outright violation of our nation's environmental laws," said
Tom Sansonetti, then-Assistant Attorney General of the
Department of Justice's Environmental and Natural Resources
Division. "The outcome will serve as a deterrent."	Antoine was
released from prison in 2003, but has not paid any of the fines,
according to federal records. 

"The reality for most folks," said Filipovich, "is that they
simply can't afford to pay." 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 21 BBC: Can a bush solve rural energy
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 19 March 2006
 
By Mark Gregory BBC World Service international business 
reporter, Jhansi   

[Generator running on biomass]                                  

The generator produces 100 kilowatts electricity from weeds                                                           

An ancient tractor dumps a trailer load of plant material next to 
a battered looking shed. Surprising as it may seem, this 
unremarkable event may hold the key to ending chronic power 
shortages in rural India. 

Inside the shed is a noisy, little, green generator that runs on 
gas produced from rotting biomass. That is where the pile of 
plant matter dumped by the tractor comes in. 

The generator produces 100 kilowatts of electricity, enough to 
service the modest needs of four or five typical Indian villages. 

However in this particular case it drives a mini-industrial 
complex that currently provides 130 jobs in an area where 
employment is hard to find. 

The location is a rural site about 15km from the city of Jhansi 
in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. 

The initiative is called Desi Power (local power). 

It aims to provide a model for generating low-cost electricity 
from renewable resources that can easily be copied elsewhere in 
the vast swathes of rural India that have no connection to the 
mains grid. 

"This really is a viable solution for remote India", says Dr Arun 
Kumar, director of the Development Alternatives NGO, which runs 
the Jhansi project. 

He goes on to explain that the generator runs on methane created 
from a widely available local plant that previously had no 
economic value. 

'Political will' 

The plant is the ipunia bush, which grows in marshy land not 
suitable for agriculture. 

[Dr Arun Kumar]                                 

Dr Kumar says biomass power will solve more than one problem                                                             
                                 

But there is nothing special about ipunia. The generator would 
work just as well on gas from many other plants. 

"There is a huge amount of unused land in remote parts of India, 
which means biomass is either available or could easily be made 
available", says Dr Kumar. 

He reckons it would take a network of 100,000 or so Jhansi-style 
biomass generators to really make a dent in India's rural 
electricity shortages. 

"The technology is proven, the main issue is now political will," 
he insists. 

The scale of the problem is not in doubt; a third of India's half 
million or so villages have no connection to the mains grid. In 
those that do, the power supply is often erratic and unreliable. 

Dr Kumar believes his project holds part of the solution to two 
distinct problems. 

The first is "access" to electricity. It provides a way for 
people in neglected localities to take matters into their own 
hands. 

"No conceivable extension of the mains grid would be 
comprehensive enough to bring power to all the far flung parts of 
India that don't already have it," he says. 

But by setting up biomass generators, he believes, people in 
rural areas could in a sense create their own power from plant 
material or even waste that is easily to hand. 

The second issue is "exclusion". Without electricity, large parts 
of India have no chance of participating in the economic boom 
that is bringing prosperity to many people living in cities. 

Generating employment 

Dr Kumar reckons biomass generators have a practical role to play 
in tackling the growing inequalities between the urban elites, 
who have made India a global force in areas like computer 
software, and India's rural poor. 

[A paper-making factory running on biomass power] Local 
paper-making divisions is generating employment                   

Many of them do not even have the power needed to turn on a light 
let alone run a laptop or a factory providing jobs. 

But the Jhansi project is not just about electricity. It also has 
wider development aims. 

"There was nothing here, not even a blade of grass, when we set 
up the project 10 years ago", explains Dr Kumar. The presence of 
the generator has been a catalyst for all sorts of income 
generating opportunities in a poor area. 

For a start local people make money by collecting ipunia - the 
biomass used to create electricity - and selling it to the Desi 
Power project. What for centuries had been regarded locally as a 
useless weed is now an important source of employment. 

In addition to that, power from the generator is used to drive 
industrial processes. The main one is paper-making. 

A ramshackle complex of buildings near the generator houses vats 
and presses used to convert recycled cotton rags into high 
quality paper for diaries, greeting cards, art projects and other 
uses that command a premium price. 

An onsite shop sells some of these products to tourists. 

Dr Kumar claims that over 10 years the project has created 
something like 10,000 employment opportunities. 

Many of the jobs have gone to tribal people, who are widely seen 
as the poorest, most vulnerable section of the community in what 
is generally a deprived area. 



'Ultra mega' power projects 



Dr Kumar, of course, sees the Jhansi project as providing a 
widely applicable model for bringing both electricity and 
economic opportunity to rural areas. 

[Tractor carries ipunia weeds to be processed] India is promoting 
big power plants rather than biomass power                                                           
                                

But are India's energy planners listening? Could the concept of 
Desi Power make a significant impact in this vast nation? 

The answer to these questions seems to be... well, maybe... up to 
a point. 

You would not find many in India saying that decentralised 
provision of power using simple technology is actually a bad 
thing. 

This after all is probably the only country in the world that has 
an entire government ministry devoted to promoting 
"non-conventional" energy sources. 

But the dominant strand in India's energy thinking is in the 
opposite direction - that biggest is best rather than small is 
beautiful. 

To cater for an expected sevenfold increase in power consumption 
over the next 25 years or so, India's policy makers are planning 
a series of what are described as "ultra mega" power projects. 

These are huge new power stations located next to mines and 
energy ports. The electricity they generate will be taken to 
where it is needed by a network of as yet largely un-built 
massive transmission cables. 

The nuclear co-operation deal with the United States agreed in 
President Bush's recent visit to India is another sign of this 
approach to energy policy. 

The focus on building power plants as big as possible and as 
quickly as possible is hardly surprising. 

Demand for electricity is expected to rise faster in India than 
anywhere else in the world, apart from China in coming decades. 
Power cuts are already a regular feature of life in many Indian 
cities. 

Sceptics 

Dr Kumar of Desi Power does not believe building big power 
stations is wrong, but he does think it will not be enough. 
                        
[Women workers at the paper-making plant in Jhansi] Biomass 
electricity may become important for rural areas                        
                                     
If the Indian government is serious about its stated aim of 
bringing electricity to all rural areas that do not have it, he 
says, then locally based biomass generators have an important 
part to play. 

Desi Power has already made some limited progress. It has 
established a further 18 rural biomass power projects based on 
the experience at Jhansi. 

Whether these become a credible national model depends partly on 
the cost of the electricity they produce. 

Dr Kumar maintains the cost of power generated at Jhansi is 
currently about the same as that supplied to rural areas by 
conventional means. 

He accepts that consumers may often perceive biomass power to be 
more expensive. But he argues that where mains power is available 
in rural India, it is often highly subsidised. 

The big hope for supporters of biomass power is that the economic 
argument will swing in their favour as a result of rising 
conventional energy prices. 

The price of oil is already above $60 a barrel. Gas prices have 
also risen sharply. 

If traditional fuel prices carry on going up, as many expect, 
then the case for renewable energy such as power from biomass 
will become much stronger. The world may be running out of oil 
and gas, or so the argument goes, but there is no shortage of 
ipunia bushes. 

Biomass power in fact has its critics even among 
environmentalists. Some argue that growing bio fuels on a large 
scale in developing nations will use up land that poor people 
currently rely on to produce food. 

Dr Kumar insists this is not an issue for Desi Power in Jhansi as 
the project is powered by weeds grown on land not suitable for 
farming. 

He claims the same is true for other potential biomass sources in 
remote parts of India. No doubt this aspect of the debate will 
continue. 

*****************************************************************
 22 Chronicle Herald: Author believes U.S. was testing atomic detonator at old N.S. site

  [TheChronicleHerald.ca]     HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA | 

Monday March 20, 2006   
 
Peter Duffy

WHAT SHE’S suggesting is so incredible that it has the ring of
truth. 

Even so, I have to pinch myself as I listen to her. 

I’m in Lower Selma, a tiny Hants County community of maybe 250
people. It straggles along the road that skirts the southern
shore of Cobequid Bay, home to famous high tides that empty the
bay almost completely. 

Betty O’Toole, a 78-year-old widow, is describing something that
she says happened not far from where we’re sitting in her living
room, something so big that it changed the course of world
history. 

It’s Betty’s conclusion, based on the evidence of her own eyes
and her own research, that American scientists spent three years
across the road, perfecting detonators used in the two atomic
bombs that were dropped on Japan to end the Second World War and
usher in the nuclear age. 

"It was a big mystery," she recalls. "Very secretive." 

Betty is a retired high-school English teacher who has no
intention of resting and rusting. Not only has she been studying
to become a lay minister in the United Church, she’s also a
prolific author with five local history books to her credit,
including one entitled, Tides, Tonnage and Torpedoes. 

That’s the one containing her theories about what went on across
the road, so long ago. 

For Betty and the others in Lower Selma, the world changed one
October morning in 1942. It was two months after the Allies
committed to the Manhattan Project, the development of an atomic
bomb. 

"A car came and the three men in it wanted to speak to my
father." 

Her father, Rex McKeil, owned the land across the road, property
that ran down to the water. 

Politely but firmly, the strangers offered him a choice: sell us
what we need, or we’ll have it expropriated. They offered him $8
an acre for eight acres, including some old buildings. Betty’s
dad agreed. 

"Next day," she remembers, "they bulldozed the old houses. There
seemed to be such an urgency." 

That same week, three new buildings went up. One was for
scientists; one was to store vehicles; the third was for
maintenance staff. Everything was controlled by U.S. Naval
Observation Laboratories, a branch of the military known to have
been present at the actual testing of the nuclear devices in
July 1945. 

Betty opens her scrapbook of old black-and-white photos. Sure
enough, here are images of the buildings; of huge military
trucks sporting the white-star insignia; and of smiling young
men in khaki shirts and pant. 

For the duration of the war, the Americans at Lower Selma
conducted experiments that involved an aircraft dropping bomb-
and mine-shaped devices into Cobequid Bay at high tide. Then
they’d wait until the bay emptied before driving or walking out
onto the flats to retrieve the items. 

"They told my dad they had sailed the coast of North America,
searching for a bay so they could walk out. It would be much
more efficient. " 

Several local folk found jobs at the little base; among them
Betty’s dad. He was hired as a carpenter/caretaker and, in the
winters when work ceased because of the ice, he’d show his
daughter around. 

"What makes you think they were testing a detonator?" I ask her. 

"Because they didn’t want the bomb to fall freely," she
explains. "They wanted it held back, so they’d know when to
detonate." 

"So the bombs on Japan didn’t detonate on impact?" I muse. "All
these years, I never knew that." 

Betty nods. "I researched and found some facts," she says. "I
talked with the ordnance bureau in Washington, D.C., and I
researched the atomic bomb. It detonated above ground." 

Betty says the Americans kept to themselves. All except for one
Rhode Island man named Charlie Lane. 

"He was in our home nearly every day for coffee and a doughnut,"
she says. 

He seemed so much at home that he even married a woman from
across the bay. 

But then a shock. "He turned out to be a German spy!" Betty
declares. "The U.S. government found out of his activities here
at the base and before they closed in on him, he committed
suicide in New York." 

She shows me the yellowing newspaper obituary. It says Lane was
found dead in a hotel. 

And then, as suddenly as they came, once the war ended, the
Americans bulldozed everything into the ground and were gone.
Well, almost everything. 

The well-house still stands, as does a concrete ammunition
bunker, about a kilometre up a back road. 

And one other thing. Somehow, they missed one of their
torpedo-shaped bombs. 

The cylinder has been made into a tourist attraction in a park,
just down the road from Betty’s house. 

And there it stands, an enigmatic sentinel for a delicious,
long-ago mystery. 

( pduffy@herald.ca) 

Peter Duffy appears Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays.

  © 2005 The Halifax Herald Limited   
*****************************************************************
 23 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Chalk one up for industry

Today: March 19, 2006 at 7:49:23 PST 

Interior secretary nominee is Idaho governor whose track record
shows he likely will offer more of the same in terms of the Bush
administration's environmental policy 

One look at Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne's environmental record is
all it takes to know why President Bush has nominated the former
U.S. senator and Boise mayor to be the nation's next interior
secretary. 

Of course, Bush said Kempthorne was chosen to succeed Gale
Norton because he would help "develop the energy potential of
federal lands and waters in environmentally sensitive ways" - as
if Bush has exhibited any knowledge of environmentally sensitive
ways to manage the nation's natural assets. 

A more probable reason for the choice is that Kempthorne - if
confirmed by the Senate as expected - isn't likely to stray from
the Bush administration's industry-friendly stances on
environmental issues. 

Kempthorne, a Republican, was elected mayor of Boise in 1986 and
was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992 before becoming Idaho's
governor in 1997. As interior secretary, he would play a key
role in, among other things, developing federal policy on such
issues as expanding oil- and gas-drilling both offshore and on
public lands. We can suspect whose interests will prevail. 

Just two days before Bush took office in January 2001,
Kempthorne sued to block a Clinton administration plan that
called for reintroducing grizzly bears to Idaho's Bitterroot
Range over a five-year period. The proposal eventually was
withdrawn. Kempthorne also sued the U.S. Forest Service in 2001
over a Clinton-backed rule that barred development in roadless
areas of national forests. Bush later overturned the rule. 

And in 2005, Kempthorne pursuaded the federal government to make
Idaho the first state to manage endangered gray wolves under a
new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule that grants increased
flexibility for private landowners to kill wolves they believe
have harassed pets or livestock. As a senator, Kempthorne
opposed renewal of the Endangered Species Act. 

The League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan, nonprofit
group, offered the most succinct response: "During his career in
Congress, Gov. Kempthorne earned a paltry 1 percent lifetime LCV
score. Enough said." 

Perhaps even more telling than the criticisms were the accolades
- many of which came from the energy development industry.
According to Bloomberg News, a spokesman for the Independent
Petroleum Association said that as a senator Kempthorne
"demonstrated a good understanding of energy issues." As proof,
the spokesman offered Kempthorne's efforts to cut Endangered
Species Act regulations and enact changes that the petroleum
industry advocated. 

Norton's resignation wasn't expected to open the door to a more
environmentally responsible Interior Department philosophy. And
Bush's nomination of Kempthorne shows, with all certainty, that
it didn't. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 24 reviewjournal.com: WASHINGTON DIGEST: Senate approves
another increase in federal debt limit

Mar. 19, 2006

Ensign among just three Republicans to vote against measure      

By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	

WASHINGTON -- To prevent a government default, the Senate voted 
52-48 last week to raise the federal debt limit for the fourth 
time in the past five years. 

This year's increase of $781 billion raises the debt limit to 
more than $8 trillion. 

The House passed the measure last year without a roll call vote,
thus avoiding an unpopular vote during an election year. 

Without the Senate and House votes, the Treasury Department
would have been unable to borrow additional money or pay
interest on existing notes and bonds. Treasury Secretary John
Snow praised Congress for raising the debt limit, saying it will
protect the full faith and credit of the United States. 

All 44 Senate Democrats, three Republicans and independent James
Jeffords of Vermont voted against increasing the debt limit.
Democrats accused the Republican majority of fiscal
mismanagement. 

Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., voted against
raising the debt limit. 

Budget increase approved 

Ignoring President Bush's request to cut costs, the Senate voted
51-49 to add $16 billion to the White House budget proposal in
approving a $2.8 trillion budget for next year. 

The Senate action is not the last word on the fiscal 2007
budget. The House, which is usually more conservative on
financial issues, has yet to vote on the budget. 

Supporters of the budget increase said it was necessary to avert
the gutting of critical domestic programs in areas such as
health, education and labor. 

Opponents, again primarily Democrats, argued the budget would
raise the national debt by more than $3 trillion during the next
five years. 

Ensign and Reid voted against the budget. 

Pay as you go rejected 

An effort to restore tighter budget controls failed when the
Senate deadlocked 50-50 on a measure that would have required
Congress to pay for tax cuts without adding to the federal
deficit. 

First enacted in 1990, the pay-as-you-go guidelines continued in
various forms for a dozen years. But after four years of budget
surpluses, the controls were lifted in 2002, allowing the
deficit to soar because of tax cuts and the new Medicare
prescription drug benefit. 

Supporters of restoring the budget controls argued something
must be done to address the federal deficit. Opponents argued
the controls amounted to a tax increase. 

Reid voted to restore the pay-as-you-go guidelines. Ensign voted
against restoring the guidelines. 

war funding passed 

The House voted 348-71 to spend nearly $92 billion more on the
war in Iraq and hurricane relief. 

The bill includes language that would bar the Dubai-owned
company of DP World from controlling port operations in the
United States. 

Advocates of the supplemental spending said it is essential to
meet obligations overseas and at home. 

Critics complained the bill's sum is too high and hurricane
relief should not be linked to military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. 

Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Jim Gibbons and Jon Porter,
both R-Nev., voted for the supplemental spending. 

Port security money denied 

By just two votes, the House defeated a bill that would have
added $825 million for port security and $400 million for
disaster preparedness. 

Supporters said the American public expects Congress to do more
than just talk about how the United States is still unprepared
for another big hurricane or an attack on its ports. 

Opponents, who prevailed by a vote of 210-208, countered that
security problems cannot be solved by throwing money at them. 

Berkley and Porter voted for the additional spending. Gibbons
voted against it. 

Meanwhile, the Senate voted 53-43 to reject a similar measure.
The Senate bill would have added $965 million for port security. 

Reid voted for the port security money. Ensign voted against it.
	   
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 25 Guardian Unlimited: Pakistan Rejects U.S.-India Nuke Deal
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday March 18, 2006 5:46 AM

By MUNIR AHMAD 

Associated Press Writer 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - President Bush's decision to seek
Congressional support for a plan to share civilian nuclear
technology with India could upset the balance of power in the
region, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said. 

The Foreign Ministry said Bush, who visited the South Asian
neighbors earlier this month, should have offered both Islamabad
and New Delhi similar deals to enhance their respective nuclear
programs. 

The U.S. plan will ``only encourage India to continue its
weapons program without any constraint or inhibition,'' the
ministry said in a statement Friday. 

Congress must either amend U.S. law or approve an exception for
India if the agreement is to go ahead. American law currently
restrict the trade of nuclear material and equipment to
countries that have not submitted to full nuclear inspections,
which India has not done. 

``The grant of (such a) waiver as a special case will have
serious implications for the security environment in South Asia
as well as for international nonproliferation efforts,'' the
statement said. 

Pakistan is a key U.S. ally in its was on terror, but Washington
is refusing to share civilian nuclear technology with it,
fearing it may not be able to keep the technology from other
countries. 

Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1998 when it conducted
underground tests in response to India's nuclear tests, but the
international community was alarmed in 2004 when top Pakistani
scientist A.Q. Khan admitted supplying Iran, North Korea and
Libya with sensitive technology. 

Although Khan was quickly detained, he was later pardoned due to
his role in making Pakistan a nuclear power. 

Energy-starved Pakistan and India are desperately seeking
alternative fuel sources - including nuclear and natural gas -
to provide for their huge populations and spur economic
development. Both countries are discussing with Iran a plan to
build a pipeline to supply natural gas, but the United States
opposes the proposal. 

Officials from Pakistan, India and Iran met this week in Tehran
to discuss various technical, commercial and legal aspects of
the pipeline, including pricing, the foreign ministry said in a
statement Saturday. 

``This was the first trilateral meeting at which substantial
progress has been achieved'' the statement said. The next
minister-level meeting will be held in Islamabad at the end of
April. 

Iran proposed the 1,735-mile pipeline in 1996, but the project
never got off the ground, mainly because of Indian concerns over
its security in Pakistan. The pipeline, expected to become
operational in 2010, would supply around 60 million cubic meters
of gas a day to India and up to 30 million cubic meters a day to
Pakistan. 

Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons and have fought
three wars since the bloody partition of the subcontinent at
independence from Britain in 1947. A recent peace process has
improved relations, but the two nations still consider each
other rivals. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 26 Guardian Unlimited: Whatever happened to ... CND?
 
Iain Hollingshead 

Saturday March 18, 2006
The Guardian 		
 		
The 1983 Labour manifesto commitment to unilateral
nuclear disarmament was dubbed by Gerald Kaufman "the longest
suicide note in history". By 2005, the pledge was rather
different: Labour promised to retain a "minimum nuclear
deterrent". This undertaking was back in the spotlight this week
as the Commons defence committee opened its inquiry into
renewing the Trident weapons system - expected to be obsolete by
2020. The prime minister has promised "the fullest debate"
before any decision is taken. Meanwhile, it was reported on
Sunday that British scientists are outstripping their US
counterparts in developing new atomic warheads.

This is particularly unwelcome news to the Campaign for Nuclear 
Disarmament (CND), which has experienced plenty of ups and downs 
in its history. Founded in 1958, at the height of cold war 
tension, it reached its zenith in the Thatcher years, when it was 
infiltrated by both MI5 and the East German Stasi. Membership 
peaked at 100,000. A demonstration in 1981 drew 250,000 people. 
Thousands of women camped outside Greenham Common, an airbase in 
Berkshire for US cruise missiles.

The end of the cold war took the wind out of CND's sails.
Membership had sunk to 15,000 by the turn of the 20th century.
Former members started recanting publicly. "Sentimentality
rather than logic was the key weapon of our crusade," wrote one.
"Looking back, it is blindingly obvious that we were the dupes
of Moscow." In April 2004, a four-day march to the nuclear
research facility in Aldermaston, Berkshire - an annual event
that once attracted tens of thousands - could only garner a
couple of hundred. The organisers ran into trouble with the
police - over health and safety.

Somewhat surprisingly, the past couple of years have witnessed a
renaissance for CND. "George Bush's interest in the National
Missile Defence system ['son of Star Wars'] got people
interested again," says CND chair Kate Hudson.

Opposition to the Iraq war has also helped. . In 2002 CND made
headlines with a failed high court attempt to win a judicial
review against the government. It has also continued to march
alongside a Monty Python-esque smorgasbord of pressure groups -
from the Muslim Association of Britain to Greenpeace - under the
aegis of the Stop the War Coalition. "We're still very much an
anti-nuclear campaign," says Hudson. "But we're also trying to
link into other issues. We've always worked with a range of
organisations."

One key challengenow is to reach a generation who know Greenham
Common only as a place to go paintballing among abandoned
barracks. CND certainly has powerful arguments concerning the
ineffectiveness of a nuclear deterrent in an age of terrorism.
Missiles that take several days' notice to fire are little use
against suicide bombers. Even former Conservative defence
minister Michael Portillo, who once famously misappropriated the
SAS motto in a party conference speech, has written that the UK
should scrap its remaining nuclear arsenal.

Ironically, then, it appears that CND's support was strongest
when its arguments were weakest, and vice versa. The Doomsday
clock - a quirky measurement of the world's proximity to
Armageddon run by a scientific magazine - currently stands at
seven minutes to midnight, the same as in both 1980 and 1947. "I
reckon that's pretty accurate," says Hudson.

Do you have a forgotten news story that you would like chased up?

iain@iainhollingshead.co.uk
 	
   Useful links  

British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
HSE nuclear glossary
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 27 Leaked plan: G8 Seeks to Promote "Trillions" of Dollars of
Investment in Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Energy |
EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse
 
Published on 14 Mar 2006 by . Archived on 19 Mar 2006.
 
by Executive Analysis	 

In a dramatic turn-around from last year's meeting in
Gleneagles, Scotland, G8 leaders have set their sights on
expanding access to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Last year,
G8 leaders focused on mitigating the impacts of climate change
and canceling debt. This year the G8 will focus on promoting
trillions of dollars of investment in fossil fuels which will
exacerbate both climate change and developing country debt. 

Energy Security is one of three core themes scheduled for
discussion at the upcoming Saint-Petersburg Summit and it will
presumably be the core issue on the table when G8 Energy
Ministers meet on March 15th and 16th in Moscow. Rather than use
the G8 process as a means to overcome the world's addiction to
oil and other fossil fuels, a G8 draft Plan of Action on Global
Energy Security reveals that the Saint-Petersburg Summit is
shaping up as an opportunity to ensure that the addiction will
be well fed in the decades to come. 

Expanding access to oil and gas: 
The G8 draft Plan of Action argues that 17 trillion US dollars
of investment will be needed over the next 25 years in order to
create a shock-proof system of global energy supply and it
outlines the G8's intention to work together to create the
environment for the effective mobilization of these huge sums.
The G8 is calling for a global effort to reshape regulatory
regimes and remove unjustified administrative barriers.
According to the draft Plan of Action, these legal and
regulatory changes will help create the conditions for the
private sector to: · find new reserves of oil and gas at a
faster rate than the existing reserves are depleted; · increase
oil and gas output by, among other things, more drilling on the
continental shelf; · expand production capacity in oil-refining,
petrochemical and gas processing industries; · develop new
electric power facilities, with an emphasis on nuclear and
hydro-power plants; and · introduce clean coal technology. 

Any intention of significantly reducing the world's use of
fossil fuels seems to be swept aside. The draft Plan of Action
states that: The proven hydrocarbon reserves and the existing
investment potential are sufficient to meet, for a foreseeable
future, the growing world demand for energy. We need to create
jointly the proper environment to realize this potential. 

Energy Efficiency and the Environment: 
The draft Plan of Action emphasizes the following priorities
among a range of measures to ensure a more efficient and
ecologically responsible energy production and use: · increasing
the output of hydrocarbon deposits; · raising the level of
processing of hydrocarbon resources; · widespread introduction
of carbon sequestration technologies in energy production; ·
wider introduction of clean coal technologies; · large-scale
utilization of associated gas; · use of coal-bed methane; and ·
expanding the market for synthetic fuels, particularly those
produced from coal and natural gas. 

Expanding Nuclear Energy: 
The message on nuclear energy is clear: We believe that the
development of nuclear energy would promote the global energy
security... and we intend to make additional joint efforts to
ensure non-discriminatory access to this energy source. 

Developing an Institutional Framework for a New Global Energy
Architecture: 
The G8 wants to pursue the above-mentioned objectives by working
within the framework of existing relevant institutions and
mechanisms. According to the draft Plan of Action, they intend
to call on the World Bank, export credit agencies and the
regional development banks to use more effectively their
potential for financing energy projects, especially in
developing countries. They want the international financial
institutions (IFIs) to pay special attention to improving the
economic and financial viability of projects by using mechanisms
and schemes of insurance and sharing of financial risk. They
will presumably also be expecting the IFIs to join them in
working actively with the developing countries with a view of
improving conditions for private investment... 

The draft Plan of Action also focuses on the need for more
dialog between energy producers and consumers in order to ensure
a secure and uninterrupted supply of oil and gas. This includes
working in closer contact with OPEC and other international
bodies such as the Saudi-inspired International Energy Forum
(IEF). Looking ahead to 2007, the draft Plan of Action states:
We have instructed our experts to examine the feasibility of and
formulate recommendations for the next G8 Summit in Germany with
regards to establishing the practice of holding regular annual
meetings of G8 energy ministers along with senior officials of
the IEA, IEF and OPEC... 

Is There Any Good News? 

The G8 reaffirms its commitment to the Gleneagles Plan of Action
on renewable energy and makes a range of references to the
importance of energy efficiency and eradicating energy poverty.
Unfortunately, these laudable goals are couched within an
unmistakable focus on expanding fossil fuel and nuclear energy
production and using public institutions to support the work of
international oil companies who are currently reporting record
profits. 

Debt and Oil: 

By emphasizing the need to increase oil production rather than
helping countries diversify away from their dependence on oil,
the G8 is contradicting both its rhetoric on climate change and
debt cancellation. At the G8 in 2005, Oil Change International,
and the Jubilee USA Network, co-published Drilling into Debt -
the first study to rigorously examine the relationship in
between oil and debt. The report confirmed the dire impact that
rising oil prices have had and continue to have on oil importers
globally, while also for the first time revealing that countries
that produce oil also have unusually high debt burdens. 

Conclusion: 

The world's leading industrialized countries don't seem to be
able to decide whether or not to use the G8 as a vehicle for
overcoming their addiction to oil or as a means of feeding that
addiction. They acknowledge the potential for devastating
conflicts driven by eventually disruptive competition for energy
sources, but their draft Plan of Action seems to suggest that
the answer to the world's dangerous dependence on fossil fuels
is more fossil fuels. Rather than charting a bold vision for a
clean energy future, G8 governments are debating a global energy
architecture that would drive us further down the destructive
road that we find ourselves on today. Hopefully there is still
time to turn the Summit around. 

To view a copy of the draft G8 Plan of Action see: 

For more information contact Graham Saul: 
graham (at) priceofoil (dot) org. 
Tel: +1-613-558-3368

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the website:The Price of Oil is pollution, poverty, greed,
war, fear, and addiction. We want affordable energy that won’t
cost us lives or our planet.
 
Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of
oil and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy.
We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming political
barriers to that transition. See also: by grassroots activist
group, Reclaim The Commons ().
 
The 'Energy Dissent' Calls To Action against the forthcoming G8
meeting in Russia seem to be one of the first times Peak Oil has
featured prominently in the communiques of the global protest
movements.
 
For the 'Energy Dissent' Call to Action and updates about global
resistance against the July 15-17, 2006 G8 Summit in Russia, 

According to the website:Initially formed to oppose Bio 2004
(the world's largest biotechnology and pharmaceutical conference
held at San Francisco CA in 2004), RECLAIM THE COMMONS has
quickly grown from a single mobilization into an ongoing
commitment to teach and demonstrate sustainable, life-affirming
alternatives to biotechnology and corporate power in general:
organic food, community gardens, water reclamation, urban
transformation, a gift economy, and so much more. We do this
hoping to inform, enrage, and inspire, as we spread the skills
and tools we need to bring our vision of ecological democracy to
fruition.
 ...
 Come join a movement about reclaiming – safe and healthy food!
sustainable farms! access to healthcare! our genes! the right to
save and plant seeds! community garden space! science in the
public interest! the forests! intact ecosystems! the genetic
integrity of all life! biodiversity! human rights for Global
South farmers! a world free of genetically engineered
bioweapons!For another look at the merging of Peak Oil and
global justice movements see: - a blog devoted to exploring the
opportunities of Peak Oil for the spread of
libertarian/anarchist ideals. "In Leviathan's ashes, we could
create new decentralized communities of mutual aid, solidarity
against oppression, &egalitarian harmony. May this be a map to
the terrain ahead!"
 -AF

*****************************************************************
 28 BBC: Tories call for new nuclear subs
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 19 March 2006
 
		 		 		 
[Liam Fox]                              

Liam Fox says other countries are still trying to get nuclear 
weapons                                                             

Britain must replace its nuclear deterrent, the Conservative 
Party says. 

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said the UK must maintain its
four Trident missile submarines "for as long as possible" before
replacing them. 

Dr Fox told the BBC a new deterrent was needed because it was
the best way to ensure no other country launches a nuclear
strike. 

His comments came days after MPs began an inquiry into Trident,
which is expected to be obsolete by 2020. 

"We have to replace [Trident] because there are states in the
world still trying to get nuclear weapons," said Dr Fox. 

"The best guarantee of them not being used is for Britain to
have an independent deterrent." 

The House of Commons defence committee is taking evidence from a
range of experts about the type of threat the UK might face in
20 years' time. 

The cost of replacing the UK's four submarines armed with
Trident missiles could reach £20bn, according to some estimates.
		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 29 AFP: Australia, US, Japan praise China, seek to enhance Asian cooperation - 

  [(L-R) Condoleezza Rice, Alexander Downer and Taro Aso]   

SYDNEY (AFP) - The United States, Australia and Japan concluded
historic security talks with praise for China's engagement in
the Asia-Pacific and an agreement to seek greater cooperation
within Asia.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Japanese Foreign
Minister Taro Aso were hosted by Australian Foreign Minister
Alexander Downer for talks in Sydney that focussed on the war in
Iraq, Iran's nuclear crisis and China's rising power.

"Supporting the emergence and consolidation of democracies <IMG
height="250" width="300" border="0"
src="http://view.atdmt.com/HRV/view/yhkxxrac0040000017hrv/direct/
01/1142830604" /></noscript>[ src=] and strengthening
cooperative frameworks in the Asia-Pacific region was a
particular focus of our attention," they said in a joint
statement.

"We welcomed China's constructive engagement in the region and
concurred on the value of enhanced cooperation with other
parties such as ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)
and the Republic of Korea."

The parties welcomed as a positive step a decision by India to
place its civilian nuclear facilities under international
safeguards and recognised the importance of "reinforcing our
global partnership with India."

China's growing influence was expected to a major issue at the
talks following remarks by Rice earlier this week urging the
Communist giant to explain its military build-up.

Downer Saturday moved to dampen fears that the trilateral meet
was designed to produce a containment strategy on China, saying
it was natural for three countries with so much in common to
meet to discuss security.

At a press conference after the meeting, Downer sought to
reassure China there was no "conspiracy" against it.

"This is a very natural relationship... and shouldn't be
interpreted as an act of conspiracy against China, of course
it's not," he said.

"It's not for China to feel that we are ganging up on China or
that Australia is suddenly changing its policy on China."

Downer said the three countries were committed to helping
Beijing participate fully in the region.

"I think we all pretty much agree, even if we use different
language, we want to have a constructive relationship with
China," Downer said.

He praised China's role in attempting to convince North Korea to
return to international talks on its nuclear programme, an
outcome called for in the joint communique.

In the statement, the trio also expressed serious concern over
Iran's uranium enrichment programme and urged Tehran to return
to talks with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the
International Atomic Energy Authority, and comply with its
demands.

"We have grave concerns about Iran's nuclear programme and
discussed the need for concerted action at the UN Security
Council to convince Iran to promptly suspend all
enrichment-related activities," they said.

Downer urged Iran to abandon its decision to proceed with its
"so-called research programme into uranium enrichment."

"We are concerned that they aren't showing a great deal of
intention to do that," he said.

Iraq was also discussed but Downer refused to give details on a
possible timetable for the withdrawal of Australian or Japanese
troops.

"There was obviously discussions about many aspects of the Iraq
issue and I am not getting into those kinds of issues publicly,"
he told reporters.

The talks coincided with a 500-strong Sydney protest to mark the
third anniversary of the war in Iraq.

Organiser Anna Samson called for the immediate withdrawal of
foreign troops.

"The US needs to admit that the military approach is not the
answer to peace in Iraq," she told AFP.

Taro Aso held bilateral talks with Downer later Saturday during
which the ministers agreed to strengthen their joint efforts to
stamp out terrorism and build their strategic relationship.

Rice left Australia Saturday for her return flight home. 

AFP

*****************************************************************
 30 Independent: 'Enough is enough': wind farm builder threatens to quit UK 

By Tim Webb 

Published: 19 March 2006 

One of the UK's largest wind farm developers has threatened to
pull out of the country as a storm blows up over the
Government's plans for renewable energy. 

A logjam in the planning process for developers means that many
wind farms will not be operational for a decade. Unless
financing rules are changed, Wind Energy is warning that many
will never even get built, which could force the Government to
miss its targets on renewable energy. 

The timing of the protest is embarrassing for the Government,
which next month will close consultation on its energy review on
nuclear power. Its previous review - only three years ago - was
supposed to back renewable energy such as wind power. 

Wind Energy wants to build 800MW of onshore wind farms in
Scotland, enough to power a city the size of Edinburgh. 

National Grid has told the company, and developers of around 100
other wind farms in Scotland, totalling around 6,000MW, that
they will not be connected to the grid before 2016. 

But despite the huge timelag, developers still have to table
deposits upfront to cover the cost of the upgrades to the grid -
even if planning permission for their site is not granted and
the wind farm does not go ahead. 

Under the planning regime, developers have to apply for
connection to the grid before they can gain planning permission.
Around half the planning applications for onshore wind farms in
the UK fail. 

Even if a developer secures planning approval and does not lose
its deposit for connection, it is not home and dry. Should a
nearby wind farm plan fall through, the other developers sharing
the planned upgrade to the grid have to shoulder the failed
developer's liabilities. 

Mike Davies, managing director of Wind Energy, said developers
should be able to delay payment until a decision on planning
permission is made. 

He added that developers had earned a temporary reprieve, until
September, before they have to start paying millions of pounds
in connection fees to National Grid. 

"We are relying on the Government to sort this out in the next
six months. Unless things change, we would have to say 'enough
is enough - we are pulling out'. We will move to other countries
where these projects are easier to develop instead. Trying to
get through the regulatory and planning system in the UK is like
running in treacle. It needs some movement from the top
urgently." 

The Government has set a target to generate a 10th of the UK's
electricity, or around 7,000MW, from renewable sources by 2010
rising to a fifth by 2020. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 31 Xinhua: Funds earmarked for protection of retired atom bomb base   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-19 09:04:33   

    XINING, March 19 (Xinhua) -- China has decided to spend 93
million yuan (about 11.6 million U.S. dollars) to better protect
the country's first nuclear weapons research and production base
in Northwest China's Qinghai Province, according to local
official sources. 

    The money will be used in building exhibition halls,
renovation of ruins of the former atom bomb base and improvement
of the local natural environment, according to the Qinghai
Provincial Cultural Heritage Bureau. 

    The Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China
Central Committee has decided to allocate 10 million yuan to
fund the protection project. 

    Covering more than 1,100 square km, the former atom bomb
base was the birth place of China's first atom bomb and first
hydrogen bomb. It was built in 1958 and was closed by the
government in 1987 to support its demands for a complete ban and
the destruction of all nuclear weapons in the world. The retired
atom bomb base was handed over to the local government in 1993. 

    Xihai Town, the current name for the base, will be turned
into an exhibition center which displays the birth and growth of
China's first atom tomb and hydrogen bomb, and the devotion of
Chinese scientists to the scientific research, said a local
official. 

    "The retired base was expected to become a platform for
spurring the patriotic spirit of the general public," said Ma
Weimin, deputy head of the Qinghai Provincial Cultural Heritage
Bureau. 

    The "nuclear city" was put under state key protection in
2001 and it opened to visitors in 2003. 

    Tests show that environmental factors in the locality meet
international standards. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 32 Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water
 
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:26:25 -0800

t r u t h o u t | 03.17

Go directly to our issues page: http://www.truthout.org/issues.shtml

Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031706R.shtml
With power cleaner than coal and cheaper than natural gas, the nuclear industry, 20 years past its last meltdown, thinks it is ready for its second act: its first new reactor orders since the 1970's. But there is a catch. The public's acceptance of new reactors depends in part on the performance of the old ones, and lately several of those have been discovered to be leaking radioactive water into the ground.

Protesters March Through Gulf Coast to New Orleans
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031706S.shtml
About 200 people marched on Highway 90 in Gulfport - protesting one war in the hopes of trying to avoid another. A war of what they call the neglect of the people in America. "I am shocked that something like this is happening on American soil and there's still this much destruction here six months later. I'm shocked that so much of this landscape looks exactly like what I saw in Iraq," said Iraq war veteran Michael Blake.

Iraq War Resisters Stage 241-Mile Peace March Across US-Mexico Border
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031706T.shtml
A group of anti-war protesters are staging a 241-mile march for peace across the Mexico-US border and through California. Amy Goodman spoke with one of the march's key organizers, Pablo Paredes. He is an Iraq war resister who refused orders to board a ship in 2004 heading to Iraq.

The Dammed: Environmentalists Watch for Opening of World's Largest Dam
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031706EA.shtml
The world's biggest dam is to open in May, months ahead of schedule. The Three Gorges dam is viewed by supporters with pride as a symbol of China's economic and social change, but environmentalists believe it is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

The False Promise of "Clean Coal"
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031706EB.shtml
The country's coal-burning power industry is expanding. While small towns choked by power plants hear the promise of new "clean coal" technologies, mining communities know there is no technological remedy for the destruction the industry is wreaking in their communities.

German Drug Company "Had Never Tested Its Products on Humans Before"
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031706HA.shtml
The German company whose drug trial has left six men fighting for their lives after it went badly wrong had never tested its products on humans before.

"I'm Not a Sick Person"
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031706HB.shtml
New treatments are giving new hope to patients with multiple sclerosis.

Norman Leonard, Labor Lawyer at Forefront of Political Turmoil in US, Dies
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031706LA.shtml
Norman Leonard, a chief legal architect for the longshoremen's union whose eloquent legal brief was critical in persuading the US Supreme Court to overturn a perjury conviction against union founder Harry Bridges in the 1950s, has died. He was 92.

Blogger Puts Guide to Abortion Online
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031706WA.shtml
A blogger has added fresh fuel to the abortion debate that divides the US by posting online detailed instructions on how to perform such an operation. She said she had received death threats as a result.

Womenomics 101
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031706WB.shtml
Life for women in the American workplace is far from paradise - they face economic punishment for almost every aspect of their biology.

Katrina Survivors: Don't Abandon Us
A Film by Chris Hume
http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm
On Tuesday, March 14th, Katrina survivors converged on Washington to protest FEMA's eviction of those displaced by Katrina from their motel rooms. Chris Hume spoke to people affected by the policy. This time there has been no extension or court order extending the program. People once displaced by Katrina are now being displaced by our government.

Go directly to our issues page: http://www.truthout.org/issues.shtml

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

You are subscribed as: map_mirror@yahoogroups.com

Go directly to our home page: http://www.truthout.org
Our Privacy Policy -> http://truthout.org/privacypolicy.htm




 

*****************************************************************
 33 Leaked plan: G8 Seeks to Promote "Trillions" of Dollars of
Investment in Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Energy |
EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse

 
Published on 14 Mar 2006 by . Archived on 19 Mar 2006.
 
by Executive Analysis	 

In a dramatic turn-around from last year's meeting in
Gleneagles, Scotland, G8 leaders have set their sights on
expanding access to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Last year,
G8 leaders focused on mitigating the impacts of climate change
and canceling debt. This year the G8 will focus on promoting
trillions of dollars of investment in fossil fuels which will
exacerbate both climate change and developing country debt. 

Energy Security is one of three core themes scheduled for
discussion at the upcoming Saint-Petersburg Summit and it will
presumably be the core issue on the table when G8 Energy
Ministers meet on March 15th and 16th in Moscow. Rather than use
the G8 process as a means to overcome the world's addiction to
oil and other fossil fuels, a G8 draft Plan of Action on Global
Energy Security reveals that the Saint-Petersburg Summit is
shaping up as an opportunity to ensure that the addiction will
be well fed in the decades to come. 

Expanding access to oil and gas: 
The G8 draft Plan of Action argues that 17 trillion US dollars
of investment will be needed over the next 25 years in order to
create a shock-proof system of global energy supply and it
outlines the G8's intention to work together to create the
environment for the effective mobilization of these huge sums.
The G8 is calling for a global effort to reshape regulatory
regimes and remove unjustified administrative barriers.
According to the draft Plan of Action, these legal and
regulatory changes will help create the conditions for the
private sector to: · find new reserves of oil and gas at a
faster rate than the existing reserves are depleted; · increase
oil and gas output by, among other things, more drilling on the
continental shelf; · expand production capacity in oil-refining,
petrochemical and gas processing industries; · develop new
electric power facilities, with an emphasis on nuclear and
hydro-power plants; and · introduce clean coal technology. 

Any intention of significantly reducing the world's use of
fossil fuels seems to be swept aside. The draft Plan of Action
states that: The proven hydrocarbon reserves and the existing
investment potential are sufficient to meet, for a foreseeable
future, the growing world demand for energy. We need to create
jointly the proper environment to realize this potential. 

Energy Efficiency and the Environment: 
The draft Plan of Action emphasizes the following priorities
among a range of measures to ensure a more efficient and
ecologically responsible energy production and use: · increasing
the output of hydrocarbon deposits; · raising the level of
processing of hydrocarbon resources; · widespread introduction
of carbon sequestration technologies in energy production; ·
wider introduction of clean coal technologies; · large-scale
utilization of associated gas; · use of coal-bed methane; and ·
expanding the market for synthetic fuels, particularly those
produced from coal and natural gas. 

Expanding Nuclear Energy: 
The message on nuclear energy is clear: We believe that the
development of nuclear energy would promote the global energy
security... and we intend to make additional joint efforts to
ensure non-discriminatory access to this energy source. 

Developing an Institutional Framework for a New Global Energy
Architecture: 
The G8 wants to pursue the above-mentioned objectives by working
within the framework of existing relevant institutions and
mechanisms. According to the draft Plan of Action, they intend
to call on the World Bank, export credit agencies and the
regional development banks to use more effectively their
potential for financing energy projects, especially in
developing countries. They want the international financial
institutions (IFIs) to pay special attention to improving the
economic and financial viability of projects by using mechanisms
and schemes of insurance and sharing of financial risk. They
will presumably also be expecting the IFIs to join them in
working actively with the developing countries with a view of
improving conditions for private investment... 

The draft Plan of Action also focuses on the need for more
dialog between energy producers and consumers in order to ensure
a secure and uninterrupted supply of oil and gas. This includes
working in closer contact with OPEC and other international
bodies such as the Saudi-inspired International Energy Forum
(IEF). Looking ahead to 2007, the draft Plan of Action states:
We have instructed our experts to examine the feasibility of and
formulate recommendations for the next G8 Summit in Germany with
regards to establishing the practice of holding regular annual
meetings of G8 energy ministers along with senior officials of
the IEA, IEF and OPEC... 

Is There Any Good News? 

The G8 reaffirms its commitment to the Gleneagles Plan of Action
on renewable energy and makes a range of references to the
importance of energy efficiency and eradicating energy poverty.
Unfortunately, these laudable goals are couched within an
unmistakable focus on expanding fossil fuel and nuclear energy
production and using public institutions to support the work of
international oil companies who are currently reporting record
profits. 

Debt and Oil: 

By emphasizing the need to increase oil production rather than
helping countries diversify away from their dependence on oil,
the G8 is contradicting both its rhetoric on climate change and
debt cancellation. At the G8 in 2005, Oil Change International,
and the Jubilee USA Network, co-published Drilling into Debt -
the first study to rigorously examine the relationship in
between oil and debt. The report confirmed the dire impact that
rising oil prices have had and continue to have on oil importers
globally, while also for the first time revealing that countries
that produce oil also have unusually high debt burdens. 

Conclusion: 

The world's leading industrialized countries don't seem to be
able to decide whether or not to use the G8 as a vehicle for
overcoming their addiction to oil or as a means of feeding that
addiction. They acknowledge the potential for devastating
conflicts driven by eventually disruptive competition for energy
sources, but their draft Plan of Action seems to suggest that
the answer to the world's dangerous dependence on fossil fuels
is more fossil fuels. Rather than charting a bold vision for a
clean energy future, G8 governments are debating a global energy
architecture that would drive us further down the destructive
road that we find ourselves on today. Hopefully there is still
time to turn the Summit around. 

To view a copy of the draft G8 Plan of Action see: 

For more information contact Graham Saul: 
graham (at) priceofoil (dot) org. 
Tel: +1-613-558-3368

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the website:The Price of Oil is pollution, poverty, greed,
war, fear, and addiction. We want affordable energy that won’t
cost us lives or our planet.
 
Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of
oil and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy.
We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming political
barriers to that transition. See also: by grassroots activist
group, Reclaim The Commons ().
 
The 'Energy Dissent' Calls To Action against the forthcoming G8
meeting in Russia seem to be one of the first times Peak Oil has
featured prominently in the communiques of the global protest
movements.
 
For the 'Energy Dissent' Call to Action and updates about global
resistance against the July 15-17, 2006 G8 Summit in Russia, 

According to the website:Initially formed to oppose Bio 2004
(the world's largest biotechnology and pharmaceutical conference
held at San Francisco CA in 2004), RECLAIM THE COMMONS has
quickly grown from a single mobilization into an ongoing
commitment to teach and demonstrate sustainable, life-affirming
alternatives to biotechnology and corporate power in general:
organic food, community gardens, water reclamation, urban
transformation, a gift economy, and so much more. We do this
hoping to inform, enrage, and inspire, as we spread the skills
and tools we need to bring our vision of ecological democracy to
fruition.
 ...
 Come join a movement about reclaiming – safe and healthy food!
sustainable farms! access to healthcare! our genes! the right to
save and plant seeds! community garden space! science in the
public interest! the forests! intact ecosystems! the genetic
integrity of all life! biodiversity! human rights for Global
South farmers! a world free of genetically engineered
bioweapons!For another look at the merging of Peak Oil and
global justice movements see: - a blog devoted to exploring the
opportunities of Peak Oil for the spread of
libertarian/anarchist ideals. "In Leviathan's ashes, we could
create new decentralized communities of mutual aid, solidarity
against oppression, &egalitarian harmony. May this be a map to
the terrain ahead!"
 -AF

*****************************************************************
 34 Clarion-Ledger: 2nd reactor being considered for Grand Gulf 

March 19, 2006 

By Doug Abrahms
 					 				 			 		 	 	 		Gannett News Service
File photo/The Associated Press
 
This is a 1982 file photograph of the Grand Gulf Nuclear
Station, near Port Gibson, owned by Entergy Nuclear. 
      
WASHINGTON — The summer of 1979 saw numerous protests against
nuclear power plants around the nation, including a Mississippi
atomic reactor in Port Gibson. The protests even came before the
accident that year at the Three Mile Island nuclear power site
in Pennsylvania, which sparked concerns about safety and the
environmental harm that could come from the relatively new power
source.

But few people near the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power in Port Gibson
today would protest building a second reactor, because the first
has run safely, said Jim Pilgrim, executive director of the
Warren County Port Commission, which is located near Grand Gulf.

Another plant also could lower natural gas prices as well as
provide jobs, he said.

Entergy Corp., owner of Grand Gulf, is considering building a
second reactor in the same area. The company says the project
would create more than 1,000 construction jobs and several
hundred permanent positions.

"We would be very supportive and would actively pursue the
location of the second unit," Pilgrim said. The Grand Gulf plant
"has proven to be a clean and safe operation."

Communities like Vicksburg aren't the only ones pushing for more
nuclear plants. President Bush, members of Congress, utilities
and even a few environmentalists support the technology because
it doesn't cause air pollution or burn expensive natural gas.

Entergy, which owns 10 nuclear plants in eight states, has filed
for a preliminary license to build another near Vicksburg. But
the company won't make a final decision until late next year,
said Dan Keuter, vice president of nuclear energy development
for the Clinton, Miss.-based company.

"Everything would come down to cost and risk and timing," he
said. "But (Wall Street investors) don't want to live through
what happened in early 1980s in terms of cost overruns and
schedule overruns."

Construction of nuclear plants stalled after the radioactive
release at Three Mile Island, and the costs jumped
significantly. Grand Gulf, for example, started producing
electricity in 1985, six years behind schedule and the cost of
plant construction quintupled to $3.5 billion.

Today, a large gas-fired plant costs about $600 million, a
similar coal facility about $1.5 billion while a nuclear unit
would approach $2 billion, although no one knows for sure since
U.S. companies stopped ordering atomic reactors in the late
1970s.

One advantage of nuclear power facilities is that - unlike coal
plants - they don't emit sulfur, mercury or carbon dioxide, a
pollutant scientists say contributes to global warming. Nuclear
generators also could replace some plants that burn natural gas,
a fuel that has soared in price over the past few years.

The downsides are that the industry produces about 2,200 tons of
nuclear waste yearly that needs to be disposed of.
To spur the construction of new nuclear power plants, the
federal government has provided tax incentives in an energy law
passed last year. They include:

+ A tax credit, worth $125 million a year for eight years, to be
provided for producing electricity.

+ Loans, guaranteed by the federal government, for up to 80
percent of the construction costs of a nuclear plant.

+ Risk-delay payments of up to $500 million for plants that fall
behind schedule due to red tape or litigation.

There are long-term fundamental risks to building nuclear power
plants, said John Kennedy, an industry analyst at Standard
&Poor's, a Wall Street research company. It's difficult to
predict the cost of building the first few U.S. nuclear plants
or the price of electricity 10 or 20 years from now, he said.

"We think the Energy Policy Act (signed last year) has some very
supportive provisions to encourage investment in nuclear power,"
Kennedy said. "However, we think the incentives may not outweigh
the risks."

One environmental group objects to the government subsidies
being given to electric utilities, most of which have reported
large profits. Federal money will lead to building a few more
nuclear plants rather than a major expansion similar to the
1970s and 1980s, when nearly 100 plants were completed, said
Thomas Cochran, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense
Council.

"We don't need to subsidize these first (nuclear plants),"
Cochran said. "Let them compete" with other sources of energy.
The environmental community is split on nuclear power. Patrick
Moore, a founder of Greenpeace International, supports the
technology because nuclear energy doesn't cause air pollution.

"Nuclear energy has already made a sizable contribution to the
reduction of (greenhouse gas) emissions in America," Moore told
a Senate energy panel last year. "Among power plants, the dirty
and old coal-fired plants produce the most pollution."

Many in the energy industry think that once the first few
nuclear plants are ordered, it will lead to a renaissance in
atomic reactors producing electricity. A handful of companies
have proposed building up to a dozen nuclear power plants,
although no deal has been signed.

The time to design and license nuclear plants should drop after
the first few plants are approved, and facilities will become
standardized, said Entergy's Keuter. The company expects that if
it decides to build a plant in late 2007, it will take two to
three years to get a Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit, three
years to build and another six months to get operations
underway, he said.

"The subsequent ones should get cheaper," he said. "It looks
very promising right now unless something happens." 

©2006 The Clarion-Ledger                                                
*****************************************************************
 35 The Clarion-Ledger: Grand Goof? - 

March 19, 2006 

+ Timing may be (almost) everything

  TIMES CHANGE
 
+ Mississippians got a raw deal on Grand Gulf in the time of the
Three Mile Island disaster. But times have changed. 

+ Your view? Click on the clarionledger.com Forum:
http://208.137.136.144/phpbb2/index.php


The timing may be right for considering a second nuclear power
plant at Port Gibson - especially since Mississippi got it so
wrong last time.

While Entergy Mississippi (then Mississippi Power &Light Co.)
was building Grand Gulf I, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
happened, essentially shutting down the nuclear plant building
business and causing construction costs to triple.

By the time Entergy officials began continuing, building a
planned second reactor, locally dubbed "Grand Goof II" for its
bad timing and the cost of the first plant, it was seen as a
lose-lose deal. The plans were essentially dropped.

Now, Entergy has applied for consideration for a second reactor.
As location is everything in real estate, timing could be
everything for building a Grand Gulf II.

U.S. electricity power plants fueled by hydroelectric are
limited by the environmental considerations, cost and adequacy
of water resources for their regions. Coal-fired plants are
"dirty" and cause air pollution. Natural gas-fired plants which
a few years ago seemed the perfect solution now are subject to
skyrocketing gas prices and supply problems.

Environmentalists are divided over nuclear plants' impact; they
don't produce greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is relatively
cheap and efficient. The safety of the plants has been proven
overseas. New designs can maximize that even more. The major
question is waste disposal. What do you do with spent nuclear
materials?

These are considerations that must be weighed.

Also, customers of Entergy Mississippi (which supplies power to
Jackson and most of southwest Mississippi) learned the hard way
with the first plant that they can be unfairly burdened for its
cost, with most of the savings going to customers in New Orleans
and Louisiana.

The Mississippi Public Service Commission must be proactive on
this. Questions uppermost must be regarding any new plant's
safety (design, risk from terrorist attack or natural causes)
and the storage, disposal and/or transportation of nuclear waste
in and out of Mississippi, and the cost/benefit of more nuclear
power to Mississippi ratepayers. Any new reactor should give
local ratepayers a break, since the risks are being taken by
Mississippi.

Although any decision could be years away, public debate and
information-sharing is important.

In this, timing is everything, too. The time to weigh the
options is now, so an informed decision can be made. 

©2006 The Clarion-Ledger                                                
*****************************************************************
 36 NYT: Nuclear Reactors Found to Be Leaking Radioactive Water

M. Spencer Green/Associated Press

Illinois officials stood Thursday by a map that showed an 
underground pipeline believed to be leaking at the Braidwood 
Generating Station.

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: March 17, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 16 - With power cleaner than coal and cheaper 
than natural gas, the nuclear industry, 20 years past its last 
meltdown, thinks it is ready for its second act: its first new 
reactor orders since the 1970's.

picture: Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times

A leak was found last year at Indian Point 2 in Buchanan, N.Y.

But there is a catch. The public's acceptance of new reactors 
depends in part on the performance of the old ones, and lately 
several of those have been discovered to be leaking radioactive 
water into the ground.

Near Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by 
the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water 
that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. The company, 
which has bought out one property owner and is negotiating with 
others, has offered to help pay for a municipal water system for 
houses near the plant that have private wells.

In a survey of all 10 of its nuclear plants, Exelon found tritium 
in the ground at two others. On Tuesday, it said it had had 
another spill at Braidwood, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, 
and on Thursday, the attorney general of Illinois announced she 
was filing a lawsuit against the company over that leak and five 
earlier ones, dating to 1996. The suit demands among other things 
that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents.

In New York, at the Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan, workers 
digging a foundation adjacent to the plant's spent fuel pool 
found wet dirt, an indication that the pool was leaking. New 
monitoring wells are tracing the tritium's progress toward the 
Hudson River.

Indian Point officials say the quantities are tiny, compared with 
the amount of tritium that Indian Point is legally allowed to 
release into the river. Officials said they planned to find out 
how much was leaking and declare the leak a "monitored release 
pathway."

Nils J. Diaz, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
said he would withhold judgment on the proposal until after it 
reached his agency, but he added, "They're going to have to fix 
it."

This month, workers at the Palo Verde plant in New Mexico found 
tritium in an underground pipe vault.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which is critical of nuclear 
power safety arrangements, said recently that in the past 10 
years, tritium had leaked from at least seven reactors. It called 
for a systematic program to ensure there were no more leaks.

Tami Branum, who lives close to the Braidwood reactor and owns 
property in the nearby village of Godley, said in a telephone 
interview, "It's just absolutely horrible, what we're trying to 
deal with here." Ms. Branum and her children, 17-year-old twin 
girls and a 7-year-old boy, drink only bottled water, she said, 
but use municipal water for everything else. "We're bathing in 
it, there's no way around it," she said.

Ms. Branum said that her property in Godley was worth about 
$50,000 and that she wanted to sell it, but that no property was 
changing hands now because of the spill.

A spokesman for Exelon, Craig Nesbit, said that neither Godley's 
water nor Braidwood's water system was threatened, but that the 
company had lost credibility when it did not publicly disclose a 
huge fuel oil spill and spills of tritium from 1996 to 2003. No 
well outside company property shows levels that exceed drinking 
water standards, he said.

Mr. Diaz of the regulatory agency, speaking to a gathering of 
about 1,800 industry executives and government regulators last 
week, said utilities were planning to apply for 11 reactor 
projects, with a total of 17 reactors. The Palo Verde reactor was 
the last one that was ordered, in October 1973, and actually 
built.

As the agency prepares to review license applications for the 
first time in decades, it is focusing on "materials degradation," 
a catch-all term for cracks, rust and other ills to which nuclear 
plants are susceptible. The old metal has to hold together, or be 
patched or replaced as required, for the industry to have a 
chance at building new plants, experts say.

Tritium, a form of hydrogen with two additional neutrons in its 
nucleus, is especially vexing. The atom is unstable and returns 
to stability by emitting a radioactive particle. Because the 
hydrogen is incorporated into a water molecule, it is almost 
impossible to filter out. The biological effect of the radiation 
is limited because, just like ordinary water, water that 
incorporates tritium does not stay in the body long.

But it is detectable in tiny quantities, and always makes its 
source look bad. The Energy Department closed a research reactor 
in New York at its Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, 
largely because of a tritium leak.

And it can catch up to a plant after death; demolition crews at 
the Connecticut Yankee reactor in Haddam Neck, Conn., are 
disposing of extra dirt that has been contaminated with tritium 
and other materials, as they tear the plant down.

After years of flat employment levels, the industry is preparing 
to hire hundreds of new engineers. Luis A. Reyes, the executive 
director for operations at the regulatory commission, told the 
industry gathering last week, "We'll take your r‚sum‚ in hard 
copy, online, whatever you can do," eliciting laughter from an 
audience heavy with executives of reactor operators and companies 
that want to build new ones.
*****************************************************************
 37 Public Citizen: Duke Energy Should Be Denied Taxpayer Subsidies 
to Build New Nuclear Reactors; Better Alternatives Exist
 
March 17, 2006 

WASHINGTON, D.C.  Duke Energys plan to apply for a construction 
and operation license to build two new nuclear reactors at a site 
owned by Southern Co. in Cherokee County, S.C., should not be 
permitted to come to fruition, Public Citizen said today. Duke is 
angling to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to 
defray the costs of applying for a license as well as operating 
the plants; it should not be given a government handout for the 
application, the organization said. Nor should the government 
issue a license. Not only does nuclear power pose a threat to 
public health and safety, but Duke Energy has a track record that 
indicates it has been dishonest with consumers. 

No new reactors have been ordered in the United States for 30
years, and for good reason. Nuclear power is extremely expensive
and not economically viable in the marketplace  no nuclear
power plant has operated without taxpayer money since the
nuclear power industry was born. It also poses a public safety
and national security threat and creates dangerous highly
radioactive waste, for which no country in the world has a
solution, and will not be effective in addressing climate
change. 

Further, Duke Energy has one of the worst track records of
energy companies in the United States when it comes to
manipulating markets and cheating consumers. Duke Energy has
been forced to pay $257 million to settle allegations of market
manipulation and other misdeeds in the past three years.
Consider: 
  + In September 2003, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission fined Duke Energy $28 million for manipulating
natural gas markets. 
  + In December 2003, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
fined Duke Energy $2.5 million, resolving an investigation into
allegations that Duke engaged in market gaming practices during
the California energy crisis. 
  + In July 2004, the California attorney general announced a
$207.5 million electricity price-gouging settlement with Duke
Energy for the companys role in ripping off the states
consumers during the energy crisis that led to forced blackouts
and almost bankrupted California, harming many small businesses
and consumers. 
  + The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) in 2001
rescinded $14.4 million in payments Duke Energy had received
after the company did not make its power plants available for
the California market. The CAISO then issued a $4.5 million fine
against Duke for failing to follow California market rules
during a declared system emergency. 
  + In July 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission imposed
a cease-and-desist order on Duke Energy because Dukes internal
accounting controls were insufficient to ensure that its traders
properly recorded their trading activities. As a result, Duke
Energy illegally classified $56.2 million of the companys
speculative power and natural gas trading operations. 

If Duke is permitted to proceed with its proposal, taxpayers
could be on the hook for cradle-to-grave subsidies, including: 
  + half the cost of applying for the license, estimated at as
much as $45 million per application for pre-approved reactor
designs; 
  + risk insurance to pay the industry for delays in
licensing, which could be up to $500 million each for the first
two plants; 
  + taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the
cost of a project, potentially costing taxpayers more than $2
billion per plant; and 
  + production tax credits of 1.8-cents for each kilowatt-hour
of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the
first eight years of operation, estimated at a total of $5.7
billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025. 

For these reasons, we urge the government to deny Duke Energy
federal dollars to subsidize the exorbitant costs of building
new reactors and ultimately deny the company a license. 

Renewable energy is a viable alternative to nuclear power and
conventional fuels, and can meet the countrys energy needs
without the burdens of carbon emissions or radioactive waste. In
addition to renewable technologies themselves, using energy more
efficiently is an important part of moving to a clean energy
future. The increase in energy demand Duke predicts can be met
much more safely and effectively by efficiency measures than
through building new nuclear plants. 

For more information about the five fatal flaws of nuclear
power, click here. For more information about the proposed
Duke-Cinergy merger,  
### 

Public Citizen
*****************************************************************
 38 Joplin Globe: Eagle-Picher plant, Mid-America take part in nuclear program 
Wally Kennedy more 

The Joplin Globe • 117 E. Fourth St. • Joplin, MO 64801 •
417.623.3480 • 800.444.8514 • Fax 417.623.8450   
  
Globe Business Writer 3/19/06
 
The stainless-steel boxes are manufactured in Joplin. They're
shipped to Quapaw, Okla., where they are lined with a
boron-based material.

From there, the boxes go to the Y-12 National Security Complex
at Oak Ridge, Tenn.

That's about all you can find out locally about the national
security project that involves two local companies, the
EaglePicher Technologies boron plant at Quapaw and Mid-America
Precision Products in Joplin.

The managers of those companies, Jim Hall at the boron plant,
and Doug Wright at Mid-America, say they would like to talk
about the work their companies are doing for the National
Nuclear Security Administration, but a shield of secrecy has
been placed over the project.

That shield was penetrated earlier this month by Frank Munger, a
writer for the Knoxville News-Sentinel in Knoxville, Tenn.
Munger, who has written about U.S. Department of Energy projects
at Oak Ridge for many years, noticed a reference to the project
in federal budget documents. After weeks of probing, he
uncovered information about the project that could be published.

Munger, in a recent interview, said it is difficult and time
consuming to get information about what is going on at Oak Ridge
and that government workers have been fired for releasing
details that at the time appeared to be unimportant, but later
proved to be sensitive or classified information about the
nuclear-weapons plant.

Steven Wyatt, a public relations spokesman for the DOE, said
secrecy actually is written into the deal with private companies.

"The people in Joplin and Quapaw who know about this work cannot
talk about it. That's part of the contract," he said.
"Everything associated with nuclear weapons is very, very
sensitive from manufacturing, to storage, to accountability.
It's all tightly controlled.''

Wyatt confirmed that Mid-America in Joplin is constructing
rackable storage boxes that are lined with a boron-based ceramic
material by EaglePicher at Quapaw.

"Our plan is to place highly-enriched uranium in the rackable
boxes and place the materials in a facility that is now under
construction at Oak Ridge. This highly-enriched uranium is used
in nuclear weapons,'' he said.

The government is spending millions on the boxes to house the
nation's stockpile of bomb-grade uranium. According to Munger,
about 900 of the boxes have been purchased. The proposed budget
for 2007 includes money to buy another 500.

Wyatt would not specify how many of the boxes will be needed at
the storage complex, which is scheduled for completion early
next year. The uranium storehouse will cost $350 million to
construct. 

The special filler material in the boxes is EaglePicher's
BoroBond4. According to information released by EaglePicher
early last year, the company was awarded a $6.2 million
subcontract by BWXT Y-12, LLC, the operating contractor at the
Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, to cast BoroBond4
in the boxes.

Munger said BoroBond4, which took EaglePicher more than four
years to develop, is "a nuclear poison'' in that it absorbs
neutrons to enhance the safety of storing nearly pure U-235 -
uranium's fissionable isotope.

Wyatt said the National Nuclear Security Administration has
spent about $8 million acquiring the new storage boxes. Budget
documents for 2007 indicate that $10 million is being proposed
to purchase another 500 boxes and to accelerate some related
security activities at Y-12.

BoroBond

 BoroBond4, made by Eagle-Picher in Joplin, reduces the storage
space requirements for bomb-grade uranium.

 The material permits enriched uranium to be stored in a smaller
space, reducing the size and cost of the uranium-storage site. 

The Joplin Globe, or the World Wide Web 

www.joplinglobe.com   

  © 2006 The Joplin Globe Publishing Company   
*****************************************************************
 39 El Universal Online: Nuclear plant foibles suggest candidates should push for
phase-out   

México D.F., a 19 de marzo de 2006                                                             
  			 	 	 
March 19, 2006
     
Having followed the Laguna Verde Nuclear Electric Plant's
de-generation for years, I am among many who are not surprised
by the latest spasm of mishaps at Mexico's only atomic power
station, located on the Gulf Coast of Veracruz state. But my
lack of astonishment is no less tempered with desperation over
the continuing operation of a federal facility that is so
impossible to hold accountable. 

By nature, nuclear power plants are secretive. The international
elite that runs them came up with a code of conduct in the
beginning of the so-called “peaceful” atoms era to protect their
operating information because it could be used for development
of nuclear weapons, which are not really so peaceful. 

Then came Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, demonstrating among
other things the improbability of ever achieving timely public
disclosure of the latent threats of nuclear technology. The
Three Mile Island reactor core meltdown and permanent closure in
the United States in 1979 was the most frightful calamity of its
type up to that time. The 1986 Chernobyl reactor explosion in
the Ukraine trumped it, though, to become known as world's worst
nuclear accident, when massive radiation killed 32 people at the
scene and left hundreds of thousands of victims of birth defects
and illnesses. 

In the ensuing era of finger-pointing about stockpiles of
weapons of mass destruction, renewed concern over nuclear
proliferation gives everybody today one more reason to disavow
themselves of any inclination toward atomic power production. 

On top of that, Laguna Verde is an exceptionally slippery case
because its management has a habit of exaggerating its efforts
to keep out of the public eye. I think the Veracruz newspapers
have a stock headline that they paste in every so often when the
case calls for it: “Laguna Verde Accident Covered Up,” it reads. 

So it was just another drop in the bucket when one of the two
General Electric boiling water reactors at Laguna Verde
apparently ceased functioning on March 8, and the official
versions of the story differed widely regarding the duration and
seriousness of the incident supposedly caused by an electrical
cable failure. On one hand, the plant administration reportedly
alerted the hospital and Veracruz Gov. Fidel Herrera Beltrán, in
Panama on business. On the other, it did not bother to take the
prescribed precaution of activating the External Radiological
Emergency Plan. 

It was no wonder that Veracruz federal legislators vowed to
bring Federal Electricity Commission Director Alfredo Elías Ayub
and plant Manager Rafael Fernández de la Garza to task for this
and former accidents. The incident comes two months after a
periodic audit by the World Association of Nuclear Operators
(WANO), which purportedly addressed employees' charges about
Fernández' corruption. Fernández had been relieved of his
position as manager a day or so after arriving late for an
interview with me at the plant 10 years ago. At the time,
management was under investigation in a series of administrative
and legal complaints alleging “irregularities, abuse of
authority,” and “decisions made lightly that constitute a safety
risk.” Fernández was later deemed ineligible for the job by the
federal comptrollers office, but somehow he is back. 

Beyond his personal position, an ongoing conflict of interest in
regulation of Laguna Verde is the crowning argument against its
anti democratic contribution to the grid. The National Nuclear
Safety and Protection Commission, which is the regulatory organ
for the plant, is part of the Energy Ministry, which in turn
promotes atomic power through the Federal Electricity
Commission, which in turn runs Laguna Verde. What's more, the
director of the regulatory commission, Juan Eibenschutz, is
known as the father of Laguna Verde. The Veracruz Mothers
Anti-Nuclear Group has demanded better emergency response
preparation, a public audit of the plant, and a reform of the
regulatory structure. At the height of the international
anti-nuclear movement in the 1980s, all the candidates in the
race with former President Carlos Salinas de Gortari met with
group members. 

It's presidential campaign season again now, and the 20th
anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster is just around the corner
in April. It looks like this would be another good time for
candidates who want to win some extra votes to take the side of
public opinion on Laguna Verde. Ayub and commission want to
spend US$4 billion for a new atomic power plant by 2020, in
addition to the US$150,000 they already are wasting on boosting
Laguna Verde's 5 percent contribution to the country's
electricity output. Rather than trying to fix Laguna Verde, a
real leader would commit to phasing it out. It poses a threat
not only through mistakes made by human error, but there are
also risks of radiation contamination and terrorist attacks. 

The money saved could be used to replace the jobs at the plant
with others in development of clean solar, wind, geothermal,
biomass, or hydrogen energy production. It doesn't really matter
which of these renewal energy sources the successful candidate
chooses to emphasize, because all of them out-do nuclear plants
in terms of transparency and environmental safety. 

Talli Nauman is co-director of Journalism to Raise Environmental
Awareness, a project initiated with support from the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. She is the Americas Program
Associate at the International Relations Center.
talli@direcway.com 

*****************************************************************
 40 IRNA: Larijani: Peaceful nuclear activities pursued regardless of talks - 

Tehran, March 18, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said nuclear talks
should be held from the standpoint of power so that national
rights would be restored.

 "If (nuclear) talks are not pursued from the standpoint of
power, sovereignty, and national will they will not lead to
materialization of our rights... and we pursue peaceful nuclear
activities regardless of negotiations," said Secretary of Iran's
Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani here on
Friday.

 Addressing a group of voluntary mobilization force, Basij,
elites and university professors, Larijani added, "The only
condition we would yield to regarding our peaceful nuclear
activities is the supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)." He reiterated, "The West intends to block the
path for our access to the nuclear energy, but if they assume
they can achieve such a goal resorting to strategies pursued in
the past, the past experiences prove that such approaches are
ineffective."

 Larijani reiterated, "Iran has chosen the path of resistance
till achieving full access to nuclear energy, because we
consider it a legitimate right. Iran is a signatory to the NPT
and we are demanding our rights in the framework of that treaty
and the IAEA regulations, similarly with the other members of
that agency."

 The SNSC Secretary then posed two questions: "Have we paved all
logical paths, and respected all related international laws?"
and "Can we achieve this right through diplomatic paths?"

 He replied, "Regardless of the approaches adopted, we have been
engaged with this dossier during the past three and a half
years, been trying to ensure the presence of the dossier at the
agency, and been providing replies to their questions."

 Emphasizing that Iran has acted most transparently throughout
that path, he said, "We had negotiations and reached agreements,
which led to the issuance of the agency's resolutions."

 Larijani reiterated, "The result of those talks in Tehran was
the suspension of our enrichment activities, in Brussels the
suspension of manufacturing parts, and in Paris the suspension
of all remaining nuclear activities.

 "In Sa'dabad they said that they had come to Iran not to let
the country's case be referred to the UN Security Council. But
here we are today with the situation you see."

 The SNSC Secretary added, "Let us suppose we would yield to
such a process in order to solve the problem through diplomatic
initiatives.

 But in Paris we asked for having ten centrifuges for research
activities, which was rejected by them. They said the only way
to block the path for sending your dossier to the UNSC is
suspension of all activities."

 He noted, "Instead they promised that in a short while they
would offer practical guarantees to ensure that Iran would have
access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

 Larijani said, "Unfortunately a while after that they announced
that the best solution would be Iran's total abandoning of its
nuclear activities because such activities have worried the
West! Then it was agreed that Iran would prepare a working plan
and a four-phase plan was prepared by Iran."

 He added, "In June 2005 they told us that they would prepare a
plan based on ours and Mr. Rowhani who was in charge announced
repeatedly that if the Europeans' plan would lack our right to
enrichment we would reject it. In their proposal the Europeans
had aggrandized the marginal issues, but its major point was
their demand for the annihilation of all our facilities!"

 Pointing out that Iran's policy is quite clear today, he
reiterated, "Such talks would as far as possible offer us
nothing at all. The West openly announces it is worried about
Iran's access to nuclear sciences. I have heard that very often
in official talks, too. In Vienna, too, they told us they were
worried lest we would master nuclear technology, even for
peaceful purposes!"

 The SNSC secretary added, "We have paved that path and announce
today that we would pursue our activities under the supervision
of the agency, while welcoming the continuation of
negotiations." Referring to Iran's voluntary implementation of
the NPT additional protocol he said, "When we announced we were
about the resumption activities at our Isfahan UCF plant, but
continue suspending our other activities, they issued their
September resolution against us." Larijani emphasized, "We have
reputedly told them that the talks should precisely be over
enrichment and giving guarantees that there would be no
deviation of peaceful activities, since research and development
(R) activities are out of the question."

 He said that the West's policy is imposing mounting pressure
gainst Iran, adding, "Iran's nuclear activities should not have
created tension at international scene all by itself. They are
aware of the details of our activities and are well aware that
there are no missing points or ambiguities for the agency."

 Larijani emphasized, "Iran's nuclear activities are merely a
pretext for the West, since even in the absence of it, too,
there would be other dossiers. US Secretary of State
(Condoleezza) Rice says that Iran is the Central Bank for
International terrorism! What does that have to do with our
nuclear program? They have pursued parallel projects against us."

 The SNSC Secretary reiterated, "The Americans, and the West,
have for various reasons come up with the conclusion that
pressure needs to be mounted against Iran and relying on
historic background they assumed that Iran would back up under
severe pressure."

 Emphasizing that such pressure would not be shaken under such
pressure, he said, "They have decided to increase drastic
pressure against us to urge us to retreat, but such a retreating
would be strategic and lead to a chain of other retreating."


*****************************************************************
 41 News24:  10 exposed to radiation in Japan

Tokyo - Ten people were exposed to a small amount of radiation
at a nuclear power plant in central Japan, when test equipment
using radioactive material malfunctioned during a pipe
inspection, a plant operator said on Friday. 

The workers, from an equipment inspection company, were exposed
to iridium used in the test on Thursday. 

They were inspecting a pipe connected to nuclear waste handling
equipment near the number two reactor of the Hamaoka clear Power
Plant in Shizuoka, west of Tokyo, said Chubu Electric Power
Company spokesperson, Hideo Hoshiai. 

Hoshiai said the problem was unrelated to the reactor and the
amount of radiation exposure was within the daily limit and
posed no health threat. He said the radiation did not leak
outside the facility. 

The accident occurred during a remote controlled inspection,
when a part of the device containing iridium became stuck. 

Hoshiai said officials were investigating the cause of the
problem, while trying to contain the radioactive capsule. 

He said there were no safety or environmental concerns because
the radioactive part was wrapped in a protective shield and the
room was secured. 		 		 		 

News24 feed

*****************************************************************
 42 Detroit Free Press: Nuclear safety left hanging as crane dangled fuel rods

Michigan incident got warning but no fine 

March 18, 2006                  

BY HUGH McDIARMID JR. FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER                                                                                                          

The Palisades Nuclear Power Plant near South Haven is seeking a
20-year renewal of its operating license, which expires in 2011.
(Herald-Palladium photo via AP)

Michigan has three operating nuclear power plants. They supply
about 25% of Michigan's electrical needs.

 Palisades, near South Haven on Lake Michigan's shore, has
operated since 1971, with a generating capacity of 798,000
megawatts -- enough to power 500,000 typical homes.


 Cook Nuclear Power Plant at Bridgman on Lake Michigan's shore
has two units, operating since 1975 and 1978. Combined, they can
generate 2 million megawatts, enough to power 1.25 million homes.


 Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant near Monroe began operations in
1985, and has a capacity of 1.1 million megawatts, enough to
power about 688,000 homes. 
Meetings scheduled 					 
  + 

Public meetings related to the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant's
proposed license renewal are scheduled for April 5 at 1:30 and 7
p.m. at Lake Michigan College, 125 Veterans Blvd., South Haven.


Federal regulators will be available for questions one hour
before each meeting. The plant seeks a 20-year renewal of its
license, which expires in 2011. 
The worst case 					 
  + 

The scariest nuclear accident in Michigan was the 1966 partial
meltdown of the Fermi 1 nuclear reactor near Monroe that
inspired the 1975 book "We Almost Lost Detroit."


The trouble started when a piece of metal plate dislodged,
clogging the flow of sodium coolant throughout the reactor.


Plant officials maintained that only 1% of the uranium fuel
melted, but critics say the plant came close to a runaway
reaction that could have killed people for miles around the
plant.


No radiation was released, but the plant never returned to
useful operation. 				 		 		 

A 110-ton load of nuclear waste dangled for 55 hours above a
cooling pool last October as two workers at a southwest Michigan
nuclear power plant improperly manipulated a crane that had
frozen, federal regulators concluded in a recent review of the
incident.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission cited the Palisades Nuclear
Power Plant for a minor safety violation but did not impose a
fine -- a response considered weak by at least one former
federal nuclear reactor inspector and several activists who have
examined the case.

Under the NRC's worst-case scenario, if the suspended load had
accidentally dropped, a fire could have ignited, leading to
formation of a radioactive cloud. The cloud could have put
thousands of people downwind of the plant -- all the way to
Kalamazoo -- at risk of fatal radiation poisoning.

Ross Landsman, an inspector with the NRC for 25 years till his
retirement last year, said that even though the odds of such a
sequence were infinitesimally remote -- the scenario would have
to be triggered by an unusual incident such as an earthquake --
the NRC was too lenient.

"They have words now to make it seem all right. It's not. This
is the worst possible place" to have an unsealed cask of nuclear
fuel "suspended. To me, it's a big deal," he said.

Palisades spokesman Mark Savage disagreed.

"In this case, the fuel was always in a safe condition," he
said. The 14-foot-tall cask had barely broken the surface of the
40-foot-deep cooling pool when the crane stopped, he said.

The incident, however, illustrates how the combination of human
error and equipment failure can combine to whittle away the
multiple, redundant safeguards that protect the public and plant
workers from nuclear hazards.

Palisades, the smallest of Michigan's three nuclear plants,
produces enough electricity to power about 500,000 homes. The
Fermi 2 plant in Monroe County on the shore of Lake Erie is the
closest plant to metro Detroit. Palisades and Cook are both in
southwestern Michigan along Lake Michigan.

The incident, which did not appear on the daily log of nuclear
plant irregularities compiled by the NRC, was detailed in an NRC
quarterly report published Jan. 25. The log often notes things
as seemingly minor as an accidentally tripped alarm.

The load was safely lowered 55 hours after an improperly
calibrated fail-safe system stopped the load as it was being
raised. The citation from the NRC was of "minor safety
significance" -- a type that U.S. nuclear plants typically
receive several times each year.

But in its report, the NRC said the workers' actions were
neither authorized by their supervisors, nor allowed under
safety rules, and "represented an increase in the risk of a load
drop" that could have cracked the cooling pool below. A cracked
pool could have drained the water that cools tens of thousands
of spent nuclear fuel rods -- creating the possibility of a fire.

A more plausible, though still very unlikely, scenario would
have been an accident contained to the plant grounds but
creating a radioactive mess that could have shut down the plant
for years, said Landsman.

"It would have made a hole in the fuel pool and made a huge
mess," he said. "Spent fuel rods all over the floor and a
cracked pool. It would have shut the plant down" for years.

Dave Lochbaum, director of the nuclear safety project at the
Union of Concerned Scientists and a former nuclear reactor
engineer, said that having the waste dangle in the air for more
than two days increased risks of a serious accident.

"What's most troubling is that workers with years and years of
experience undertook that action without" authorization, he
said. "That's shifting the balance from skill and careful
thinking to luck."

Regulators and plant officials say the mechanical safeguards
operated as they should have.

"I don't want to trivialize it. It clearly had our attention,"
said Jan Strasma, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. "But there was no threat to health and safety."

The incident at Palisades has few precedents.

In 1995, a 122-ton cask of fuel hung above a cooling pool at
Prairie Island Nuclear Plant in Minnesota when its brake
improperly engaged. That load was safely lowered after 16 hours.
Other plants have had similar problems during practice transfers.

Kevin Kamps, nuclear waste specialist at the Washington
D.C.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said the
lack of public notice of the Palisades problem is troubling.

The incident was not included on the NRC's Internet listing of
daily incident reports, nor on event reports that are filed by
plant operators with the NRC and available to the public online.

Strasma said the Palisades problem did not fit the criteria for
an event report, and said that the agency was in frequent
contact with an inspector on the scene even though it wasn't
listed on daily reports.

The daily reports are informal communications about events as
significant as radiation leaks and as mundane as inadvertently
tripped fire alarms and plant management changes.

Strasma acknowledged that far less serious matters than the
Palisades incident are routinely included in the daily reports,
and said there's "not a clear-cut answer" why the crane problem
wasn't included.

Palisades is owned by CMS Energy Corp, which plans to sell the
plant by the end of 2007.

Contact HUGH McDIARMID JR. at 248-351-3295 or
mcdiarmid@freepress.com. 		 		 		 		 		 		 		 	 	 	 	

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc. 

*****************************************************************
 43 DesMoinesRegister.com: Sick Ames Lab workers may get benefits
 	 	 	 
Meetings will show employees and retirees how to file claims.
 	 
REGISTER AMES BUREAU
 
	March 19, 2006 	

Ames, Ia. — Former and current Ames Laboratory workers who have
cancer or a respiratory illness may get access to medical
benefits.

A town hall-style meeting Monday and Tuesday, at the Hotel at
Gateway Center, U.S. Highway 30 and Elwood Drive, will hosted by
the U.S. Department of Labor.

The meeting will cover the process for filing claims with the
Department of Labor, said Kate Sordelet, a coordinator at the
Ames Laboratory for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act. The federal program provides money to
people who have become ill while working for the Department of
Energy, and to those people's families.

Sordelet said she is unsure how many people became sick after
working at the Ames Laboratory in the 1940s, which is the time
employees were working on the Manhattan Project - the creation
of the atomic bomb.

"We don't know who could be exposed," she said. "We are going
out to individuals. If you think you have any medical illness
you believe could be related to work, you are encouraged to file
for this program."

Workers at the lab from the 1950s, when safety standards were
not as stringent as they are today, are also encouraged to
attend.

"I don't know if they had proper ventilation," said Kerry
Gibson, a media relations coordinator with the Ames Laboratory.
"Even based on the archival photos, they didn't wear respiratory
masks."

Program administrators say they are looking for individuals who
have been diagnosed with radiogenic cancer, chronic silicosis,
beryllium sensitivity, or chronic beryllium disease as a result
of working at a Department of Energy facility, an atomic weapons
employer, or beryllium vendor facility.

The meetings will be held at 7 p.m. Monday and at 2:30 p.m.
Tuesday.

Labor Department staff will be available Wednesday from 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. at the Hotel at Gateway Center, Conference Room 1, to
provide assistance to workers or survivors of workers who want
to file a claim. Call (866) 540-4977 for more information.
 	 	 	      	   		 		 		
Copyright © 2005, The Des Moines Register.
*****************************************************************
 44 Sunday Herald: Dounreay nuclear store is leaking - 

  By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor 
 
 AN old nuclear waste store at Dounreay has sprung a leak and
contaminated the ground with radioactivity, sparking an
investigation by a government watchdog. 

A 35-foot deep concrete silo at the Caithness site has been used
to dispose of solids and sludges from reactors and processing
plants for 27 years. It now contains 650 cubic metres of
radioactive waste under water.

But the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) has found evidence of
a defect in a manhole used when monitoring a loop of water that
runs around the silo. The water in the loop has become
contaminated with radioactivity and some has escaped into the
ground. 

The UKAEA was unable to rule out historical leakage of
radioactivity from the silo to the surrounding loop. The loop
has been emptied and monitoring stepped up. The problem was
reported to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 

The UKAEA said the silo, built in the 1960s, failed to meet
modern standards for storing medium-level waste. Under the sites
decommissioning programme it was due to start being emptied in
2019, though this could be brought forward.

Dounreays spokesman Colin Punler said the level of radioactivity
in the surrounding loop was a million times lower than in the
silo. The measures now in place provide additional reassurance
about the safe containment of the wastes, pending its retrieval,
he said.

But environmentalists highlighted the difficulties of dealing
with the radioactive waste left by more than half a century of
nuclear power and weapons. This illustrates the dilemmas we are
bound to be faced with in future, said Pete Roche, a consultant
to Greenpeace. 

The UKAEA has had difficulty convincing local residents of the
need for a new waste store at Dounreay, Roche said. The idea
that we should now consider creating yet more waste by building
new reactors is complete lunacy. 

The Scottish Executive, along with Westminster, last month
launched a consultation on its proposals for dealing with the
nuclear industrys low-level waste. A massive 20 million cubic
metres of contaminated soil and rubble is expected to be
produced by the decommissioning of 30 civil and military nuclear
sites across the UK . 

Among the options are burying the waste where it arose or
disposing of it in newly-constructed facilities at existing
nuclear sites. This means Dounreay, Hunterston, Torness,
Chapelcross, Faslane and Rosyth in Scotland.

 Gordon MacKerron, chairman of the governments advisory
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, said it was possible
that low-level waste would be disposed of locally because of the
enormous aversion to transporting it around the country.

The committee is currently finalising its recommendations to
ministers on how to get rid of an additional 400,000 cubic
metres of high and medium-level nuclear waste. 

19 March 2006 
			 			 		 			 				 					
 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved 			 		
*****************************************************************
 45 Las Vegas SUN: Nuke firms seek support for Utah site 

Today: March 19, 2006 at 7:49:23 PST 

By Benjamin Grove <grove@lasvegassun.com> 

Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON - The nuclear industry consortium that is trying to
establish a private temporary radioactive waste dump on Goshute
Indian land in Utah quietly appealed to Congress for support
after its top investors pulled out of the project. 

The group of nuclear utilities known as Private Fuel Storage
LLC, sent a letter to lawmakers in December, suggesting that the
site would be a great temporary dump site for waste ultimately
bound for the long-delayed permanent repository planned for
Yucca Mountain, the Deseret News reported last week. 

The letter was sent about a week after Private Fuel Storage's
top two private nuclear utility investors withdrew their support
for the interim dump project. The utilities backed out, saying
they were encouraged by the government's apparent commitment to
constructing Yucca. 

The withdrawals left the corporation scrambling for business, so
it sought out Congress, hoping that lawmakers might consider the
Utah site as a temporary government waste dump. 

The department is liable for the highly radioactive material
that comes out of the nation's 103 operating nuclear power
plants, where the waste has been piling up for decades. The
Energy Department - which means, taxpayers - faces hundreds of
millions of dollars in rising liability penalties because it did
not begin hauling the industry's waste away by 1998. 

The government wasn't biting at the Private Fuel's offer. Last
week Energy Department Deputy Secretary Clay Sell told a House
panel that the department was committed to developing Yucca, not
shipping the waste off to a temporary site in Utah. 

The Energy Department is considering its option to establish a
temporary government waste site, but the department has never
really considered the Goshute Indian site a good option, Sell
said. 

Utah lawmakers have long opposed that site and vowed to fight
any new attempt to lobby Congress for support. "They're grasping
for options, but this one won't work either," Sen. Robert
Bennett, R-Utah, told the Deseret News. 

                              • • •
 

Congress is out this week for a St. Patrick's Day break, so
lawmakers are back in their districts ... 

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., will kick off his re-election campaign
at an 8:30 a.m. public event Wednesday at the Leatherneck Club
of Las Vegas, 4630 W. Spring Mountain Road. 

The first-term senator is considered a favorite in a race
against former President Jimmy Carter's son, Jack Carter. 

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman also has been contemplating a run
against Ensign. 

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sheriff Bill Young are planning a
trip to San Diego on Wednesday to examine Mexican border
security issues as immigration reform legislation heats up in
Congress. 

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., on Tuesday is scheduled to tour Las
Vegas Recovery Center, a private drug treatment facility with a
focus on treating methamphetamine addicts. 

Lawmakers are debating controversial funding cuts for drug
enforcement and cleanup programs in President Bush's budget
proposal for next year. 

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., plans to offer new information about
Yucca Mountain investigations this week. Porter will offer an
update Thursday on his own congressional probe of Yucca quality
assurance failures. Porter will do so at 10:30 a.m. at the
Energy Department office, 4101-B Meadows Lane in Las Vegas. 

Porter also will discuss the new findings of a General
Accountability Office investigation of Yucca issues, which are
expected Thursday. 

                              • • •
 

Staff members for Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., will be feasting on
chocolate this week courtesy of Reid's staff. 

Aides in the Reid and Baucus offices made a wager on the
basketball game between the No. 12 seeded University of Montana
and No. 5 UNR, played on the first day of the NCAA basketball
tournament. Montana won in an 87-79 upset. 

At stake was a delivery of Montana beef versus gourmet
chocolates from the Ethel M factory in Henderson. 

"We thought it would be an easy way to get some good steak,"
Reid spokeswoman Sharyn Stein said. 

She stressed that the bet was between staffers of the two
offices, not between Baucus and Reid, the Mormon Democratic
leader who does not gamble (but does steadfastly defend the
state's gaming industry). Stein said Reid's office would be
sending Baucus' Montana office a big box of chocolate in the
next few days. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 46 Clarion-Ledger: Security, storage still major concerns 

March 19, 2006 

Doug Abrahms
 					 				 			 		 	 	 		Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Nuclear power may be gaining popularity, but the
industry faces a few major obstacles, including what to do with
used radioactive material and threats of terrorist attacks.

In response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission raised its security requirement for
nuclear reactors, requiring them now to be prepared for attacks
from groups of at least five terrorists instead of just three.

But the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group
focusing on security issues, wants the NRC to raise that minimum
protection level to a dozen terrorists who might be armed with
weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades or an explosive that
could crack concrete containers that hold radioactive material.

A nuclear plant cannot count on quick help from local police or
SWAT teams because they take too much time to deploy, said Pete
Stockton, an investigator at the Project on Government Oversight.

"Normally these attacks are over in three to eight minutes," he
said.

Nuclear power plants have significantly beefed up protections
against attacks, although they can't be specific about the force
they can repel, said Steve Floyd, a vice president at the
Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents electric companies.

He said that given the oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and Homeland Security Department, nuclear plants are
better protected than other critical infrastructure.

Floyd said groups like the Project on Government Oversight raise
the safety issue because they want to close existing nuclear
plants. He added that even if a terrorist attack caused damage
to a nuclear power plant, the number of fatalities would be
lower than destroying a liquid natural gas terminal or a
chlorine factory.

Disposing of used fuel from power plants that contains uranium,
plutonium and other radioactive material remains another
problem. The U.S. designated its only high-level nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., but that project has run
into court challenges and is years behind schedule.

"In terms of radioactive waste, that's still a mess with all the
eggs in the Yucca Mountain basket," said John Holdren, an
environmental professor at Harvard University, who supports
increased nuclear energy.

Building a few nuclear power plants in the U.S. won't
significantly lower the volume of greenhouse gases released,
which leads to global warming, he said. That would require the
number of U.S. nuclear plants to double or triple, and that
would create tremendous amounts of nuclear waste, he said.

The technology to reprocess nuclear waste still isn't efficient,
he said, so the U.S. should store its nuclear waste in large,
concrete containers at centralized government facilities.
Long-term storage proposals can be developed later, he said.

Last week, the Nuclear Energy Institute for the first time
called on the government to move nuclear waste from commercial
power plants onto federal facilities. Previously, the group saw
Yucca Mountain as the only solution to taking used nuclear fuel
from commercial power plants.

"We want to see the fuel moved off the plant sites as fast as
possible," said Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the group. "Yucca
Mountain is the best solution for the used fuel. But it's not a
scientific problem, it's a political problem" to build, he said. 

*****************************************************************
 47 DOE: DOE Seeks Public-Private Sector Expressions of Interest for 
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Initiative
 
  March 17, 2006
 
WASHINGTON, DC  U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman today 
announced that the Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking 
expressions of interestfrom the public and private sectors by 
March 31, 2006, to propose and evaluate sites suitable for 
demonstrating advanced recycling technologies under the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).    

The successful demonstration of GNEP recycling technologies will 
enable the U.S. and our international partners to substantially 
change the way that spent nuclear fuel is managed, assuring a 
safe, long-term, and environmentally clean energy supply for the 
U.S. and the world while greatly reducing proliferation 
concerns. Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell said.  

Seeking the best ideas from the public and private sectors on 
where to build the demonstration facilities is a key step forward 
for GNEP. Under DOEs plan, communities and private-public 
consortia are encouraged to consider participation in the GNEP 
technology demonstration and submit ideas on how DOE should best 
solicit, evaluate and award site evaluation study contracts for 
recycling technology demonstrations.   

In accordance with Congressional direction, a total of $20 
million, or $5 million at individual sites, is available in 2006 
for site evaluation studies.  The Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations conference report appropriated 
funding and directed DOE to initiate a competition by June 30, 
2006, to select one or more sites suitable for development of 
integrated recycling facilities.  With todays announcement, DOE 
anticipates issuing a Request for Proposals this spring and 
awarding 90-day site evaluation studies in the summer 2006.   

Three major elements of DOEs GNEP technology plan are to 
demonstrate a proliferation-resistant process to separate usable 
elements contained in commercial spent nuclear fuel from its 
waste elements, to develop and fabricate new fuels from the 
transuranic elements contained in spent fuel, and to demonstrate 
the ability to consume transuranic fuels in an advanced burner 
test reactor.     

GNEP, part of President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative, is a 
comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and global energy 
security, encourage clean development around the world, reduce 
the risk of nuclear proliferation, and improve environmental 
quality.  Accelerating the development and demonstration of new 
technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel is a key aspect of 
the program.   Additional information on the GNEP program may be 
found on the Departments web site and 
http://www.gnep.energy.gov/. 

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | 
  
*****************************************************************
 48 Santa Fe Mexican: LANL Udall aims to save health records     

By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican             

March 18, 2006                                          

 	The Los Alamos Medical Center has considered destroying
thousands of medical records that could help current and former
Los Alamos National Laboratory workers file illness claims with
the government, U.S. Rep. Tom Udall wrote Friday.

 Udall, a Santa Fe Democrat, has asked federal agencies to
intervene, and the hospital appears willing to work with him on
the matter.

 "I am submitting this request on behalf of the many sick, Cold
War workers who are my constituents and are dying while awaiting
a determination on their claims," Udall wrote to the head of the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. That
agency oversees a federal program -- the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Act -- that pays former lab
workers' medical bills and gives them a cash payment if they can
prove their illness is related to their job.

"I am quite concerned that if these medical records are destroyed 
without a comprehensive and objective assessment, it may further 
erode what little public confidence is left in the (compensation) 
program as it relates to LANL claimants," Udall wrote.

 At issue are thousands of medical records currently in storage
in the medical center's basement and in a warehouse. The Los
Alamos Medical Center is privately owned.

 "These medical records are currently in disarray, deteriorating
and slated for destruction," Udall wrote to NIOSH.

 He said in an interview Friday that he was surprised the
records were not protected earlier.

 Hospital officials, Udall wrote, have told him it costs too
much to take care of the records; the law doesn't require them
to keep the records for longer than 10 years; and they inherited
many of them from prior hospital owners and the defunct Atomic
Energy Commission.

 Udall also said hospital officials have asked the federal
Department of Energy to take over the records, and he asked the
department to look into the matter.

 Gary Nicholds, chief executive officer of Los Alamos Medical
Center, said the hospital has been paying a "substantial" amount
of money to store the records.

 "We would be extremely happy to cooperate with Congressman
Udall and any other interested parties as long as we do it
according to the law," Nicholds said.

 Udall and U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., helped write the
energy worker's compensation bill.

 "In many instances, it is difficult enough for injured workers
to prove their cases even when their medical records are
intact," Bingaman said in a statement. "It would be much more
difficult, if not impossible, to prove their cases without the
proper medical records."

 Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or
alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.		 	   	 	 	 			
 		   			 		   	 		 						
There is a project that is currently being conducted through the 
CDC to review and assess records from the Lab's inception in the 
'40's called the Los Alamos Historic Document Retrieval and 
Assessment Project. There are many documents which are being 
released as a result of the project that may address concerns 
raised in MP Bumsted's comment, <a 
href='http://www.shonka.com/ReConstructionZone/outreach/outreach. 
htm'>http://www.shonka.com/ReConstructionZone/outreach 
/outreach.htm has a link to the database of documents logged by 
the CDC so far.                                                         
 		   			  		   	 	
By      MP Bumsted                       (Submitted:    03/18/2006 3:05 pm                              )
		   	 	
Unfortunately, UC and the LANL have never considered the 
importance of their own heritage and ordinary people. Oral 
history and archives, once they were setup in the mid-80s, were 
for the "big names".

This includes the scientific and human importance of medical and
health records. The film badges from the islands tests in the
50s were allowed to detriorate. The artifacts from the early
history of the lab (up to 1990) were all destroyed in the great
Tiger Team debacle. The Museum has focussed on being a public
relations tool, rather than a true scientific cultural resource.

I sure hope there is a way to preserve this biological and
cultural heritage properly.			 		   	 			

©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
 49 Hanford News: Energy Department fines Bechtel for violations at Hanford plant
 
This story was published Friday, March 17th, 2006 

By Shannon Dininny, Associated Press Writer 

YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - The company building a massive
waste-treatment plant at the Hanford nuclear reservation - a
project mired in cost overruns and delays - is being fined
$198,000 for violating nuclear safety requirements, the
Department of Energy announced Thursday. 

The fine is the latest in a series of problems with the project
that has subjected both contractor Bechtel National and the
Energy Department to heated criticism in recent months. 

The vitrification plant, billions of dollars over budget and
years behind schedule, will convert millions of gallons of
radioactive waste into glasslike logs for permanent disposal.
The waste now is stored in leaking underground tanks near the
Columbia River. 

The plant has long been considered the cornerstone of cleanup at
the highly contaminated Hanford site, which was created in the
1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the
atomic bomb. 

The preliminary notice of violation announced Thursday targets
problems that occurred during design and construction between
May 2002 and September 2005. Violations include failure to abide
by design codes for building safety requirements, failure to
abide by inspection requirements for waste-processing tanks,
failure to use correct suppliers to build certain parts and
calculation errors resulting in inconsistencies in structural
steel design requirements, the Energy Department said in a news
release. 

If left uncorrected, the problems could have adversely affected
operation of the plant, compromising its ability to process
radioactive waste and "posing potential safety and health risks
to workers and the public," the release said. 

The company could have been fined up to $330,000. The proposed
$198,000 penalty reflects both the "significance of the
violations" and Bechtel National's efforts to prevent
recurrence, the release said. 

Bechtel identified its own weaknesses - related to quality
procedures, adherence to quality procedures, training and
communication - and reported them to the federal government,
spokesman John Britton said. 

A federal review then concluded, Britton said, "We did a good
job of finding problems, did a good job of correcting problems
once we found them, but they identified problems in our ability
to prevent problems from occurring. 

"They are all related to our nuclear business. Expectations are
high, but that comes with the territory in nuclear work," he
said. 

The company has taken actions to correct the problems, Britton
said. 

Once completed, the vitrification plant will stand 12 stories
tall and be the size of four football fields. However, building
the one-of-a-kind plant has proven to be more difficult than
originally thought. 

The operating deadline has been pushed back four times from the
original plan for a 1999 startup. The latest delay resulted from
a seismic review, which found that the Energy Department had
underestimated the impact a severe earthquake might have on the
plant, as well as construction problems and the rising price of
materials. 

The Energy Department recently estimated the plant would not
begin treating waste until 2017 and would cost more than $10
billion. A more detailed cost and schedule estimate is expected
to be completed this summer. 

The contract stood at $4.3 billion when it was awarded to
Bechtel National in 2000. This is the first fine assessed to
Bechtel for the project; however, the company has had $800,000
docked from its fee for safety and quality problems. 

Congress recently questioned the Energy Department's management
of the project, raising concerns that money for the plant could
be cut. Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire has threatened to sue if
the full construction budget is not met. 

Hanford watchdog groups also criticized the Energy Department
following an Associated Press report that found more than
$400,000 in bonuses had been paid to federal staffers overseeing
the project during the past three years. 

Cleaning up the entire 586-square-mile Hanford site is expected
to cost $50 billion to $60 billion, with completion by 2035. 

        
© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 50 Hanford News: Bechtel National faces $198,000 fine
 
This story was published Friday, March 17th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The Department of Energy plans to fine Bechtel National $198,000
over construction quality problems at the vitrification plant at
Hanford. 

The DOE contractor already had $500,000 in incentive fees
withheld three months ago because of the problems. 

The fine announced Thursday could have been as much as $330,000.
But DOE reduced the amount by 40 percent because of steps
Bechtel has taken to analyze the cause of the problems and
correct them, according to DOE's Office of Price-Anderson
Enforcement. 

Between May 2002 and September 2005 Bechtel had a series of
problems meeting the strict design and construction quality
standards for a building that will handle radioactive waste. 

If uncorrected, the problems could have posed potential safety
and health risks once the plant started operating, according to
DOE. 

The massive plant, expected to cost more than $10 billion, is
being built to turn radioactive waste now held in underground
tanks into a stable glass form for disposal. The waste is left
from the past production of plutonium at Hanford for the
nation's nuclear weapons program. 

DOE concluded that Bechtel "did a good job of identifying and
fixing problems, but not a good job of preventing them from
occurring again," said John Britton, spokesman for Bechtel
National. 

Problems included the quality of procedures that govern the work
and problems with employees not meticulously following the
procedures. 

Some of the problems were caused by pressure to meet the design
and construction schedule, DOE said. 

In one case, new engineers made mistakes in calculations, such
as those combining forces, in the structural steel design of the
Analytical Laboratory, one of the largest buildings at the site.
In other instances, material was purchased from suppliers who
were not certified to meet the standards required for nuclear
facility construction. 

Bechtel and DOE also concluded that workers needed more training
in how to use procedures and management needed to better
communicate with employees so that potential quality issues were
not dismissed when workers brought them up. 

DOE agreed with Bechtel's conclusion that the construction
project needs a stronger nuclear safety culture. 

"It is our belief that if this broader issue is not fully
addressed, similar weaknesses will likely manifest themselves in
almost every other area of your operations," wrote Stephen
Sohinki, director of the Office of Price-Anderson Enforcement,
in a letter to Bechtel. 

Bechtel needs to address site-wide problems with training and
the adequacy of procedures, Sohinki said. 

Bechtel last week gathered 2,000 people employed by Bechtel and
its subcontractors on the project at the Three Rivers Convention
Center in Kennewick to discuss project quality issues. 

"We must show the work we do designing and building the plant
will protect the workers and public once it goes into
operation," Bechtel Project Director Jim Henschel told workers,
according to Bechtel accounts. 

Bechtel will have 30 days to request changes to the fine before
it is issued. Under the Price-Anderson Act, the federal
government indemnifies contractors performing nuclear work for
the government but issues fines for violations of nuclear safety
requirements.

© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************