*****************************************************************
04/08/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.84
*****************************************************************
   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 SEYMOUR M. HERSH: Iran attack plans?
2 [southnews] US studying military strike options on Iran
3 [southnews] Herch: Bush preparing nuclear strike on Iran
4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Seeks to Dampen Talk of Iran Strike
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Hopes IAEA Visit Will Ease Tensions
6 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Agency Inspectors Arrive in Iran
7 Guardian Unlimited: US plans strike to topple Iran regime - report
8 IRNA: Iran-US talks to be in line with policies of Islamic system - 
9 IRNA: Daily criticizes US dual policy on use of nuclear technology -
10 IRNA: IAEA chief due in Iran within next 2 days 
11 AFP: ElBaradei and inspectors in Iran for nuclear talks 
12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Date of Iran-US talks has not set 
13 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA chief to visit Iran next week 
14 AFP: Iran-US talks postponed 
15 AFP: UN inspectors in Iran ahead of ElBaradei nuclear talks 
16 AFP: US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran 
17 AFP: US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran - report -
18 AFP: Bush critics alarmed over reports of possible strike on Iran -
19 AFP: Reports of US nuclear strike on Iran 'completely nuts' - Britis
20 AFP: Iran says US military strike talk 'psychological warfare' -
21 Guardian Unlimited: S.Korea Pessimistic About N.Korea Talks
22 Guardian Unlimited: Koreas Seek Common Ground in Tokyo
23 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Issues Yet Another Warning
24 Xinhua: Japan urges DPRK to return to six-party talks   
25 AFP: SKorea dashes hopes on North's nuclear drive 
26 AFP: North Korea hints at return to six-nation nuclear talks 
27 US: New York Times: Iraq Findings Leaked by Cheney's Aide Were Dispu
28 US: Guardian Unlimited: New Twist in CIA Leak Probe
29 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nev. anti-nuclear group opposes desert explosion 
30 US: Philadelphia Inquirer: The Bush Leak
31 US: Sunday Herald: Leak scandal: Bushs steady drip of lies - 
32 US: The Spectrum: Rep. Matheson worried about upcoming test
33 US: baltimoresun.com: Leak report adds to White House setbacks - 
34 US: Sun Herald: With 3 engines out and a load of A-bombs aboard, he 
35 US: New York Times: Playing Hardball With Secrets - 
36 US: Public Citizen: Latest Revelation Underscores Bush Administratio
37 AFP: Senior US lawmakers to travel to India for nuclear talks -
38 US: AFP: Documents were faked in Rome over Iraq-Niger uranium claims
39 US: UPI: Bush spokesman defends leak
40 Guardian Unlimited: Why dropping nukes may not be the best way 
41 AU The Age: A new generation of nuclear weapons - 
42 WorldNetDaily: Our new strategic partner
43 Daily Times: Mushahid for zero N-proliferation 
44 Rediff: India won't define minimum N-deterrent - Saran
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
45 Deutsche Welle: Nuclear Energy Causes Heated Debate in Europe | Germ
46 Guardian Unlimited: MPs to reject new nuclear generators
47 London Times: Unions set to back nuclear power stations
48 London Times: Doh, let's ignore our need for nuclear power and it'll
49 US: AZ Daily Star: Nuclear plants find human resources difficult to 
50 US: MiamiHerald.com: Nuclear energy has environmental advantages
51 US: The State: Energy independence? We only have to decide to go for
52 US: The Sun News: New power plants only part of energy plans
53 US: APP.COM: AmerGen to watch drywell closely | 
54 US: Sarasota Herald-Tribune: FPL's risky proposition 
55 US: Rockford Register Star: Byron nuclear plant awaits safety report
56 US: Rutland Herald: Invisible threat of radiation
57 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Group seeks halt to uprate
58 TheStar.com: Storage: the next generation
59 Daily Times: Nuclear regulatory authority soon 
60 OpEdNews: No New Nemesis? No New Nukes
61 Orlando Sentinel: Power-plant approvals could get easier - 
62 US: Public Citizen: The Southeast Needs a Rapid Investment in Renewa
63 ITAR-TASS: Federal nuclear center in Sarov marks its 60th anniversar
64 ITAR-TASS: Rosatom chief visits Indian nuclear power plant construct
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
65 US: BBC: FBI probes nuclear reactor hole
66 US: ALERT: Homeland Security Would Allow No Cleanup Of Dirty Bomb Ra
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
67 US: Las Vegas SUN: Rep. Probes Nuclear Compensation Program 
68 US: AP Wire: Miss. court asked if medical monitoring issue ever cont
69 US: CINCINNATI ENQUIRER: Firefighters Called To Fernald Plant
70 US: Medical News Today: When Cells Exposed To Uranium They Acquire M
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
71 US: Deseret News: No nuclear waste plant, says EnergySolutions
72 US: Ventura County Star: Runoff limits at field lab delayed
73 St. Paul Pioneer Press: Yucca Mountain nuclear storage gets more att
74 US: Deseret News: How to comment on high-level nuclear waste transpo
75 Taipei Times: Not in my backyard By Lisa Zagaroli
76 Las Vegas SUN: Hal Rothman on why Nevadans should continue to oppose
77 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Groundwater contamination fight may j
78 Daily Herald: Utah company interested in waste recycling project
79 US: Wiscasset: Maine Yankee Waiting For Waste Removal Legislation
80 US: Cañon City Daily Record: Mixed reaction to Cotter ruling
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
81 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear Workers Sites 
82 Knox News: Officials: New Y-12 facility OK
83 kgw.com: Study: Hanford workers' comp system meets state standards 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 SEYMOUR M. HERSH: Iran attack plans?
 
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 16:24:45 -0500 (CDT)

   Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

New Yorker Issue of 2006-04-17
 	by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

Posted 2006-04-10

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop 
Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities 
inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current 
and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force 
planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat 
troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and 
to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials 
say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the 
opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich 
uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic 
Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the 
capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates 
of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military 
action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for 
peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and 
that it will not be delayed or deterred.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and 
in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in the 
nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran's President, Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel 
must be "wiped off the map." Bush and others in the White House view him as a 
potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. "That's the 
name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten 
another world war?' "

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the 
Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the 
bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do 
"what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the 
courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush 
Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief 
that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious 
leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He 
added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What are they 
smoking?' "

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick 
Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the 
Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of 
President Bush. "So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a 
nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely," Clawson told the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. "The key issue, therefore, is: How 
long will the present Iranian regime last?"

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that "this Administration is putting a 
lot of effort into diplomacy." However, he added, Iran had no choice other than 
to accede to America's demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he 
fears that Ahmadinejad "sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually 
cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates." 
Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine 
activities, such as "industrial accidents." But, he said, it would be prudent 
to prepare for a wider war, "given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not 
like planning to invade Quebec."

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high 
tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of "coercion" 
aimed at Iran. "You have to be ready to go, and we'll see how they respond," 
the officer said. "You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad 
to back down." He added, "People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein 
since 9/11," but, "in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus 
all the way along, it was Iran." (In response to detailed requests for comment, 
the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, 
"As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution"; the 
Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through "diplomatic 
channels" but wouldn't elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were 
"inaccuracies" in this account but would not specify them.)

"This is much more than a nuclear issue," one high-ranking diplomat told me in 
Vienna. "That's just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But 
the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts 
and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East 
and its oil in the next ten years."

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. "This 
White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the 
power structure in Iran, and that means war," he said. The danger, he said, was 
that "it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the 
country is to have a nuclear capability." A military conflict that destabilized 
the region could also increase the risk of terror: "Hezbollah comes into play," 
the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the 
world's most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with 
strong ties to Iran. "And here comes Al Qaeda."

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans 
for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least 
one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did 
not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his 
colleagues, told me that there had been "no formal briefings," because "they're 
reluctant to brief the minority. They're doing the Senate, somewhat 
selectively."

The House member said that no one in the meetings "is really objecting" to the 
talk of war. "The people they're briefing are the same ones who led the charge 
on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites 
at once? How are you going to get deep enough?" (Iran is building facilities 
underground.) "There's no pressure from Congress" not to take military action, 
the House member added. "The only political pressure is from the guys who want 
to do it." Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, "The most 
worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision."

Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already 
under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the 
Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery 
missions--rapid ascending maneuvers known as "over the shoulder" bombing--since 
last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, 
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College 
before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would 
be needed to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs 
of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets 
would have to be hit. He added:

I don't think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably 
has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit 
the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer 
to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We'd want 
to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used 
to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and 
the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too 
difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use 
Special Operations units.

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by 
the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear 
weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is 
Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of 
Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has 
underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories 
and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That 
number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty 
nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the 
existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims 
that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) 
The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear 
ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not 
insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, 
especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with 
nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence 
community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground 
complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was 
designed for "continuity of government"--for the political and military 
leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia 
and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still 
exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. "The 
'tell' "--the giveaway--"was the ventilator shafts, some of which were 
disguised," the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he 
said, it was determined that "only nukes" could destroy the bunker. He added 
that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the 
Iranians design their underground facility. "We see a similarity of design," 
specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even 
limited bombing would allow the U.S. to "go in there and do enough damage to 
slow down the nuclear infrastructure--it's feasible." The former defense 
official said, "The Iranians don't have friends, and we can tell them that, if 
necessary, we'll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States 
should act like we're ready to go." He added, "We don't have to knock down all 
of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really work, 
and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground, too, but it's 
difficult and very dangerous--put bad stuff in ventilator shafts and put them 
to sleep."

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former 
senior intelligence official, "say 'No way.' You've got to know what's 
underneath--to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or 
which are false. And there's a lot that we don't know." The lack of reliable 
intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the 
sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. 
"Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap," 
the former senior intelligence official said. "  'Decisive' is the key word of 
the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision. But we made it in Japan."

He went on, "Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the 
technical details of damage and fallout--we're talking about mushroom clouds, 
radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an 
underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. 
These politicians don't have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it 
out"--remove the nuclear option--"they're shouted down."

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside 
the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have 
talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to 
remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran--without 
success, the former intelligence official said. "The White House said, 'Why are 
you challenging this? The option came from you.' "

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the 
Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a 
resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and 
in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He also 
confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning 
over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against 
brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told me. 
"This goes to high levels." The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he 
said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal 
recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the 
nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on this has hardened in recent 
weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior Pentagon officers express their 
opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen."

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in 
such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory 
panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. 
"They're telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and 
less radiation," he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an 
Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as 
President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on 
nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a 
conservative think tank. The panel's report recommended treating tactical 
nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their 
suitability "for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of 
high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional 
weapons." Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush 
Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; 
Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert 
Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International 
Security.

The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. "The Iranians have 
distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of 
the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country," he said. He warned, as 
did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks 
on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: "What will 1.2 
billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?"

With or without the nuclear option, the list of targets may inevitably expand. 
One recently retired high-level Bush Administration official, who is also an 
expert on war planning, told me that he would have vigorously argued against an 
air attack on Iran, because "Iran is a much tougher target" than Iraq. But, he 
added, "If you're going to do any bombing to stop the nukes, you might as well 
improve your lie across the board. Maybe hit some training camps, and clear up 
a lot of other problems."

The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air Force 
intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that "ninety-nine per 
cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation. There are people who 
believe it's the way to operate"--that the Administration can achieve its 
policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign, an idea that has been supported 
by neoconservatives.

If the order were to be given for an attack, the American combat troops now 
operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets with laser 
beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian casualties. As of 
early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties to 
civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority groups in 
Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and 
the Kurds, in the northeast. The troops "are studying the terrain, and giving 
away walking-around money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local 
tribes and shepherds," the consultant said. One goal is to get "eyes on the 
ground"--quoting a line from "Othello," he said, "Give me the ocular proof." 
The broader aim, the consultant said, is to "encourage ethnic tensions" and 
undermine the regime.

The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary 
Rumsfeld's long-standing interest in expanding the role of the military in 
covert operations, which was made official policy in the Pentagon's Quadrennial 
Defense Review, published in February. Such activities, if conducted by C.I.A. 
operatives, would need a Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to 
key members of Congress.

"  'Force protection' is the new buzzword," the former senior intelligence 
official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon's position that clandestine 
activities that can be broadly classified as preparing the battlefield or 
protecting troops are military, not intelligence, operations, and are therefore 
not subject to congressional oversight. "The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
say there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran," he said. "We need to have more 
than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do everything we 
want."

The President's deep distrust of Ahmadinejad has strengthened his determination 
to confront Iran. This view has been reinforced by allegations that 
Ahmadinejad, who joined a special-forces brigade of the Revolutionary Guards in 
1986, may have been involved in terrorist activities in the late eighties. 
(There are gaps in Ahmadinejad's official biography in this period.) 
Ahmadinejad has reportedly been connected to Imad Mughniyeh, a terrorist who 
has been implicated in the deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. 
Marine barracks in Beirut, in 1983. Mughniyeh was then the security chief of 
Hezbollah; he remains on the F.B.I.'s list of most-wanted terrorists.

Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere for two 
decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard colleagues in the 
Iranian government "are capable of making a bomb, hiding it, and launching it 
at Israel. They're apocalyptic Shiites. If you're sitting in Tel Aviv and you 
believe they've got nukes and missiles--you've got to take them out. These guys 
are nuts, and there's no reason to back off."

Under Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their power base 
throughout the Iranian bureaucracy; by the end of January, they had replaced 
thousands of civil servants with their own members. One former senior United 
Nations official, who has extensive experience with Iran, depicted the turnover 
as "a white coup," with ominous implications for the West. "Professionals in 
the Foreign Ministry are out; others are waiting to be kicked out," he said. 
"We may be too late. These guys now believe that they are stronger than ever 
since the revolution." He said that, particularly in consideration of China's 
emergence as a superpower, Iran's attitude was "To hell with the West. You can 
do as much as you like."

Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is considered by many 
experts to be in a stronger position than Ahmadinejad. "Ahmadinejad is not in 
control," one European diplomat told me. "Power is diffuse in Iran. The 
Revolutionary Guards are among the key backers of the nuclear program, but, 
ultimately, I don't think they are in charge of it. The Supreme Leader has the 
casting vote on the nuclear program, and the Guards will not take action 
without his approval."

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that "allowing Iran to have the 
bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent downstream to a 
terror network. It's just too dangerous." He added, "The whole internal debate 
is on which way to go"--in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It is 
possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear 
plans--and forestall the American action. "God may smile on us, but I don't 
think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. 
The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state 
can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen."

While almost no one disputes Iran's nuclear ambitions, there is intense debate 
over how soon it could get the bomb, and what to do about that. Robert 
Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now the dean of 
the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, told me, "Based on what I know, 
Iran could be eight to ten years away" from developing a deliverable nuclear 
weapon. Gallucci added, "If they had a covert nuclear program and we could 
prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the threat of 
sanctions, I'd be in favor of taking it out. But if you do it"--bomb 
Iran--"without being able to show there's a secret program, you're in trouble."

Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, told the Knesset 
last December that "Iran is one to two years away, at the latest, from having 
enriched uranium. From that point, the completion of their nuclear weapon is 
simply a technical matter." In a conversation with me, a senior Israeli 
intelligence official talked about what he said was Iran's duplicity: "There 
are two parallel nuclear programs" inside Iran--the program declared to the 
I.A.E.A. and a separate operation, run by the military and the Revolutionary 
Guards. Israeli officials have repeatedly made this argument, but Israel has 
not produced public evidence to support it. Richard Armitage, the Deputy 
Secretary of State in Bush's first term, told me, "I think Iran has a secret 
nuclear-weapons program--I believe it, but I don't know it."

In recent months, the Pakistani government has given the U.S. new access to A. 
Q. Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani atomic bomb. Khan, who is now 
living under house arrest in Islamabad, is accused of setting up a black market 
in nuclear materials; he made at least one clandestine visit to Tehran in the 
late nineteen-eighties. In the most recent interrogations, Khan has provided 
information on Iran's weapons design and its time line for building a bomb. 
"The picture is of 'unquestionable danger,' " the former senior intelligence 
official said. (The Pentagon adviser also confirmed that Khan has been "singing 
like a canary.") The concern, the former senior official said, is that "Khan 
has credibility problems. He is suggestible, and he's telling the 
neoconservatives what they want to hear"--or what might be useful to Pakistan's 
President, Pervez Musharraf, who is under pressure to assist Washington in the 
war on terror.

"I think Khan's leading us on," the former intelligence official said. "I don't 
know anybody who says, 'Here's the smoking gun.' But lights are beginning to 
blink. He's feeding us information on the time line, and targeting information 
is coming in from our own sources-- sensors and the covert teams. The C.I.A., 
which was so burned by Iraqi W.M.D., is going to the Pentagon and the 
Vice-President's office saying, 'It's all new stuff.' People in the 
Administration are saying, 'We've got enough.' "

The Administration's case against Iran is compromised by its history of 
promoting false intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In a recent 
essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled "Fool Me Twice," Joseph 
Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace, wrote, "The unfolding administration strategy appears to 
be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war." He noted 
several parallels:

The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the 
threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. Secretary of State 
tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The 
Secretary of Defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global 
terrorism.

Cirincione called some of the Administration's claims about Iran "questionable" 
or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him, he asked, "What do we know? What 
is the threat? The question is: How urgent is all this?" The answer, he said, 
"is in the intelligence community and the I.A.E.A." (In August, the Washington 
Post reported that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate 
predicted that Iran was a decade away from being a nuclear power.)

Last year, the Bush Administration briefed I.A.E.A. officials on what it said 
was new and alarming information about Iran's weapons program which had been 
retrieved from an Iranian's laptop. The new data included more than a thousand 
pages of technical drawings of weapons systems. The Washington Post reported 
that there were also designs for a small facility that could be used in the 
uranium-enrichment process. Leaks about the laptop became the focal point of 
stories in the Times and elsewhere. The stories were generally careful to note 
that the materials could have been fabricated, but also quoted senior American 
officials as saying that they appeared to be legitimate. The headline in the 
Times' account read, "RELYING ON COMPUTER, U.S. SEEKS TO PROVE IRAN'S NUCLEAR 
AIMS."

I was told in interviews with American and European intelligence officials, 
however, that the laptop was more suspect and less revelatory than it had been 
depicted. The Iranian who owned the laptop had initially been recruited by 
German and American intelligence operatives, working together. The Americans 
eventually lost interest in him. The Germans kept on, but the Iranian was 
seized by the Iranian counter-intelligence force. It is not known where he is 
today. Some family members managed to leave Iran with his laptop and handed it 
over at a U.S. embassy, apparently in Europe. It was a classic "walk-in."

A European intelligence official said, "There was some hesitation on our side" 
about what the materials really proved, "and we are still not convinced." The 
drawings were not meticulous, as newspaper accounts suggested, "but had the 
character of sketches," the European official said. "It was not a slam-dunk 
smoking gun."

The threat of American military action has created dismay at the headquarters 
of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency's officials believe that Iran wants to 
be able to make a nuclear weapon, but "nobody has presented an inch of evidence 
of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran," the high-ranking diplomat told 
me. The I.A.E.A.'s best estimate is that the Iranians are five years away from 
building a nuclear bomb. "But, if the United States does anything militarily, 
they will make the development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride," 
the diplomat said. "The whole issue is America's risk assessment of Iran's 
future intentions, and they don't trust the regime. Iran is a menace to 
American policy."

In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year between 
Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.'s director-general, who won the Nobel Peace 
Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms 
Control. Joseph's message was blunt, one diplomat recalled: "We cannot have a 
single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national 
security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We 
want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly 
that will undermine us. "

Joseph's heavy-handedness was unnecessary, the diplomat said, since the 
I.A.E.A. already had been inclined to take a hard stand against Iran. "All of 
the inspectors are angry at being misled by the Iranians, and some think the 
Iranian leadership are nutcases--one hundred per cent totally certified nuts," 
the diplomat said. He added that ElBaradei's overriding concern is that the 
Iranian leaders "want confrontation, just like the neocons on the other 
side"--in Washington. "At the end of the day, it will work only if the United 
States agrees to talk to the Iranians."

The central question--whether Iran will be able to proceed with its plans to 
enrich uranium--is now before the United Nations, with the Russians and the 
Chinese reluctant to impose sanctions on Tehran. A discouraged former I.A.E.A. 
official told me in late March that, at this point, "there's nothing the 
Iranians could do that would result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy 
does not allow for it. Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody 
will believe them. It's a dead end."

Another diplomat in Vienna asked me, "Why would the West take the risk of going 
to war against that kind of target without giving it to the I.A.E.A. to verify? 
We're low-cost, and we can create a program that will force Iran to put its 
cards on the table." A Western Ambassador in Vienna expressed similar distress 
at the White House's dismissal of the I.A.E.A. He said, "If you don't believe 
that the I.A.E.A. can establish an inspection system--if you don't trust 
them--you can only bomb."

There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or among 
its European allies. "We're quite frustrated with the director-general," the 
European diplomat told me. "His basic approach has been to describe this as a 
dispute between two sides with equal weight. It's not. We're the good guys! 
ElBaradei has been pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small 
nuclear-enrichment program, which is ludicrous. It's not his job to push ideas 
that pose a serious proliferation risk."

The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that President 
Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney believe a bombing campaign will be needed, 
and that their real goal is regime change. "Everyone is on the same page about 
the Iranian bomb, but the United States wants regime change," a European 
diplomatic adviser told me. He added, "The Europeans have a role to play as 
long as they don't have to choose between going along with the Russians and the 
Chinese or going along with Washington on something they don't want. Their 
policy is to keep the Americans engaged in something the Europeans can live 
with. It may be untenable."

"The Brits think this is a very bad idea," Flynt Leverett, a former National 
Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings 
Institution's Saban Center, told me, "but they're really worried we're going to 
do it." The European diplomatic adviser acknowledged that the British Foreign 
Office was aware of war planning in Washington but that, "short of a smoking 
gun, it's going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on Iran." He said 
that the British "are jumpy about the Americans going full bore on the 
Iranians, with no compromise."

The European diplomat said that he was skeptical that Iran, given its record, 
had admitted to everything it was doing, but "to the best of our knowledge the 
Iranian capability is not at the point where they could successfully run 
centrifuges" to enrich uranium in quantity. One reason for pursuing diplomacy 
was, he said, Iran's essential pragmatism. "The regime acts in its best 
interests," he said. Iran's leaders "take a hard-line approach on the nuclear 
issue and they want to call the American bluff," believing that "the tougher 
they are the more likely the West will fold." But, he said, "From what we've 
seen with Iran, they will appear superconfident until the moment they back 
off."

The diplomat went on, "You never reward bad behavior, and this is not the time 
to offer concessions. We need to find ways to impose sufficient costs to bring 
the regime to its senses. It's going to be a close call, but I think if there 
is unity in opposition and the price imposed"--in sanctions--"is sufficient, 
they may back down. It's too early to give up on the U.N. route." He added, "If 
the diplomatic process doesn't work, there is no military 'solution.' There may 
be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic."

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was George Bush's most dependable ally 
in the year leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But he and his party have 
been racked by a series of financial scandals, and his popularity is at a low 
point. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said last year that military action 
against Iran was "inconceivable." Blair has been more circumspect, saying 
publicly that one should never take options off the table.

Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value of an 
American bombing campaign. "The Iranian economy is in bad shape, and 
Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically," the European intelligence official 
told me. "He will benefit politically from American bombing. You can do it, but 
the results will be worse." An American attack, he said, would alienate 
ordinary Iranians, including those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. "Iran 
is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to 
U.S. movies and books, and they love it," he said. "If there was a charm 
offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run."

Another European official told me that he was aware that many in Washington 
wanted action. "It's always the same guys," he said, with a resigned shrug. 
"There is a belief that diplomacy is doomed to fail. The timetable is short."

A key ally with an important voice in the debate is Israel, whose leadership 
has warned for years that it viewed any attempt by Iran to begin enriching 
uranium as a point of no return. I was told by several officials that the White 
House's interest in preventing an Israeli attack on a Muslim country, which 
would provoke a backlash across the region, was a factor in its decision to 
begin the current operational planning. In a speech in Cleveland on March 20th, 
President Bush depicted Ahmadinejad's hostility toward Israel as a "serious 
threat. It's a threat to world peace." He added, "I made it clear, I'll make it 
clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."

Any American bombing attack, Richard Armitage told me, would have to consider 
the following questions: "What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What 
ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally--that is, terrorism? 
Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to 
our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for 
Russia, China, and the U.N. Security Council?"

Iran, which now produces nearly four million barrels of oil a day, would not 
have to cut off production to disrupt the world's oil markets. It could 
blockade or mine the Strait of Hormuz, the thirty-four-mile-wide passage 
through which Middle Eastern oil reaches the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the 
recently retired defense official dismissed the strategic consequences of such 
actions. He told me that the U.S. Navy could keep shipping open by conducting 
salvage missions and putting mine- sweepers to work. "It's impossible to block 
passage," he said. The government consultant with ties to the Pentagon also 
said he believed that the oil problem could be managed, pointing out that the 
U.S. has enough in its strategic reserves to keep America running for sixty 
days. However, those in the oil business I spoke to were less optimistic; one 
industry expert estimated that the price per barrel would immediately spike, to 
anywhere from ninety to a hundred dollars per barrel, and could go higher, 
depending on the duration and scope of the conflict.

Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet 
minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed on 
exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab 
Emirates. "They would be at risk," he said, "and this could begin the real 
jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world."

Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with 
the help of Hezbollah. On April 2nd, the Washington Post reported that the 
planning to counter such attacks "is consuming a lot of time" at U.S. 
intelligence agencies. "The best terror network in the world has remained 
neutral in the terror war for the past several years," the Pentagon adviser on 
the war on terror said of Hezbollah. "This will mobilize them and put us up 
against the group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against 
Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take them 
out, they will mobilize against us." (When I asked the government consultant 
about that possibility, he said that, if Hezbollah fired rockets into northern 
Israel, "Israel and the new Lebanese government will finish them off.")

The adviser went on, "If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a 
candle." The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would be at 
greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias operating on 
instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has close ties to 
the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.) A retired four-star general told me that, 
despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, "the Iranians could 
take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck."

"If you attack," the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, "Ahmadinejad will 
be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more 
power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians."

The diplomat went on, "There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if 
we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. 
This is wishful thinking." He added, "The window of opportunity is now."



 

*****************************************************************
 2 [southnews] US studying military strike options on Iran
 
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 02:09:40 -0500 (CDT)

of military and political targets

US Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran

Any Mix of Tact, Threats Alarms Critics

By Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 9, 2006; A01

The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against 
Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure 
Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to 
U.S. officials and independent analysts.

No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside 
and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an 
armed response would be effective. But administration officials are 
preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat "to convince 
them this is more and more serious," as a senior official put it.

According to current and former officials, Pentagon and CIA planners 
have been exploring possible targets, such as the uranium enrichment 
plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although 
a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing 
alternatives ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear 
sites, to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array 
of military and political targets.

Preparations for confrontation with Iran underscore how the issue has 
vaulted to the front of President Bush's agenda even as he struggles 
with a relentless war in next-door Iraq. Bush views Tehran as a serious 
menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends, aides said, 
and the White House, in its new National Security Strategy, last month 
labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by 
any country.

Many military officers and specialists, however, view the saber rattling 
with alarm. A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its 
nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion 
against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and 
especially within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for 
retaliation.

"My sense is that any talk of a strike is the diplomatic gambit to keep 
pressure on others that if they don't help solve the problem, we will 
have to," said Kori Schake, who worked on Bush's National Security 
Council staff and teaches at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Others believe it is more than bluster. "The Bush team is looking at the 
viability of airstrikes simply because many think airstrikes are the 
only real option ahead," said Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon policy 
official.

The intensified discussion of military scenarios comes as the United 
States is working with European allies on a diplomatic solution. After 
tough negotiations, the U.N. Security Council issued a statement last 
month urging Iran to re-suspend its uranium enrichment program. But 
Russia and China, both veto-wielding council members, forced out any 
mention of consequences and are strongly resisting any sanctions.

U.S. officials continue to pursue the diplomatic course but privately 
seem increasingly skeptical that it will succeed. The administration is 
also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team 
that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks 
and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.

Bush and his team have calibrated their rhetoric to give the impression 
that the United States may yet resort to force. In January, the 
president termed a nuclear-armed Iran "a grave threat to the security of 
the world," words that echoed language he used before the 2003 invasion 
of Iraq. Vice President Cheney vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran 
does not give up any nuclear aspirations, and U.N. Ambassador John R. 
Bolton refined the formula to "tangible and painful consequences."

Although Bush insists he is focused on diplomacy for now, he volunteered 
at a public forum in Cleveland last month his readiness to use force if 
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tries to follow through on his 
statement that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy 
our strong ally, Israel," Bush said. "That's a threat, a serious threat. 
. . . I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to 
protect our ally Israel."

Bush has also been privately consulting with key senators about options 
on Iran as part of a broader goal of regime change, according to an 
account by Seymour M. Hersh in the New Yorker magazine.

The U.S. government has taken some preliminary steps that go beyond 
planning. The Washington Post has reported that the military has been 
secretly flying surveillance drones over Iran since 2004 using radar, 
video, still photography and air filters to detect traces of nuclear 
activity not accessible to satellites. Hersh reported that U.S. combat 
troops have been ordered to enter Iran covertly to collect targeting 
data, but sources have not confirmed that to The Post.

The British government has launched its own planning for a potential 
U.S. strike, studying security arrangements for its embassy and consular 
offices, for British citizens and corporate interests in Iran and for 
ships in the region and British troops in Iraq. British officials 
indicate their government is unlikely to participate directly in any 
attacks.

Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a 
contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, 
a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even 
explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear 
plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has 
built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. 
strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the 
mission without nuclear weapons.

Iran appears to be taking the threat seriously. The government, which 
maintains its nuclear activity is only for peaceful, civilian uses, has 
launched a program to reinforce key sites, such as Natanz and Isfahan, 
by building concrete ceilings, tunneling into mountains and camouflaging 
facilities. Iran lately has tested several missiles in a show of strength.

Israel points to those missiles to press their case in Washington. 
Israeli officials traveled here recently to convey more urgency about 
Iran. Although U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran is about a 
decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis believe a critical 
breakthrough could occur within months. They told U.S. officials that 
Iran is beginning to test a more elaborate cascade of centrifuges, 
indicating that it is further along than previously believed.

"What the Israelis are saying is this year -- unless they are pressured 
into abandoning the program -- would be the year they will master the 
engineering problem," a U.S. official said. "That would be a turning 
point, but it wouldn't mean they would have a bomb."

But various specialists and some military officials are resisting strikes.

"The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so 
constrained" in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former 
CIA Middle East specialist. A former defense official who stays in touch 
with colleagues added, "I don't think anybody's prepared to use the 
military option at this point."

As the administration weighs these issues, two main options are under 
consideration, according to one person with contacts among Air Force 
planners. The first would be a quick and limited strike against 
nuclear-related facilities accompanied by a threat to resume bombing if 
Iran responds with terrorist attacks in Iraq or elsewhere. The second 
calls for a more ambitious campaign of bombing and cruise missiles 
leveling targets well beyond nuclear facilities, such as Iranian 
intelligence headquarters, the Revolutionary Guard and some in the 
government.

Any extended attack would require U.S. forces to cripple Iran's air 
defense system and air force, prepare defenses for U.S. ground forces in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and move Navy ships to the Persian Gulf to protect 
shipping. U.S. forces could launch warplanes from aircraft carriers, 
from the Diego Garcia island base in the Indian Ocean and, in the case 
of stealth bombers, from the United States. But if generals want 
land-based aircraft in the region, they face the uphill task of trying 
to persuade Turkey to allow use of the U.S. air base at Incirlik.

Planners also are debating whether launching attacks from Iraq or using 
Iraqi airspace would exacerbate the political cost in the Muslim world, 
which would see it as proof that the United States invaded Iraq to make 
it a base for military conquest of the region.

Unlike the Israeli air attack on Osirak, a strike on Iran would prove 
more complex because Iran has spread its facilities across the country, 
guarded some of them with sophisticated antiaircraft batteries and 
shielded them underground.

Pentagon planners are studying how to penetrate eight-foot-deep targets 
and are contemplating tactical nuclear devices. The Natanz facility 
consists of more than two dozen buildings, including two huge 
underground halls built with six-foot walls and supposedly protected by 
two concrete roofs with sand and rocks in between, according to Edward 
N. Luttwak, a specialist at the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies.

"The targeteers honestly keep coming back and saying it will require 
nuclear penetrator munitions to take out those tunnels," said Kenneth M. 
Pollack, a former CIA analyst. "Could we do it with conventional 
munitions? Possibly. But it's going to be very difficult to do."

Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert in targeting and war 
games who teaches at the National Defense University, recently gamed an 
Iran attack and identified 24 potential nuclear-related facilities, some 
below 50 feet of reinforced concrete and soil.

At a conference in Berlin, Gardiner outlined a five-day operation that 
would require 400 "aim points," or targets for individual weapons, at 
nuclear facilities, at least 75 of which would require penetrating 
weapons. He also presumed the Pentagon would hit two chemical production 
plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with 
sheltered aircraft. Special Operations forces would be required, he said.

Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he 
believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. "The 
Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military 
option," he said.

Others forecast a more surgical strike aimed at knocking out a single 
"choke point" that would disrupt the Iranian nuclear program. "The 
process can be broken at any point," a senior administration official 
said. "But part of the risk is: We don't know if Natanz is the only 
enrichment facility. We could bomb it, take the political cost and still 
not set them back."

Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said 
a more likely target might be Isfahan, which he visited last year and 
which appeared lightly defended and above-ground. But he argued that any 
attack would only firm up Iranian resolve to develop weapons. "Whatever 
you do," he said, "is almost certain to accelerate a nuclear bomb 
program rather than destroy it."

) 2006 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/
AR2006040801082_pf.html
_____________________________________

Scenarios of an American strike

The risks are great if Washington's neo-cons choose military options to 
prevent Iran from blocking US imperial designs for the Middle East

Mustafa El-Labbad
Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt) 30 March - 5 April 2006
Issue No. 788

Anticipated scenarios of an American military strike against Iran depend 
on a reading of pre- emptive force and Washington's military experiences 
since the end of the Cold War, in addition to military and regional 
balances in the Middle East area. The analysis outlined here does not 
take as its goal the defence of a theocratic Iranian regime; rather, it 
works to represent the underdog -- in this case the deep-rooted Iranian 
nation, historical neighbour to Arabs, which is holding fast to its 
right to possess nuclear technology according to international law.

     In contrast stands America's use of force, the strongest military 
arsenal in history, unrestrained by moral or legal fetters, America 
preaching to the world about universal empire based on "divine" vision. 
True, force has been a primary factor in the building of empires 
throughout history, but it is also true that wisdom and aptness to rule 
has always been essential to the development and continuance of empires. 
Wisdom in the art of dominion has historically curbed the excessive use 
of force as a means of solving conflict. This qualification is lacking 
among the neo-cons of the current US administration, which has the world 
by the throat without mandate.

     Despite the fact that Iran remains in accordance with international 
law, as well as the charters of the International Atomic Energy Agency 
(IAEA) that allow for the enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes, 
and the fact that it is signatory to the Additional Protocol that allows 
for surprise inspection of nuclear facilities, Iran did not succeed in 
confronting American pressure on member states in the IAEA board of 
governors, which led to the referral of Iran to the UN Security Council 
for action. If the fundamental legal principle is normally that one is 
presumed innocent until proven guilty, in the case of Iran the logic is 
reversed: Iran, the accused, is guilty until proven innocent beyond all 
shadows of doubt.

     The basis of the US case against Iran is that Iran does not need a 
nuclear programme while it has immense reserves of oil and gas. Yet the 
irony is that it was Washington that brought nuclear technology to Iran 
for the first time ever during the era of the shah. Nuclear weapons 
remain a political and strategic tool allowing states to exert influence 
at a regional and international level. As such, the possibility of 
Tehran possessing such arms without American assent is a red line in 
Washington. In the history of the UN Security Council, there has not 
been one case of a state threatened with economic sanctions or military 
action successfully extricating itself without meeting the council's 
conditions.

     Until now, Washington has succeeded in pulling Iran up before the 
UN Security Council without providing evidence to substantiate its 
allegations. Transferring Iran to the Security Council is considered a 
necessary step on the path to punitive measures, military strikes 
justified down the line on the argument that economic sanctions did not 
meet their goal. The military solution seems to be the final solution 
favoured by Washington in the case of Iran for numerous reasons, despite 
media claims that "the military scenario is not being considered now".

     For its part, a regional role has long been a priority for Iran's 
national security establishment regardless of who has ruled in Tehran. 
Because its environs are crowded with nuclear powers (India, Pakistan 
and Israel, as well as US presence in Iraq and the Gulf), it is a given 
that Iran cannot play a regional role in this context without possessing 
nuclear capacities. Iran may wish to barter its "nuclear ambitions" or 
forfeit them, but only in the event of it participating as an 
internationally recognised regional power in the formation of the 
region's policies. This is exactly what Washington insistently rejects, 
considering this ambition as enabling Iran to lead with greater 
effectiveness the camp resistant to its "Greater Middle East" plan.

     Western intelligence agencies -- particularly American -- fear the 
idea of Iran producing nuclear weapons within a short period, estimated 
at three years if no other party assists it or if Tehran makes technical 
changes to its nuclear programme. Western intelligence agencies believe 
that Iran maintains an open and acknowledged nuclear programme while 
concealing a parallel nuclear programme for non-peaceful purposes.

     Because continued enrichment of uranium, even for limited research 
purposes at a very small number of facilities, raises questions about 
the possible presence of a secret programme to produce nuclear weapons, 
Iranian insistence on enriching uranium incites doubts over the peaceful 
intent of its nuclear programme. A programme to produce arms requires 
advanced enrichment of uranium with 80-90 per cent purity, as opposed to 
only five per cent for the purposes of generating energy. The work of 
Western intelligence agencies is complicated by the fact that Iranian 
nuclear facilities are located deep underground. Their distribution also 
makes intelligence gathering difficult.

     Decision-makers in Iran have confirmed on more than one occasion 
their skill in strategic cunning. They excel in calculated attacks when 
conditions permit, bending with grace before storms when they hit. In 
all circumstances, consideration and protection of Iranian regional 
ambition is a constant. Nearly 30 years after the Iranian Revolution, 
during which time Iran faced an American economic and diplomatic embargo 
and a devastating war with Iraq that lasted more than eight years, 
Iran's regional influence is the strongest it has been in its modern 
history. For the first time since the establishment of the republic of 
Iraq in 1921, Iran's allies sit in seats of power in Baghdad, even 
forming the parliamentary majority due to American floundering following 
occupation.

     In addition to Iraq, Iran continues to maintain allied relations 
with Damascus that have become more entrenched with successive pressures 
placed on Syria. And in addition to Iraq and Syria, Hizbullah is 
considered the strongest Lebanese entity, particularly after its success 
in ending Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon. Hizbullah is tied to 
Iran by way of religion, its arms and presence in Southern Lebanon 
allowing Iran and allies a military purview into the depths of Israel 
for the first time. Thus the area between the western Iranian border and 
northern Israel has become an area of competing Iranian- American 
influence in which Iran is stronger despite America's intense military 
presence in the region.

     Iran's geographic overlook of the entire Arab Gulf, including the 
Hormuz Strait in the north, adds to its demographic strength and 
military capability, confirming that Iran is a major regional power in 
the Gulf. Iran's reach, however, also extends to Afghanistan through the 
Northern Alliance and the Hazara and Tajik militias, allowing it to 
shake the Afghan state founded on American security presence at will. 
Iran's regional presence extends from Afghanistan to Central Asia in 
Tajikstan and Turkmenistan, climbing the shores of the Caspian Sea and 
the Caucasus region. An American military strike on Iran would elicit 
responses on a geographic expanse wider than that of Iran's 
political-geographical borders. In the end, successive ramifications, or 
what is called the domino effect, will play a decisive role in forming 
conceptions of a military strike and its outcomes.

     Additionally, the Iranian regime appears stable. Iran's nuclear 
programme is a top priority for the Iranian leadership, particularly 
since the arrival of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the summer of 
2005. Since that time the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran has 
succeeded in tying nuclear ambition to Iranian national honour, making 
the nuclear file a point of national consensus, whether within Iran or 
among the overwhelming majority of the opposition abroad. The regime's 
survival and popular support for Iranian sovereign ambitions are tied; 
the latter becoming a new source of legitimacy of the Iranian regime.

     Further, Iran's capacity to produce chemical weapons is estimated 
at approximately 1,000 tonnes per year. Iran may also possess a small 
arsenal of biological weapons. Iran's decision to resume enriching 
uranium in its Isfahan facility leads one to conclude that any military 
strike on this facility would result in a catastrophe of an extent and 
geographic scope that cannot be foretold due to the large probability of 
the spread of nuclear radiation and biological viruses. On the other 
hand, Iran possesses a relatively advanced missile defence system whose 
main component is a network of ground-to-air S-400 missiles deployed 
along Iran's borders with a target striking range of 400 kilometres, 
relatively effectively counteracting the threat of invading warplanes. 
American forces cannot neutralise Iranian ground defences with the ease 
it experienced in its military actions waged previously in Somalia, 
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

     Iran's nuclear facilities, moreover, are protected by an additional 
network of Russian S-200 missiles that, while suffering from 
incompatibility between the directing systems controlling them and 
modern technological developments, provide a second network of defence 
around Iranian strategic targets. In addition, Iran concluded a pact 
with Russia in late 2005 to purchase 30 Tor M-1 ground-to-air missiles 
with a reach of only 12 kilometres but which are capable of striking 
targets at a height of 10 kilometres, whether airplanes or missiles 
fired from planes. These 30 missiles will most likely be employed to 
form a third ring of air defence against warplanes, specifically around 
nuclear facilities.

     In terms of attack capabilities, Iran possesses the ability to 
transport unconventional weapons by solid fuel missiles (Shihab-3) with 
a range of approximately 1,800 kilometres. Using solid fuel to propel 
missiles increases their launching speed, which is an extremely 
important advantage. This development also allows the heads of Shihab-3 
missiles to carry an additional load, whether chemical or biological, 
which multiplies its capacity for destruction.

     This is the context in which to understand projected military 
scenarios. Before doing so directly, however, it is essential to 
underline one fact: political targets determine the nature of military 
operations. It is not possible to conceive the commencement of military 
operations, large or small, without first determining their political 
targets. In following, the intensity and force of military actions 
depends on the political target to be reached. In the case of Iran, 
there are four possible scenarios of graduated intensity and force.

     First scenario: a limited military strike. According to military 
logic, Washington is capable of easily directing a limited strike on the 
battalions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and selected military 
targets. It is possible for it to exhibit its technological products and 
use trans- continental missiles for which Iran has no military defence. 
There is no dispute over the American military's ability to do this with 
a high degree of success, striking Iranian targets and affecting the 
morale of the Iranian leadership and people, while exiting with near 
zero American human casualties.

     Despite these facts, an essential question remains without 
theoretical answer: What are the political gains America would reap from 
a limited military strike? It is most likely that the Iranian regime 
would gain from the outcome politically, its being "wronged" before the 
world and underlining its "steadfastness" before its people. With this 
logic, it can be expected that a limited military strike would not halt 
Iran's nuclear programme, thus conflicting with the political goal of 
military action. This removes it from the list of possibilities for 
practical reasons.

     The second scenario: the Israeli option. The air routes assumed for 
Israeli planes to reach Iran are over either Turkey or Jordan and Iraq. 
Because each route incurs regional costs that must be paid, it is most 
likely that the Israeli choice would be for the second because it would 
cost less. Turkey is a large regional state whose considerations, and 
also gains, must be considered. From a military perspective, Israeli 
planes are not able to target all Iranian nuclear facilities in one air 
raid due to a number of intertwining factors. Iran is more than 1,600 
kilometres from Israel, requiring Israeli planes to cover 3,200 
kilometres there and back, a feat impossible without the ability to 
refuel on the territory of a third state.

     Further is the distribution of Iranian nuclear facilities around 
the country, which increases the mission's difficulty and differs from 
the case of the Iraqi Ozirak facilities Israel destroyed in the early 
1980s. Moreover, any third state that would allow Israeli planes to 
cross its airspace would be placed in confrontation with Iran and would 
be subject to Iranian retributive strikes.

     The third scenario: destroying the Iranian nuclear programme. 
American military experts have estimated that this scenario would last 
between one and two weeks, during which nuclear facility sites would be 
shelled with trans- continental missiles via bases on land and at sea. 
American air weapons with high fire intensity would be used, as well as 
technological means of disrupting Iranian air defences. According to 
this scenario, a raft of Iranian facilities would be targeted -- 
approximately 125 targets connected to the production and development of 
conventional and unconventional weapons, along with storage facilities, 
communications centres, and the headquarters of various forces. This 
would be in addition to primary nuclear facilities in Natanz, Arak and 
Bushehr, as well as the scientific centres in Isfahan and Tehran. The 
likelihood of an Iranian response is great in this scenario, as 
successful execution of such operations without an Iranian response 
would mean a total political defeat for the Iranian regime, its regional 
prestige, and its local legitimacy.

     The fourth scenario: changing the Iranian regime. Practically 
speaking, the third and fourth scenarios do not differ much from an 
Iranian perspective. It is thus expected that Iran would play all of its 
regional and military cards in the event of scenarios three and four. 
The fourth scenario requires more military preparation than the third, 
including unconventional operations executed by special units, 
manoeuvres employing ground forces and operations that influence and 
penetrate the Iranian interior. To complement this, Washington may 
activate armed Iranian opposition groups currently in Iraq -- the 
mujahid-e-khalq -- to act within Iranian territory. Initial American 
military estimates for this scenario place it at 200 days for 
deployment, mobilisation, air and ground operations and penetration. 
Even according to optimistic estimates, the shortest period of 
engagement would be the longest operational fighting period since 
American forces were in Vietnam.

     As Iran is a primary player in the global energy market, Iranian 
pre-emptive responses are likely to focus there. Iran is the second 
largest exporter of gas in OPEC, and it maintains the second largest 
natural gas reserves in the world. Further, Iran's influence over the 
global energy market is not restricted to its own energy capacity. It 
geographically overlooks the Hormuz Strait, and this, added to its 
missile capacity and that of its naval forces, has allowed it to easily 
block maritime activity in the Strait and thus halt the pumping of Gulf 
oil into international markets. It is well known that two medium-sized 
submarines can halt maritime activity in the Gulf for extended periods, 
during which oil prices flare up in international markets because Gulf 
oil forms the primary artery for supplying world energy.

     Due to Iran's geographic location, it is also able to strike 
pipelines transporting oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean 
that pass through Azerbaijan and Georgia via its allies there. Its 
missile capacity also theoretically allows it to target oil drilling and 
extraction sites in the Caspian Sea, most of whose shares are owned by 
American and European companies. All of these theoretical abilities 
allow Iran to devastate the global oil market and transfer its losses to 
the industrial states in particular and the global economy in general. 
These possibilities have not been available to any Third World country 
previously.

     The US has, since its occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, become a 
neighbour to Iran, surrounding it in all directions. This fact produces 
another dimension; the fact that waging military operations between Iran 
and the United States places US forces within unprecedented reach of 
Iran. As a result, the possibilities for an Iranian response are not 
only tied to Tehran's military capabilities -- and mainly missile 
capacity -- but rather also to the array of geographical contexts in 
which American forces are present within proximity of Iran. Iran can (a) 
target American forces in Iraq from Iranian and Iraqi territory through 
Iran's allies; (b) target American military bases in the Gulf with 
Iranian missiles; (c) target American forces based in Afghanistan from 
Iranian and Afghani territory through Iran's allies.

     Aside from targeting American forces, through regional proxies Iran 
may also target Tel Aviv. The Shihab-3 missile would deal a crushing 
blow to Israel, and while this remains a low possibility it is not 
improbable if the American administration decides on the third or fourth 
scenarios as its course of action on Iran. Indeed, it is expected that 
the current US neo-cons administration will prefer the third and fourth 
scenarios as the first and second allow Iran to mobilise a following 
beyond its political borders. Even following the success of military 
actions against it, this would make it more influential in the region. 
Yet the last two scenarios require more time for preparatory operations 
that include a number of regional and international measures.

     As of now, it is expected that Washington will resort to exploiting 
Iranian efforts in deflecting pressure from the Security Council to 
prepare on various levels for waging military operations. The issuance 
of a resolution from the Security Council granting Iran a timeframe for 
submission of proof of its peaceful aspirations and permanently halting 
uranium enrichment activities or face sanctions under Chapter VII of the 
UN Charter will follow shortly. In the time it takes to issue subsequent 
resolutions imposing economic sanctions and intensifying the formulation 
of previous resolutions, Washington will both use to prepare and to 
interpret as justification for undertaking military action.

     One aspect of Western preparation will be drastically increasing 
oil supply from OPEC and elsewhere to allow for the creation of massive 
reserves in oil-consuming industrial states. Completing agreements with 
the governments of Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to build military and 
air bases and expand existing ones to increase the capacity for air 
force units participating in military operations will also indicate the 
direction of events.

     Finally, watch this space. Military wars are no longer followed by 
media wars. The media has become theatre of operations wherein wars are 
often won or lost in advance. Based on previous American experience, 
strategic media communications in the case of Iran will be split into 
three stages. First will be building the groundwork, emphasising the 
"evil" nature of the Iranian regime. This stage is currently underway. 
Second will be expanding the crisis within America and abroad, 
internationalising what is a US- Iranian confrontation. This stage will 
be accompanied by the imposition of economic sanctions on Tehran. The 
third and final stage will be to choose the appropriate timing for war. 
When this moment comes, the media will correlate step- by-step with the 
military, and any international initiatives to solve the problem 
peacefully will be derided and defeated.

     This piece is published in special agreement with Sharqnameh , a 
quarterly magazine focussed on political affairs in Iran, Turkey and 
Central Asia.

) Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

     Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: 
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/788/special.htm

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 3 [southnews] Herch: Bush preparing nuclear strike on Iran
 
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 12:59:24 -0500 (CDT)

says the administration think a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will 
humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and 
overthrow the government.

US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

08/04/2006 06h19

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is 
planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of 
bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear 
weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 
issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and 
others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior 
intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying 
that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem 
is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," 
"hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a 
belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the 
religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the 
government," The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks 
on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of 
Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a 
bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the 
destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to 
the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, 
and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove 
the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according 
to the report.

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against 
brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine 
quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of 
attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and 
might also reignite Hezbollah.

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the 
adviser is quote

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/060408061934.4atjkq7n.html

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Seeks to Dampen Talk of Iran Strike
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday April 9, 2006 11:31 PM

AP Photo NYET705 

By NEDRA PICKLER 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Sunday sought to dampen the
idea of a U.S. military strike on Iran, saying the United States
is conducting ``normal defense and intelligence planning'' as
President Bush seeks a diplomatic solution to Tehran's suspected
nuclear weapons program. 

Administration officials - from President Bush on down - have
left open the possibility of a military response if Iran does
not end its nuclear ambitions. Several reports published Sunday
said the administration was studying options for military
strikes; one account raised the possibility of using nuclear
bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites. 

Britain's foreign secretary called the idea of a nuclear strike
``completely nuts.'' 

Dan Bartlett, counselor to Bush, cautioned against reading too
much into administration planning. 

``The president's priority is to find a diplomatic solution to a
problem the entire world recognizes,'' Bartlett told The
Associated Press on Sunday. ``And those who are drawing broad,
definitive conclusions based on normal defense and intelligence
planning, are ill-informed and are not knowledgeable of the
administration's thinking on Iran.'' 

Experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and
complicated. U.S. forces already are preoccupied with Iraq and
Afghanistan, and an attack against Iran could inflame U.S.
problems in the Muslim world. 

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in an interview with the
British Broadcasting Corp., said Britain would not launch a
pre-emptive strike on Iran and he was as ``certain as he could
be'' that neither would the U.S. He said he has a high suspicion
that Iran is developing a civil nuclear capability which in turn
could be used for nuclear weapons, but there is ``no smoking
gun'' to prove it and justify military action. 

``I understand people's frustration with the diplomatic
process,'' Straw said. ``It takes a long time and is quite a
subtle process. The reason why we're opposed to military action
is because it's an infinitely worse option and there's no
justification for it.'' 

The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran suspend its uranium
enrichment program. But Iran has so far refused to halt its
nuclear activity, saying the small-scale enrichment project was
strictly for research and not for development of nuclear
weapons. 

Bush has said Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United
States of any other country in the world. And while he has
stressed that diplomacy is always preferable, he has defended
his administration's strike-first policy against terrorists and
other enemies. 

``The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to
destroy our strong ally Israel,'' the president said last month
in Cleveland. ``That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat
to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance.
I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use
military might to protect our ally.'' 

Vice President Dick Cheney told the pro-Israel lobbying group
AIPAC last month, ``The United States is keeping all options on
the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime.
And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear
message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.'' 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressed in an April 1
interview with British television channel ITV that the United
States is committed to diplomacy to solve the issue.
``However,'' she added, ``the president of the United States
doesn't take his options off the table.'' 

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros said Sunday that
the president and State Department are working with other
nations ``to address diplomatically the troublesome activities
of the Iranian government. And the U.S. military never comments
on contingency planning.'' 

Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University professor who
studies U.S. foreign policy, said it would be no surprise that
the Pentagon has contingency plans for strike on Iran. But he
the administration's hint of military strikes is more of a show
to Iran and the public than a feasible option. 

``If you look at the military options, all of them are
unattractive,'' Cimbala said. ``Either because they weren't work
or because they have side effects where the cure is worse than
the disease.'' 

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., criticized the administration for
using ``shoot from the hip, cowboy diplomacy'' during an
appearance on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' He said the president
should be doing more to get sanctions against Iran. He said even
though the military option must be left open, ``it's a terrible
option fundamentally, and they know it and everybody else knows
it.'' 

The New Yorker magazine said the administration had increased
clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for
a possible major air attack and that one option envisioned the
use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon to insure the
destruction of Iran' s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz. 

The New York Times quoted officials as rejecting the contention
that the administration was considering the use of nuclear
weapons. 

^--- 

On the Net: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Hopes IAEA Visit Will Ease Tensions
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Saturday April 8, 2006 10:16 PM

AP Photo NY194 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Five U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Iran
to visit uranium enrichment and reprocessing plants, Iranian
media reported Saturday - a visit Iran hoped would prove its
nuclear intentions are peaceful. 

The visit by the inspectors for the International Atomic Energy
Agency was the first since Iran announced in mid-February that
it was suspending surprise inspections and removing agency
cameras from some nuclear facilities. 

Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammed Saeedi, said the
inspectors would begin their work at the Isfahan Uranium
Conversion Facility in central Iran on Sunday, followed by a
visit to the Natanz uranium enrichment plant. 

Tehran says its nuclear program is merely for generating
electricity, not weapons as the U.S. claims. 

``The presence of the inspectors in Iran suggests that Iran
wants to cooperate with the (U.N. nuclear) agency as before,''
one state-run radio broadcaster said Saturday. 

The previously scheduled inspection comes ahead of a visit early
next week by Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, who is
expected to encourage Iran's hard-line government to concede on
its atomic program. 

``Tehran expects that ElBaradei will announce that Iran's
nuclear program is peaceful since the inspections have not
revealed anything to the contrary,'' the state-run radio
broadcaster said. 

On March 29, the U.N. Security Council demanded Iran suspend
enrichment and asked the IAEA to report back in 30 days on
whether it had complied. 

Iran has so far refused to halt its nuclear activity, saying the
small-scale enrichment project was strictly for research and was
within its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

Further heightening tensions, Iran last week unveiled a series
of what it portrayed as sophisticated, homemade weapons,
including flying boats and missiles invisible to radar. 

Though experts questioned Iran's claims about its weapons
capabilities and believe much of the military technology
displayed came from Russia, the war-games involving some 17,000
of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf sent a
message that Iran has the capability to hit oil tankers if
antagonism with the U.S. turns into a confrontation. 

ElBaradei's trip is meant to defuse growing tensions, though a
partial success could exacerbate differences among the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. 

If Iran commits to some Security Council requests but does not
meet demands to freeze uranium enrichment that might placate
Russia and China, which oppose tough measures against the
Islamic Republic. It would, however, fall short of the full
compliance sought by the United States, France and Britain on
enrichment and other issues. 

On Friday, Washington's U.N. envoy, John Bolton, said it would
be wise for the U.S. to consider other diplomatic and economic
options to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons if
discussions at the United Nations fail. He said the Bush
administration envisions sanctions if Tehran does not back down. 

``It would be, I think, simply prudent to be looking at other
options,'' Bolton said at a breakfast meeting of the State
Department Correspondents Association. 

In January, Iran forbade snap inspections after being reported
to the U.N. Security Council over suspicions it is seeking
nuclear weapons. 

The five inspectors, who arrived in Tehran Friday, will stay in
Iran for five days, state-run television reported. 

They will visit the Natanz facility where Iran resumed
research-scale uranium enrichment in February, and the Isfahan
site that reprocesses raw uranium into hexaflouride gas, the
feedstock for enrichment. 

Uranium enriched to low levels is used to produce nuclear fuel
but further enrichment makes it suitable for use in an atomic
bomb. 

Saeedi, Iran's deputy nuclear chief, said the inspectors' visit
was planned within the framework of the NPT. 

-- 

Associated Press reporter Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran,
contributed to this report.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Agency Inspectors Arrive in Iran
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday April 8, 2006 1:46 PM

AP Photo XHS101 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI 

Associated Press Writer 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Five inspectors from the U.N. nuclear
watchdog agency have arrived in Iran visit its uranium
enrichment and reprocessing facilities, state-run television
reported Saturday. 

Iran's deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi said the inspectors
would visit the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and the Isfahan
Uranium Conversion Facility, both in central Iran, later
Saturday. 

The scheduled inspection comes ahead of a key visit to Iran by
Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency. ElBaradei is expected to visit next week to try to wrest
concessions from Iran on its atomic program, diplomats and
officials said Friday. 

The official Islamic Republic News Agency said the IAEA chief
might arrive in Iran as early as Sunday or Monday. 

The five inspectors, who arrived Friday, will stay in Iran for
five days, state-run television reported. 

Saeedi said the inspectors' visit was planned within the
framework of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 

In January, Iran forbade snap inspections after it was reported
to the U.N. Security Council over suspicions in it is seeking
nuclear weapons. 

Natanz is the facility where Iran resumed research-scale uranium
enrichment in February, and the Isfahan site reprocesses raw
uranium into hexaflouride gas, the feedstock for enrichment. 

Uranium enriched to low levels is used to produce nuclear fuel
but further enrichment makes it suitable for use in an atomic
bomb. 

The U.S. accuses Iran of using its civilian nuclear facilities
as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the
charges, saying its nuclear program is merely for generating
electricity. 

The nuclear program is a source of national pride in Iran, and
even government opponents have expressed support for it. 

The U.N. Security Council on March 29 demanded that Iran suspend
enrichment and asked the IAEA to report back in 30 days on
whether it had complied. 

Iran has rejected the demand, saying the small-scale enrichment
project was strictly for research and was within its rights
under the NPT. 

While ElBaradei's trip is meant to defuse tensions, a partial
success could actually exacerbate differences among the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. 

If Iran commits to some Security Council requests but does not
meet demands to freeze uranium enrichment that might placate
Russia and China, which oppose tough measures against Iran. It
would, however, fall short of the full compliance sought by the
United States, France and Britain on enrichment and other
issues. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: US plans strike to topple Iran regime - report
 
Julian Borger in Washington and Bob Tait in Tehran

Monday April 10, 2006
The Guardian 		
 		
The US is planning military action against Iran because George 
Bush is intent on regime change in Tehran - and not just as a 
contingency if diplomatic efforts fail to halt its suspected 
nuclear weapons programme, it was reported yesterday.

In the New Yorker magazine, Seymour Hersh, America's best known 
investigative journalist, concluded that the Bush administration 
is even considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon against 
deep Iranian bunkers, but that top generals in the Pentagon are 
attempting to take that option off the table.

Hersh, who helped break the story of the Abu Ghraib prisoner 
abuse scandal, quoted an unnamed Pentagon adviser as saying the 
resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon 
civilians was "a juggernaut that has to be stopped" and that some 
senior officers and officials were considering resignation over 
the issue.

There is also rising concern in the US military and abroad that
Mr Bush's goal in Iran is not counter-proliferation but regime
change, the article reports. The president and his aides now
refer to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a
potential Adolf Hitler, according to a former senior
intelligence official.

Another government consultant is quoted as saying Mr Bush
believes he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected
in the future, would have the courage to do" and "that saving
Iran is going to be his legacy".

"The word I'm hearing is messianic," Mr Hersh said yesterday on
CNN. "[Bush] is politically free. He really thinks he has a
chance and this is his mission."

There was no formal response from the White House yesterday but
Fox News television quoted unnamed officials as saying Mr
Hersh's article was "hyped, without knowledge of the president's
thinking". In Britain, Jack Straw told the BBC that the idea of
a US nuclear strike against Iran was "completely nuts".

Military action against Iran was "not on the agenda", the
foreign secretary said. "They [the Americans] are very committed
indeed to resolving this issue ... by negotiation and by
diplomatic pressure."

An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi,
dismissed the reports as "psychological war, launched by
Americans because they feel angry and desperate regarding Iran's
nuclear dossier".

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism operations
chief said Mr Bush had not yet made up his mind about the use of
direct military action against Iran.

"There is a battle for Bush's soul over that," he said, adding
that Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser is
adamantly opposed to a war.

However, Mr Cannistraro said covert military action, in the form
of special forces troops identifying targets and aiding
dissident groups, is already under way.

"It's been authorised, and it's going on to the extent that
there is some lethality to it. Some people have been killed."

He said US-backed Baluchi Sunni guerrillas had been involved in
an attack in Sistan-Baluchistan last month in which over 20
Iranian government officials were killed and the governor of the
provincial capital was wounded. The Iranian government had
blamed British intelligence for the incident.

Last week, the Iranian regime made a public show of its combat
readiness by test-firing some of its missile technology during
seven days of war games in the Gulf, images of which were
broadcast repeatedly on state television.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Pentagon and CIA
planners had been exploring possible targets, including a
uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a uranium conversion site
in Isfahan, as part of a broader strategy of "coercive
diplomacy" aimed at forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear
ambitions. But that report made no mention of the possible use
of a tactical nuclear bunker-buster, such as the B61-11, against
deep underground targets, reported by Mr Hersh.

The UN security council has given Iran until the end of this
month to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, which most
western governments believe is intended to produce a nuclear
warhead, not generate electric power as Tehran insists. There is
no consensus in the security council over what steps to take if
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports back that
Iran has failed to comply. The IAEA director, Mohamed ElBaradei
is due in Tehran this week for talks.

The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton said last week the US
would explore other diplomatic and economic options if the
security council fails to agree. He has also told British
parliamentarians that he believes that military action could
halt or at least set back the Iranian nuclear programme by
striking it at its weakest point.

The Washington Post reported that while no military action is
likely in the short term, the possible targets went beyond
suspected nuclear installations and included the option of a
"more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of
military and political targets".

It is a widespread belief in Washington's neo-conservative
circles that a comprehensive air assault would disorient the
Tehran government and galvanise the Iranian people into bringing
it down. The departure of senior neo-conservatives from the
administration after Mr Bush's 2004 re-election was thought to
have weakened their clout, but Mr Hersh's report suggested that
the president's personal convictions may yet prove decisive.
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 IRNA: Iran-US talks to be in line with policies of Islamic system - Rezaei - 

, April 8, IRNA                                                                                                                  

The upcoming talks between Iran and the United States on Iraqi
developments will be under the supervision of Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
and in accordance with policies set by the system, a senior
official said here Saturday.

 Secretary of the Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei made the
remarks while talking to reporters after the conclusion of the
council's first session in the current Iranian year 1385
(started March 21, 2006).

 He, moreover, said that the country's general policies with
regard to observance and promotion of the culture of devotion
were on the agenda of today's EC session.






*****************************************************************
 9 IRNA: Daily criticizes US dual policy on use of nuclear technology -
     
Beijing, April 8, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iran-Nuclear-South China 

The Hong Kong-based daily, South China Morning Post, in an
article on Saturday, said that Iran is entitled to use nuclear
energy and technology for peaceful purposes and criticized the
US dual policies towards the world countries on peaceful nuclear
technology.

 It added that Iran should be able to use nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes and power generation, given that it will
remain committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

 "Even the US dual policies on signing a nuclear agreement with
India and supporting the Zionist regime, given that Israel is
equipped with almost 200 nuclear warheads, will not work out
under the present conditions," said the daily.

 Turning to Iran-US nuclear agreement, the daily noted that
according to the document inked by Washington and New Delhi last
month, India is authorized to access the US nuclear technology.

 "This is while international laws do not allow India and the US
to sign such a contract, given that India is not a signatory to
the NPT.

 "By signing such an agreement, the US administration has made a
blunder and it is likely to be rejected by the Congress," added
the paper.

 It pointed to Iran's nuclear dossier and said that the highest
priority should be given to solving it through diplomatic ways
and called for the issue to be settled politically by holding
talks.

 South China called the US as the Leader of Iran's Opposition
Front and mentioned the illusive charges raised by Washington
against Iran over the past years.

 "The US used such accusations to attack Iraq, but failed to
prove them. Its claim about Saddam Hussein's involvement in
terrorism has not yet been proved, neither has the US-claimed
nuclear armament ever been located in Iraq.

 "Nevertheless, the Bush administration has continued repeating
such charges and claims against Iran," it added.

 The daily said that proliferation of nuclear weapons should
never be tolerated and the countries efforts should aim to
demolish their stockpiled nuclear armament, adding that Iran
should, meanwhile, be allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful
uses.

*****************************************************************
 10 IRNA: IAEA chief due in Iran within next 2 days 

, April 8, IRNA                                                                                                                  

- 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General
Mohamed ElBaradei is arriving in Tehran within the next two
days, an informed source in Iran's nuclear negotiating team said
here Saturday.

 Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source told IRNA that
ElBaradei's Tehran visit will take place within the framework of
Iran's cooperation and consultations with the IAEA.

 While in Tehran, the IAEA chief will hold talks with certain
Iranian nuclear officials, the source added.

 He further said the sides would discuss remaining issues in
Iran's peaceful nuclear activities.





*****************************************************************
 11 AFP: ElBaradei and inspectors in Iran for nuclear talks 

 Saturday April 8, 01:34 PM 

  [An Iranian technician works at the Isfahan plant]   
    
TEHRAN (AFP) - UN atomic watchdog inspectors are visiting a key
nuclear facility in Iran ahead of a visit by IAEA chief
Mohahamed ElBaradei to persuade Tehran to prove its atomic
programme is peaceful.

ElBaradei's visit, due to begin within the next two days, is his
first to the country this year and comes amid growing
international pressure on Tehran to suspend its uranium
enrichment activities.

"Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) will visit [ src=] Iran either tomorrow or the day
after it, and the trip is within the framework of Iran's
cooperation and consultation with the IAEA," a senior Iranian
nuclear negotiator told the state news agency IRNA on the
condition of anonymity.

He added Saturday: "ElBaradei will hold talks with a number of
Iranian officials during his stay and Iran's outstanding issues
with the IAEA will be discussed."

For their part, the IAEA inspectors began their work by visiting
the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, after arriving in
Tehran on Friday.

Enrichment is the process used to manufacture fuel for the civil
nuclear power stations but can be also used for manufacture core
material for atomic bombs.

The United Nations has called on Iran to suspend uranium
enrichment to provide a watertight guarantee that its nuclear
programme is peaceful. Iran categorically rejects charges that
it is seeking atomic weapons.

"Five inspectors, who arrived in Tehran on Friday, will begin
their inspections on Saturday and will go to the enrichment
facility in Natanz and the conversion facility in Isfahan," said
the vice-president of the international affaires of the Iranian
Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad Saeedi.

However, Iran's representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar
Soltaniyeh, played down the importance of such inspections
saying that the visit was "routine".

It was not related to a United Nations Security Council
resolution which requires Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment
related activities by the end of April 2006, he said.

On Friday, a diplomat with the agency said that ElBaradei would
on his visit "meet with senior officials for discussions related
to outstanding safeguard verification issues and other
confidence building measures requested by the IAEA board of
governors."

"This visit will provide Iran an opportunity... To come forward
with information required by the IAEA to fill in the gaps in the
history of Iran's nuclear activities," he said.

"He's not going there to negotiate any settlement. His going
there is part of an ongoing verification process and this
requires face to face contact," the diplomat added.

"He is going the extra mile to make the Iranians understand what
is required for compliance. He will also remind them of the
board's demands for confidence-building measures and why they
are important," he said.

Iran on January 10 resumed uranium enrichment research
activities in Natanz however but added that it is ready to
negotiate with the European countries the resumption of
industrial enrichment. 

AFP '); [ src=] 
*****************************************************************
 12 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Date of Iran-US talks has not set 
  
2006/04/08   

    
Tehran, April 8 - Spokesman of Supreme National Security Council
Hossein Entezami said on Saturday that Iran-US talks would be
logically held in Baghdad but not date has been set yet.
 
He said the date of the bilateral talks would be officially
announced by Iran's authorities and dates announced by domestic
and foreign media are mere guess.
 
Entezami emphasized that Iran's talk with US is only on Iraq's
issues which would be held at the call of Head of the Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Abdelaziz
Hakim.
 
He expressed the hope that the talks would help establish and
strenghten the new Iraqi government, accelarate the withdrawal
of occupaying forces from the country and increase the security
of the two neighboring countries of Iran and Iraq.
 
mk   

  
  Copyright 2004, 
All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
News Network 
Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
*****************************************************************
 13 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IAEA chief to visit Iran next week 

  2006/04/08   
  
Vienna, April 8 - The chief of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, will visit Iran next week to
try to win more cooperation from Iranian leaders on the
country's nuclear program. 

ElBaradei was trying to increase mutual understanding which he
believed was important to the breaking of the nuclear deadlock,
the official said, adding that ElBaradei "expects to get
positive results."

 Also five IAEA inspectors arrived in Tehran on Friday. 
They would inspect Iran's nuclear facilities in Natanz and
Isfahan the next day, media reports said. 

SAM   

  
  Copyright 2004, 
All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
News Network 
Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
*****************************************************************
 14 AFP: Iran-US talks postponed 

[Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.]   

TEHRAN (AFP) - Talks between Iran and the United States on Iraq
will not take place next week as indicated by earlier reports.

"These talks are not being held in the current (Iranian) week
(starting Saturday)," an unnamed source in the Iranian embassy
in Baghdad told the state news agency IRNA.

"But Iran-US talks about Iraq's issues will certainly take place
at the right time and under certain conditions," the source
said, without giving further details.

The official expressed hope an Iraqi government would be
established quickly so that "these talks will be held under the
administration of a government that emerged from the new Iraqi
parliament."

The spokesman of Iran's Supreme National Security Council,
Hossein Entezami, also confirmed that "the two sides have not
yet agreed on a schedule for the meeting, but the location of
talks is principally in Baghdad."

Entezami also hoped that "the talks could help the establishment
and fortification of Iraq's government, the acceleration of the
occupiers' exit (from Iraq) and increasing security of the two
neighbouring countries."

On Thursday, an unnamed official at the embassy had said that
the talks would probably take place in Baghdad next week.

Press reports said the Iranian delegation is likely to be headed
by top Supreme National Security Council official Ali
Hosseini-Tash, who was appointed to nuclear talks with Moscow in
February over a compromise deal to enrich Iran's uranium on
Russian soil.

Any direct meeting would mark a break in a near three-decade
pause in direct contacts between US and Iranian officials
following the country's 1979 Islamic revolution, despite
heightened tensions due to the standoff over Iran's nuclear
programme. 

AFP '); [ src=] 
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP: UN inspectors in Iran ahead of ElBaradei nuclear talks 

  [A general view shows the Iranian nuclear power plant of
Natanz, 270 kms south of Tehran]   


TEHRAN (AFP) - UN atomic watchdog inspectors were visiting a key
nuclear facility in Iran ahead of a visit by IAEA chief
Mohahamed ElBaradei to persuade Tehran to prove its atomic
program is peaceful.

ElBaradei's visit, due to begin on Wednesday according to
diplomats close to the agency, is his first to the country this
year and comes amid growing international pressure on Tehran to
suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

ElBaradei will hold talks "within the framework of Iran's
cooperation [ src=] and consultation with the IAEA," a source in
the Iranian nuclear negotiation team earlier told the state news
agency IRNA on the condition of anonymity.

He added: "ElBaradei will hold talks with a number of Iranian
officials during his stay and Iran's outstanding issues with the
IAEA will be discussed."

The IAEA inspectors began their work by visiting the uranium
enrichment facility in Natanz, after arriving in Tehran on
Friday.

Enrichment is the process used to manufacture fuel for the civil
nuclear power stations but can be also used for manufacture core
material for atomic bombs.

The United Nations has called on Iran to suspend uranium
enrichment to provide a watertight guarantee that its nuclear
program is peaceful. Iran categorically rejects charges that it
is seeking atomic weapons.

"Five inspectors, who arrived in Tehran on Friday, will begin
their inspections on Saturday and will go to the enrichment
facility in Natanz and the conversion facility in Isfahan," said
the vice-president of the international affaires of the Iranian
Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad Saeedi.

However, Iran's representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar
Soltaniyeh, played down the importance of such inspections
saying that the visit was "routine."

It was not related to a United Nations Security Council
resolution which requires Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment
related activities by the end of April 2006, he said.

On Friday, a diplomat with the agency said that ElBaradei would
on his visit "meet with senior officials for discussions related
to outstanding safeguard verification issues and other
confidence building measures requested by the IAEA board of
governors."

"This visit will provide Iran an opportunity... To come forward
with information required by the IAEA to fill in the gaps in the
history of Iran's nuclear activities," he said.

"He's not going there to negotiate any settlement. His going
there is part of an ongoing verification process and this
requires face to face contact," the diplomat added.

"He is going the extra mile to make the Iranians understand what
is required for compliance. He will also remind them of the
board's demands for confidence-building measures and why they
are important," he said.

Iran on January 10 resumed uranium enrichment research
activities in Natanz however but added that it is ready to
negotiate with the European countries the resumption of
industrial enrichment.

ElBaradei has been in Iran twice before, in February and in
October 2003. 

AFP
*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran 

 Sat Apr 8, 2:24 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W.
Bush" /> is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran" />
, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key
Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker
magazine has reported in its April 17 issue. 

 The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that
Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler. 

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former
senior intelligence official as saying. 

A senior unnamed Pentagon" /> adviser is quoted in the article
as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to
solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and
that means war." 

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as
"enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes. 

One former defense official said the military planning was
premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran
will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to
rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed
out. 

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of
talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of
the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat,
the report said. 

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use
of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11,
to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at
Natanz, Hersh writes. 

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention
given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings
inside the military, and some officers have talked about
resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the
evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report. 

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against
brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the
magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying. 

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain
reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens
throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah. 

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq" /> will light up like a
candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 17 AFP: US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran - report -

 Sat Apr 8, 3:02 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W.
Bush" /> President George W. Bushis reportedly planning a
massive bombing campaign against Iran" /> Iran, including use of
bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected
nuclear weapons facility. 

The article in the April 17 issue of The New Yorker magazine by
investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others
in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler. 

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former
senior intelligence official as saying. 

A senior unnamed Pentagon" /> Pentagonadviser is quoted in the
article as saying that "this White House believes that the only
way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in
Iran, and that means war." 

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as
"enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes. 

One former defense official said the military planning was
premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran
will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to
rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed
out. 

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of
talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of
the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat,
the report said. 

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use
of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11,
to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at
Natanz, Hersh writes. 

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention
given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings
inside the military, and some officers have talked about
resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the
evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report. 

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against
brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the
magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying. 

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain
reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens
throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah. 

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq" /> Iraqwill light up like
a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: Bush critics alarmed over reports of possible strike on Iran -
    
 Sun Apr 9, 3:43 PM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Critics of the George W. Bush administration
expressed alarm about explosive new reports that the president
is mulling military options to knock out Iran" /> Iran's nuclear
program. 

 Retired General Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central
Command, told US television Sunday that he had no detailed
knowledge of the alleged military plans, but he suggested a
preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program would be
extremely risky. 

"Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult.
We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike
and then it will be over," said Zinni. 

"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities
in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop
positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be
interrupted, to attacks on Israel" /> Israel, to the conduct of
terrorism," he said. 

Zinni made his remarks after the publication of a pair of
reports this weekend saying that the administration is seriously
considering military action against Iran, amid a stalemate in
diplomatic efforts. 

The New Yorker magazine reported in its April 17 issue that the
administration is planning a massive bombing campaign against
Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a
key suspected Iranian nuclear weapons facility. 

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that
Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential "Adolf Hitler." 

"That's the name they're using," Hersh quoted a former senior
intelligence official as saying. 

Hersh told CNN's Late Edition show that a "messianic" president
feels driven to try to contain Iran and that the White House is
determined to keep open a nuclear option against strong
objections from some top Pentagon" /> Pentagonofficials. 

"It's the fact that the White House wouldn't let it go that has
got the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) in an uproar," he said. 

"He (Bush) thinks, as I wrote, that he's the only one now who
will have the courage to do it," said Hersh, the reporter who
also broke the Abu Ghraib" /> Abu Ghraibprison abuse scandal. 

Hersh reports in his article that the administration already has
advance forces on the ground in Iran. 

"I think it's fraught with danger. But they're there," he told
CNN. 

Democratic Senator John Kerry" /> John Kerry, one of the
administration's most outspoken critics, assailed the White
House for what he said is its too-ready reliance on military
might. 

"That is another example of the shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy
diplomacy of this administration," the former Democratic
presidential contender said. 

"For us to think about exploding tactical nuclear weapons in
some way is the height of irresponsibility. It would be
destructive to any non-proliferation efforts and the military
assessment is, it would not work," he told NBC television's
"Meet the Press" program. 

Meanwhile, according to a report Sunday in the Washington Post,
Bush is studying options for military strikes against Iran as
part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure
Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear program. 

Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, the
newspaper said no attack appears likely in the short term, but
officials are using the threat to convince Iranians of the
seriousness of its intentions. 

The paper said Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must
be dealt with before his presidency ends. The White House, in
its new National Security Strategy, labeled Iran the most
serious challenge to the United States posed by any country. 

Zinni said he shared Washington's concerns about Tehran's
motives, but said diplomatic efforts should first be exhausted. 

"I believe that if the international community would stand fast,
the Russians and the Chinese would stay with us, I think that
kind of pressure, the fear of being isolated and condemned as a
rogue state could have the effect that we need to halt the
program. 

"I'm not saying that there isn't a military action that will
become necessary at some point," Zinni continued. 

"But I believe ... when you take that military action, you have
to ask the question, 'and then what?' Because you're going to
have a series of those 'and then whats' down the road," he said. 

Hersh told CNN however, that the White House has spurned
Tehran's overtures for dialogue. 

"This president is not talking to the Iranians. They are trying
very hard to make contact, I can assure you of that, in many
different forms," he said. 

"He's not talking. And there's no public pressure on the White
House to start bilateral talks. And that's what amazes
everybody," he said. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: Reports of US nuclear strike on Iran 'completely nuts' - British FM - 

 Sun Apr 9, 6:38 AM ET 		 	 

LONDON (AFP) - British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has
dismissed claims that the United States was preparing for
military action against Iran" /> , including nuclear strikes on
suspected atomic weapons facilities. 

 He told BBC television that the international community was
right to view the Islamic republic's nuclear programme with
"high suspicion" but "there is no smoking gun, there is no
'casus belli' (justification for war)". 

"We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is
therefore not a basis for which anybody would gain authority to
go to military action," he said Sunday. 

Straw was speaking following reports from the United States that
President George W. Bush" /> was studying options for military
strikes, including possible targets. 

The April 17 edition of the New Yorker said they included Iran's
underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and its uranium
conversion facility at Isfahan. 

Straw dismissed the idea of nuclear strikes with bunker-busting
bombs as "completely nuts" and questioned the reliability of the
reports' source. 

Instead, he said he believed Washington was still committed to
using negotiation and diplomatic pressure to resolve the matter. 

"The reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's
an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it,"
he said. 

Iran claims its nuclear programme is for domestic energy supply
purposes only, but the West is convinced it is a front for
developing nuclear weapons. 

A non-binding United Nations" /> Security Council statement,
passed on March 29, requires Iran to suspend its uranium
enrichment-related activities by the end of April. 

	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 20 AFP: Iran says US military strike talk 'psychological warfare' -
     
 Sunday April 9, 09:53 PM 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has branded as "psychological warfare" media
reports that the US military was planning air strikes to force
Tehran to abandon its controversial nuclear program. 

"We regard that (planning for air strikes) as psychological
warfare stemming from America's anger and helplessness," foreign
ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. 

Two US publications reported over the weekend that the White
House is studying options for military strikes against Iran's
nuclear facilities, with one even suggesting the use of an
atomic weapon had been proposed. 

The administration of US President George W. Bush, which accuses
Tehran of seeking to manufacture a nuclear bomb, has repeatedly
said it is keeping all options open even though it supports
efforts for a diplomatic solution. 

However British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose country was
the key US ally in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, dismissed any idea
of military action against Tehran. 

He told BBC television Sunday that the international community
was right to view the Islamic republic's nuclear program with
"high suspicion" but "there is no smoking gun, there is no
'casus belli' (justification for war)". 

"We can't be certain about Iran's intentions and that is
therefore not a basis for which anybody would gain authority to
go to military action," he said. 

Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, the
Washington Post said no attack appears likely in the short term,
but officials are preparing for it as a possible option and
using the threat to convince Iranians of the seriousness of
their intentions. 

Pentagon and CIA planners have been exploring possible targets,
such as Iran's underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz
and its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, both located in
central Iran, the report said. 

In its April 17 edition, the New Yorker magazine said the US
government is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran,
including the use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy
suspected facilities like Natanz. 

"The Americans are not seeking a solution for the Iranian
nuclear file and are seeking to make crisis. They do not want us
to reach an agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and the Europeans," Asefi said. 

The spokesman warned that Iran "will not give up its nuclear
rights," adding that "activities of research on uranium
enrichment are continuing normally" in Natanz. 

"Sending our file to the UN Security Council will not make us
retreat. During the past 27 years, we underwent economic
sanctions and in spite of that we made economic, technical and
scientific progress," he added. 

Asefi confirmed that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei would be
visiting Iran this week amid ongoing inspections by the UN
watchdog's workers of its nuclear plants. The visit is expected
to take place on Thursday, according to the agency. 

"He will be in Iran by the end of this week, and his visit is
within the framework of our cooperation with the agency," he
said. 

"We will discuss our nuclear issues with the IAEA, since all of
our (nuclear) activities are under the agency's supervision." 

Iranian media showed footage of the inspectors working at the
Isfahan conversion plant. Iranian television said that the
inspectors were in Natanz uranium enrichment facility on
Saturday. 

"The inspectors are doing their visit according to preplanned
inspections and they will remain in Iran for the next two to
three days," said Asefi. 

"The mere existence of the inspectors in Iran shows our serious
cooperation with the IAEA, and we believe that Iran's file
should be handled within the framework of the IAEA." 

The UN Security Council, in a non-binding statement, called on
Iran on March 29 to suspend all its enrichment-related
activities in 30 days, a move promptly rejected by Tehran. 

The United States accuses Iran of using its civilian nuclear
program to hide a drive for nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the
charges. 

Enrichment is the process used to manufacture fuel for the civil
nuclear power stations but can be also used for manufacture core
material for atomic bombs. 


Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: S.Korea Pessimistic About N.Korea Talks
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Sunday April 9, 2006 6:46 AM

AP Photo XITS103 

By KWANG-TAE KIM 

Associated Press Writer 

TOKYO (AP) - A top South Korean diplomat said Sunday that a
meeting with his North Korean counterpart left him pessimistic
about the resumption of stalled six-nation negotiations aimed at
ending the North's nuclear program. 

South Korea's Deputy Foreign Minister Chun Young-woo said he did
not sense any change in the North's position during his meeting
in Tokyo Saturday with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim
Kye Gwan. The two met on the sidelines of a security conference. 

``I didn't find a situation in which I have expectations and
hope,'' Chun told reporters. ``Unofficial meetings in this place
help to understand each other's positions, but this is not a
conference where a breakthrough can be found.'' 

Officials involved in the six-nation talks are gathering in
Tokyo to attend a private security conference that starts
Monday. 

The North agreed in the six-party talks last year to abandon its
nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees. 

Since then, North Korea has quit the talks and refused to return
unless the United States lifts financial sanctions imposed on a
Macau-based bank and North Korean companies for alleged
counterfeiting and other illegal activities. Washington has said
the sanctions will stay in place, and no progress has been made
on implementing the accord. 

On Saturday, Kim also expressed little optimism about a
breakthrough, saying ``the U.S. already knows what they should
do to resume six-party talks.'' 

The U.S. Embassy said last week that officials from the six
countries - the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and
Russia - would have the opportunity to meet at, or on the
sidelines of, the Tokyo conference. Kim said Saturday he ``would
not reject'' a request for bilateral talks with the United
States on the sidelines of the conference. 

The U.S. Embassy said Assistant Secretary of State Christopher
Hill had no plans for a one-on-one meeting with the North Korean
delegation. 

The last round of talks - which include the two Koreas, Japan,
China, the United States and Russia - broke down in November,
with no date set for a new round. 
		 	 	   


      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 22 Guardian Unlimited: Koreas Seek Common Ground in Tokyo
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday April 8, 2006 9:31 AM

AP Photo XITS105 

TOKYO (AP) - North and South Korean officials hoped to find
common ground in talks Saturday on the sidelines of a security
conference in Tokyo. 

The North and South Korean officials will meet at the Akasaka
Prince Hotel in Tokyo, said Song Il Hyuck, a member of
Pyongyang's team. He did not elaborate on the topic of
discussion. 

Officials involved in the six-nation talks aimed at halting
North Korea's development of nuclear weapons have been gathering
in Tokyo to attend a security forum sponsored by the University
of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. 

Though ostensibly here for the conference, the gathering of top
officials in Tokyo has raised hopes that they will be able to
find common ground on which to jump-start the stalled nuclear
talks. 

Last September, the North agreed in the six-party talks to
abandon its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security
guarantees. Since then, however, no progress has been made on
implementing the accord. 

The last round of talks - which include the two Koreas, Japan,
China, the United States and Russia - broke down in November,
with no date set for a new round. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 23 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea Issues Yet Another Warning
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday April 8, 2006 1:46 PM

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea's defense minister warned
Saturday that a pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the
United States. 

``We will never sit with arms folded and watch until the U.S.
attacks us,'' said Kim Il Chol, vice marshal of the North's
Korean People's Army, according to the official Korean Central
News Agency. 

``A pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the U.S.,'' he
said. 

The warning, which is not new, came as North Korea's top nuclear
envoy was in Japan for a security conference that also is
drawing his counterparts from the U.S. and other participants in
six-nation talks on the North's nuclear program. 

The privately sponsored forum, set for next week, comes as the
North continues to boycott the talks over U.S. financial
restrictions imposed for its alleged currency counterfeiting and
other illicit activities. 

``Now, the U.S. talks about six-party talks, but in reality, it
has no interest in the talks and ... is seeking a chance to
attack while putting us on its pre-emptive strike list,'' the
North's defense minister said. 

``If they ultimately ignite a fire to the fuse of aggression
war, ... our army and people will mercilessly destroy the
enemy,'' he said. 

In recent months, the communist state has issued the same
warning several times, condemning joint military exercises
between South Korea and the U.S. that were held last month. 

The communist state declared last year it has nuclear weapons,
though the claim couldn't be independently confirmed. 

The participants in the nuclear talks are China, Japan, the two
Koreas, Russia and the U.S. 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 24 Xinhua: Japan urges DPRK to return to six-party talks   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-04-08 23:13:40   

    TOKYO, April 8 (Xinhua) -- The Japanese Foreign Ministry's
Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau chief Kenichi Sasae on
Saturday urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK)'s Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan to make efforts to
return to the six-party talks over the Korean Peninsular nuclear
issue, Kyodo News reported. 

    The two chief negotiators held a two-hour meeting in a hotel
inTokyo, the first since they met in Beijing in last November. 

    Kim arrived in Tokyo on Friday to attend the 17th Northeast
Asia Cooperation Dialogue from Sunday. 

    Senior officials involved in the six-party talks have
arrived one after another in Tokyo for the academic conference
on securityissues slated for three days. 

    The meeting will be the first gathering of chief negotiators
from the six parties since the last round of the multilateral
nuclear negotiations ended in Beijing in November. Enditem 

      Editor: Wang Nan   
    
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 AFP: SKorea dashes hopes on North's nuclear drive 

 Sun Apr 9, 8:27 AM ET 		 	 

TOKYO (AFP) - South Korea" /> has dashed hopes of an early
breakthrough on North Korea" /> 's nuclear drive, saying
Pyongyang seems intent on shunning six-nation talks despite
joining top negotiators here for a forum. 

 Chief negotiators from the six nations are gathering in Tokyo
this week for a private security conference at a time when North
Korea refuses to return to the formal talks on ending its
nuclear ambitions. 

But Chun Young-Woo, South Korea's chief delegate to the stalled
six-nation talks, said: "You had better not expect too much." 

"North Korea seems to be toiling a lot over the current
situation, but it seems not to be deciding to return to the
six-way talks," Chun said after a closed-door workshop attended
by his Pyongyang counterpart Kim Gye-Gwan. 

"Under such circumstances, I think it will be difficult to have
US-North Korean bilateral consultations," Chun said. 

"This kind of unofficial meeting may help in understanding each
other's position, but this is not the type of gathering that can
produce a breakthrough," Chun said of the five-day conference. 

The US embassy also said no talks were scheduled between US
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill and Kim, who met
Saturday with both his South Korean and Japanese counterparts. 

However, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said there was still
a possibility of a bilateral meeting between North Korea and the
United States. 

The six-nation talks bogged down in November after the US
accused the communist state of counterfeiting US dollars and
laundering money. The North has denied the charge and demanded
the United States lift financial sanctions before it returns to
the table for talks. 

Waseda University professor Toshimitsu Shigemura, a North Korea
expert, said Pyongyang could use the conference to "make people
feel like giving something to North Korea and asking the United
States to be more lenient." 

But Pyongyang struck a defiant tone ahead of the conference,
organized by the University of California and involving private
and public figures. The main conference starts Monday. 

Defense Minister Kim Il-Chol warned "a preemptive attack is not
the monopoly of the US, and North Korea will never sit idle till
it is exposed to a preemptive attack of the US." 

Rodong Sinmun, the ruling communist party's daily newspaper,
said the North's army had "the spirit of readily becoming human
bombs, the spirit of suicide bombing." 

North Korea declared itself nuclear-armed last year, breaching a
US-led 1994 accord to freeze its nuclear development. 

The disarmament talks -- with the two Koreas, China, Japan,
Russia and the United States -- started in 2003 and culminated
in an agreement last September, when North Korea pledged to
dismantle its nuclear arms programme in return for economic aid
and security guarantees. 

But a new round of talks, originally set for early this year,
has been suspended due to resistance from Pyongyang. 

The US Treasury Department" /> banned US financial institutions
from dealing with a Macau-based bank that it suspects of being a
front for laundering money for North Korea, dealing a major blow
to its already fragile economy. 

Hideshi Takesada, a professor at Japan's National Institute for
Defense Studies, expects the North to use the Tokyo conference
to try to persuade China, South Korea and Russia that the
money-laundering allegations are false. 

The stalemate in the talks will be embarrassing for President Hu
Jintao" /> of China, which is Pyongyang's main ally, when he
meets President George W. Bush" /> in Washington on April 20. 

"If the six-nation framework collapses, it may lead to action on
the part of the United Nations" /> . That is something the six
countries want to avoid," said Masao Okonogi, a law professor at
Tokyo's Keio University and a North Korea watcher. 	 		 			
													 			 			 				
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 26 AFP: North Korea hints at return to six-nation nuclear talks 

  [North Korea's vice Foreign Minister and chief delegate for
the six-nation talks Kim Gye-Gwan.]   
  

TOKYO (AFP) - North Korea has hinted that Pyongyang wanted to
return to stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear program,
saying the regime was ready to make contact with other sides in
the dispute.

Kim Gye-Gwan, North Korea's chief negotiator on its nuclear
program, was quoted by Kyodo News agency as saying the Stalinist
regime wanted to advance the negotiations, bogged down since
late last year over US-imposed sanctions.

"We have decided to actively contact (officials from other
countries) [ src=] bilaterally and multilaterally for the
advancement of six-party talks," Kim was quoted as saying.

North Korea has refused to return to the talks since November,
demanding the United States first lift financial sanctions
imposed over charges the cash-strapped regime is counterfeiting
US dollars and laundering money.

Kim, who is in Japan on a rare visit to take part in a five-day
private forum opening Sunday aimed at reinvigorating the stalled
nuclear talks, said Friday he was ready to talk with the United
States.

He said that while he did not consider the security conference
to be a round of the six-nation talks, he was prepared for a
meeting.

"If the United States makes a proposal to meet us, we intend to
accept it," Kim told reporters upon his arrival.

But he added: "We have not come here for the purpose of
six-nation talks and the United States knows very well what is
necessary to resume the talks."

"We are participating in the conference now with the hope of
contributing to peace in Northeast Asia," Kim said.

Christopher Hill, the US envoy to the talks, is also set to
attend the East Asia Cooperation Dialogue forum, but a US
embassy spokesman said he had no immediate plans to meet Kim.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has expressed hope
that progress can come out of the conference, which includes
officials from the six countries in the nuclear talks -- China,
Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the United States.

To the unease of other countries in the nuclear talks, Japan has
made a priority of resolving the North's abductions of Japanese
civilians, mostly in the 1970s, to train its spies in Japanese
language and culture.

Japan has insisted that at least eight kidnap victims are still
alive in North Korea. 

AFP 
*****************************************************************
 27 New York Times: Iraq Findings Leaked by Cheney's Aide Were Disputed - 

By DAVID E. SANGERand DAVID BARSTOW

Published: April 9, 2006                          

WASHINGTON, April 8 — President Bush's apparent order authorizing 
a senior White House official to reveal to a reporter previously 
classified intelligence about Saddam Hussein'sefforts to obtain 
uranium came as the information was already being discredited by 
several other officials in the administration, interviews and 
documents from the time show.

 CIA Leak Roles Must Be Explained, Specter Says(April 9, 2006) 

A review of the records and interviews conducted during and
after the crucial period in June and July of 2003 also show that
what the aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., said he was authorized to
portray as a "key judgment" by intelligence officers had in fact
been given much less prominence in the most important assessment
of Iraq's weapons capability. 

Mr. Libby said he drew on that report, the October 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, when he spoke with the reporter.
However, the conclusions about Mr. Hussein's search for uranium
appear to have been buried deeper in the report in part because
of doubts about their reliability. 

The new account of the interactions among Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney
and Mr. Libby was spelled out last week in a court filing by
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the C.I.A.leak
case. It adds considerably to a picture of an administration in
some disarray as the failure to discover illicit weapons in Iraq
had undermined the central rationale for the American invasion
in March 2003. 

Against the backdrop of what has previously been disclosed, the
court filing sheds particular light on how Mr. Bush and some of
his top deputies had begun to pull in different directions. Even
as some officials, including Colin L. Powell, then secretary of
state, started to reveal deep doubts that Mr. Hussein had sought
uranium to reconstitute his nuclear program, Mr. Bush, Mr.
Cheney and Mr. Libby were seeking to disseminate information
suggesting that they had acted on credible intelligence, while
not discussing their actions with other top aides.

Mr. Fitzgerald, in his filing, said that Mr. Libby had been
authorized to tell Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New
York Times, on July 8, 2003, that a key finding of the 2002
intelligence estimate on Iraq was that Baghdad had been
vigorously seeking to acquire uranium from Africa. 

But a week earlier, in an interview in his State Department
office, Mr. Powell told three other reporters for The Times that
intelligence agencies had essentially rejected that contention,
and were "no longer carrying it as a credible item" by early
2003, when he was preparing to make the case against Iraq at the
United Nations. 

Mr. Powell's queasiness with some of the intelligence has been
well known, but the new revelations suggest that long after he
had concluded the intelligence was faulty, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney
and Mr. Libby were still promoting it.

Much remains unknown about that period. In his filing, Mr.
Fitzgerald recounted a prosecutor's summary of Mr. Libby's
testimony to the grand jury. Mr. Libby was, in turn, describing
conversations with Mr. Cheney that included the vice president's
description of discussions he had had with Mr. Bush. The White
House is not commenting on the issue, saying it is still pending
in court, but it has not disputed any of the assertions in the
court filing. Mr. Libby has also not disputed the assertions. 

The events took place at a time when the administration's
failure to find illicit weapons in Iraq had raised serious
questions about the credibility of prewar intelligence. The
White House was finding itself under fire from critics, like
former ambassador Joseph C. WilsonIV, who were suggesting that
the administration's claims about Iraq's efforts to acquire
uranium, featured in Mr. Bush's State of the Union address in
2003, had been exaggerated. 

The court filing asserts that Mr. Bush authorized the disclosure
of the intelligence in part to rebut claims that Mr. Wilson was
making, including those in a television appearance and in an
Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003. The filing
revealed for the first time testimony by Mr. Libby saying that
Mr. Bush, through Mr. Cheney, had authorized Mr. Libby to tell
reporters that "a key judgment of the N.I.E. held that Iraq was
'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." 

In fact, that was not one of the "key judgments" of the
document. Instead, it was the subject of several paragraphs on
Page 24 of the document, which also acknowledged that Mr.
Hussein had long possessed 500 tons of uranium that was under
seal by international inspectors, and that no intelligence
agencies had ever confirmed whether he had obtained any more of
the material from Africa. 

A report by the British in 2004, however, concluded that there
was a reasonable basis to conclude that Mr. Hussein had sought
to obtain uranium from Africa. Once enriched, uranium can be
used for weapons fuel.

In addition to Mr. Powell, other administration officials,
speaking on a not-for-attribution basis in early July 2003, were
also acknowledging that the intelligence was widely known as
seriously flawed. Ari Fleischer, then the White House spokesman,
acknowledged as much publicly in a White House briefing on July
7, 2003.

 But if the new court filing is correct, the next day, Mr.
Libby, on behalf of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, provided an
exaggerated account of the intelligence conclusions.

The court filing by Mr. Fitzgerald does not assert exactly when
the conversation between Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney took place, or
exactly when Mr. Cheney communicated its contents to Mr. Libby,
except that it was before July 8, 2003. The context of Mr.
Fitzgerald's assertions makes clear, however, that the
conversation took place in late June or early July 2003.

Mr. Libby also described the intelligence estimate to Bob
Woodward of The Washington Post earlier, on June 27, 2003.

NYTimes.com
 	 	
Top Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 28 Guardian Unlimited: New Twist in CIA Leak Probe
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Saturday April 8, 2006 9:16 PM

AP Photo WHCD105 

By PETE YOST 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Now in its third year, the CIA leak
investigation took a decidedly unwelcome turn for the White
House last week. A court filing by prosecutors depicted
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney as setting in
motion leaks to the press that ended in the disclosure of the
identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame. 

The court papers say that in the weeks before Plame's identity
was revealed, Bush authorized Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis
Libby, to leak intelligence from a classified document to rebut
a war critic, Joe Wilson. 

Wilson, Plame's husband, had accused the administration of
twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the threat from
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. 

The investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is far
from over. Libby's trial on five counts of perjury, obstruction
and lying to the FBI is not scheduled to get under way until
January. 

Some questions and answers about the investigation: 

Q: Now that the story is out that Bush and Cheney put Libby in
play, are the president or the vice president expected to be
called to testify at Libby's trial? 

A. The prosecution and the defense have not signaled their
intentions. 

Q. What did the president and vice president direct Libby to
leak? 

A. A portion of a classified prewar document in which U.S.
intelligence agencies declared Iraq was vigorously trying to
procure uranium. The court papers say Libby leaked the
information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8,
2003. On Saturday, The Washington Post said reporter Bob
Woodward met with Libby 11 days before Miller's meeting with
Libby. According to the Post, Woodward said his notes reflect
Libby using the word ``vigorous'' to describe an Iraqi effort to
acquire uranium. Libby's leaks were the beginning of an emerging
White House strategy: Blame the CIA for providing the White
House with a faulty premise for going to war. 

Q. If Libby was directed by Bush and Cheney to leak information
from a classified National Intelligence Estimate, why did he
allegedly leak information about Plame's CIA identity as well?
Did he do so with or without direction from his superiors? 

A. No one in a position to know has offered answers. 

Q. Didn't a lot of people know that Plame worked for the CIA? So
what was the big deal about identifying her? 

A. Those are the points long raised by White House supporters.
They say it had been many years since Plame, who was working at
CIA headquarters, was stationed overseas. Plame's defenders say
disclosing her identity still could jeopardize people she dealt
with when she was overseas and that she traveled out of the
country on CIA business after the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Q. Did Bush do something illegal? 

A. Legal experts say it is highly unusual, but legal, for a
president to unilaterally declassify intelligence without
informing anyone other than his vice president and, in this
case, a designated leaker, Libby. Bush renewed his own authority
to declassify by signing an executive order in 2003. 

Q. If what Bush did was legal, why does this matter? 

A. The furor prompted by the latest disclosure that Bush and
Cheney were directing a leak campaign against Wilson goes to the
practice of declassifying secrets to gain political advantage.
That kind of conduct has been deplored, most recently last year
by a commission Bush appointed to examine U.S. intelligence
failures on Iraq. The White House says there is an important
distinction between declassifying information in the public
interest and leaking classified information that could
compromise national security. 

Q. What else did Libby leak? 

A. Aside from allegedly revealing Plame's CIA identity, Libby
discussed with New York Times report Judith Miller a
then-classified CIA report that arguably undercut Wilson's
public attacks on the administration. In it, Wilson described
how an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger in 1999 and sought to
expand commercial relations, which Niger understood to be a
desire to obtain uranium. On the one hand, Wilson was saying
publicly it was highly doubtful Iraq was seeking uranium from
Niger. On the other hand, Wilson was leaving out from his public
criticism the information he had learned during his
CIA-sponsored trip to Niger about Iraq's desire to expand
commercial relations. 

Q. What is the main focus of Fitzgerald's investigation? 

A. The investigation appears to be on hold. He is consumed for
now by pretrial battles with defense lawyers demanding thousands
of additional documents from the government in an effort to
defend their client. White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove
still is under investigation. Fitzgerald also is examining the
circumstances under which a source revealed Plame's identity to
Woodward. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 29 Las Vegas SUN: Nev. anti-nuclear group opposes desert explosion 

April 08, 2006 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS (AP) - An environmental and anti-nuclear group is
calling on federal officials to cancel plans to detonate 700
tons of explosives at the Nevada Test Site in an experiment
designed to study ground motion and shock waves. 

The test, dubbed "Divine Strake" by the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency, is an environmental threat because it could release into
the air surface contamination from previous atomic bomb tests,
said Citizen Alert, a Nevada advocacy group. 

The group is one of several to oppose the test since a Defense
Department official stirred controversy last week by saying the
June 2 explosion would create "a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas."
Federal officials have since retracted the statement, and Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, said he's been assured the
test would use only conventional explosives and no nuclear
materials. While it would create a large dust cloud, the cloud
was not expected to be visible off the Nevada Test Site, Reid
said. 

Citizen Alert Executive Director Peggy Maze Johnson on Friday
called on the agency that runs the test site, the National
Nuclear Security Administration, to give the public a chance to
comment on the blast by conducting a formal environmental impact
statement. 

Test site spokesman Darwin Morgan said the Divine Strake
experiment will not disperse surface contamination left over
from aboveground nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 1950s
and 1960s. 

He said the nearest ground-zero areas of known contamination are
three to six miles away from the Divine Strake location, which
is 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Area 16 of the sprawling,
1,375-square-mile test site. 

Morgan said the experiment is being conducted under the terms of
an existing air permit from the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection. 

"Because the site is located just eight miles from Yucca Flat,
the location of hundreds of nuclear tests over the last 50
years, there is the real possibility that previous radioactive
contamination now sitting at the (Nevada Test Site) could be
excited and thrown into the atmosphere," Maze Johnson said in a
statement. 

On Monday, a group of scientists criticized plans for Divine
Strake, saying the test is intended to simulate a nuclear blast
as part of Pentagon research into the development of low-yield
nuclear weapons. 

The Pentagon refused to confirm or deny the claim made by the
Federation of American Scientists, a Washington, D.C.-based
liberal policy group opposed to development of nuclear weapons. 

--- 

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 30 Philadelphia Inquirer: The Bush Leak

04/09/2006 | Editorial 

Credibility takes another blow
 
A secret is only a secret if the president says it is a secret.
So President Bush was likely within the law when he gave the OK
for an underling to divulge classified information to a
reporter. But the circumstances under which that happened are
reprehensible. 

Bush's actions were revealed Wednesday in court papers filed in
the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former top aide to Vice
President Cheney. According to Libby, he gave a reporter
intelligence information concerning prewar Iraq to counter
criticism that the U.S. invasion to destroy weapons of mass
destruction had been a misguided enterprise. 

The White House was specifically concerned about remarks by
former ambassador Joseph C Wilson IV, who contended the Bush
administration had exaggerated Iraq's nuclear weapons
capability. Libby is charged with lying to a grand jury probing
whether administration officials broke the law by also leaking
the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA
official. 

Bush isn't admitting to that, but spokesman Scott McClellan said
Friday that the President did declassify and release some data
to rebut false accusations that the administration had
manipulated intelligence to bolster its case for war. 

The decision to declassify intelligence is within a president's
authority, legal experts say. But the manner in which this
information was surreptitiously provided to one particular
reporter doesn't pass the smell test. It had all the
characteristics of the "leaks" that Bush so famously deplored. 

"If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who
it is," the President said in 2003, after Plame's identity had
been revealed. Americans now must suspect he was being
disingenuous, to put it mildly. The Inquirer | Daily News |

*****************************************************************
 31 Sunday Herald: Leak scandal: Bushs steady drip of lies - 

Trevor Royle on how history will judge President Bush 
 
 Politicians tend to laugh off old sayings about morality, but
they cant ignore the one about everything eventually coming out
in the wash. When the history of President Bushs Iraq policy is
written, the biggest and worst revelations will concern the
horrid little lies and half-truths that propelled the US into an
unnecessary war and persuaded Tony Blair to follow suit. 

Ever since the so-called fighting phase of the military
operations came to an end three years ago, there has been a
steady drip-drip-drip of evidence to show that most of the
assumptions that took us to war were either wrong or simply did
not exist. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no links
with al-Qaeda and no immediate threat. Thats not to say that
Saddam Hussein should not have been deposed, far from it. But
there is a world of difference between going to war on the
grounds of regime change and on dodgy evidence about
non-existent weapons. The first could be proved to be justified,
the second most certainly not.

So far Bush has managed to ride out the accusations that he took
his country into an illegal war. But there is an intriguing
whiff of cordite surrounding the latest scandal to hit the White
House  the allegation that Bush secretly authorised the leaking
of classified documents to punish a CIA officer whose husband
was a vociferous opponent of the war in Iraq. What makes the
charge credible is the involvement of Lewis Scooter Libby, a
trusted member of Team Bush who acted as chief of staff to
vice-president Dick Cheney.

Like many of those closest to Bush in Washington, Libby thought
he was one of the untouchables, a team player who always acted
in the Presidents best interests. However, he flew too close to
the sun and last year was indicted on charges which included
perjury and obstruction of justice. When that happened, his
earlier training came into play and from the outset he showed
that he was no patsy but was going to fight his corner. He let
it be known that not only was he uneasy about leaking
intelligence material, but also that he was acting specifically
on Bushs orders. If that is true, then it follows that Bush
personally ordered the release of top secret papers that outed
Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, an offence that makes him culpable
under US law.

From there its easy to make the connection that the leaking was
ordered to punish her husband Joe Wilson, a former US ambassador
who was sent to Niger before the war to check out reports the
country was selling uranium to Iraq. As Wilson found no
evidence, he reported back accordingly and then went public on
the whole business. It wasnt a smart move. He became a marked
man and the White House took revenge by exposing his wife as a
spy.

Bushs supposed role in this nasty scandal is altogether
credible. He probably did go along with the plan to do down
Wilson and his wife, but its another matter as to whether this
will be enough to impeach him. The Democrats and the US press
are up in arms, but the evidence might not be strong enough for
the legal proceedings which underpin the impeachment process.
Bush will survive, but his reputation has been shot to bits. He
wanted to be known as the president who brought order to the
Middle East, and one who acted with honesty and transparency.
History will show he did nothing of the sort. 

09 April 2006 
			 			 		 			 				 					
 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved 			 		
*****************************************************************
 32 The Spectrum: Rep. Matheson worried about upcoming test

St. George - www.thespectrum.com - 

 By BRIAN PASSEY 

ST. GEORGE - Despite government assertions that a large explosion 
planned for June 2 at the Nevada Test Site is not for nuclear 
research purposes, Rep. Jim Matheson has some serious concerns 
about the test.

Matheson, D-Utah, voiced those concerns Friday in a letter to
James Tegnelia, director of the Pentagon's Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, which will conduct the June 2 test, code-named
"Divine Strake," about 150 miles west of St. George. "Although I
understand that this test is not a nuclear test, I am greatly
concerned that you have not provided the public with adequate
assurances that the test is not being conducted in order to
further misguided attempts to build new low-yield nuclear
devices," Matheson wrote.

Matheson's concerns are grounded in the power of the explosion,
which will use 700 tons of ammonium nitrate-fuel oil above an
existing tunnel at the site. The blast will be equivalent to
that of 593 tons of TNT, according to the DTRA Web site at .

During an interview with The Spectrum on Friday, Matheson said
there is no way to even transport a conventional explosive of
that size, meaning the only feasible way to build a weapon
capable of a 700-ton blast is through nuclear technology.

Matheson said early government budget documents also indicated
that Divine Strake was intended to simulate the blast of a
low-yield nuclear weapon. However, Pentagon officials told
members of Congress on Thursday that references to simulating a
nuclear explosion were in error.

References like this do not just change on a whim from one year
to the next, Matheson said. He questioned whether the Pentagon
changed the nuclear reference because it sounds bad.

"It makes me very skeptical when the government says, 'don't
worry,' because the government lied to us before," Matheson
said, referring to the dangers of above-ground nuclear tests at
the same Nevada site in the 1950s and early 1960s. "It's hard to
trust them on this one. I'm convinced there are folks within the
government who want to develop new nuclear weapons."

Matheson's letter also addressed a recent confirmation from the
DTRA that Divine Strake is the Tunnel Target Defeat Advanced
Concept and Technology Demonstration specified in a DTRA budget
for the fiscal year 2007. He quotes part of the budget in his
letter that states the demonstration "will develop a planning
tool that will improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting
the smaller proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy
underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage."

The congressman wrote that the reference sounds like preparation
for a low-yield nuclear weapon. He also questioned why the
military would want to use a weapon it had not previously tested.

"That's my concern about this test is that it's really pushing
us in that direction," he said.

J. Preston Truman, director of Downwinders, a group of people
who lived downwind from the Nevada Test Site during the
above-ground nuclear testing, shared Matheson's concerns,
despite Pentagon assertions that the test is only for
conventional purposes.

"You can't deliver a 700-ton explosive anywhere," he said.
"There is only one thing you can do with a 700-ton explosive and
that is to simulate a nuclear explosion. ... To say that this
explosion in not going to lead to nuclear development is bull."

Fallout concerns
 Also weighing heavily on Truman's and Matheson's minds is the
possible threat of radioactive dispersion through the blast.
According to the DTRA Web site, an environmental assessment
conducted by the National Nuclear Security Administration in
2005 determined there was no radioactively contaminated soil in
the vicinity of the detonation site.

Though the above-ground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site
ceased in the early 1960s, below-ground tests in tunnels
continued into the early 1990s. The environmental assessment
states that the tunnel site for Divine Strake was never used for
nuclear testing.

But a statement Tegnelia recently made about the planned blast
producing a "mushroom cloud" over the test site has those
previously affected by nuclear testing on edge. Truman called
Tegnelia's statement "a little callous" and "cavalier."

Matheson lost his father, former Utah governor and downwinder
Scott Matheson, to cancer. His district also includes
Southwestern Utah, which was downwind from the early
above-ground nuclear testing.

"They're acknowledging this test is going to send dust high up
in the atmosphere," Matheson said. "What about the downwind
considerations?"

A statement on the DTRA Web acknowledges the explosion will
create a dust cloud that could reach an altitude of 10,000 feet.
But the cloud is not expected to be visible off the Nevada Test
Site.

Still, with a blast of that magnitude so close to the location
of past nuclear testing, Matheson said he wants to know what
precautions are being taken to ensure any radioactive remnants
are not dispersed. He also questioned whether the DTRA has
adequate monitoring in place in case there is a drift.

Matheson's letter to Tegnelia is only the beginning. Since the
test is scheduled for June 2, the congressman said he plans to
keep asking questions about the blast.

"We've been given bad information before," he said. "I think all
of us in Utah ... get skeptical."

Originally published April 8, 2006

 Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
 33 baltimoresun.com: Leak report adds to White House setbacks - 

President's ratings at record low as war, economy worry public

        By Julie Hirschfeld Davis Sun Reporter    

Originally published April 9, 2006                   

WASHINGTON //    Allegations that President Bush authorized a 
leak of prewar intelligence about Iraq have hit his White House 
at a particularly inopportune time, compounding a string of 
setbacks that some Republicans fear are taking a debilitating 
toll on Bush and his agenda.
 
The latest revelations in the CIA leak case come amid intense 
public anxiety over the war and fresh signs that Bush's domestic 
influence is waning - a decline highlighted by the collapse of 
his immigration plan in the Senate late last week.
 
With his job approval ratings at record lows, the president faces 
challenges at every turn. A new White House chief of staff takes 
charge this week, and speculation is growing that further 
shake-ups are ahead that might rejuvenate Bush's team.
 
Some Republicans argue, though, that the president's latest woes
mark a seemingly irreversible second-term slide into paralysis.
 
"It is nonstop, and it looks like misstep after misstep after
misstep. There have been a string of things that appear to have
undermined confidence" in Bush, said Republican pollster Tony
Fabrizio, who calls the president's standing "probably the worst
of any second-term incumbent" with the exception of Richard M.
Nixon.
 
Court filings last week show that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the
former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, testified
before a grand jury that Cheney had told him Bush authorized the
disclosure of intelligence information to a reporter in order to
back up the administration's rationale for going to war with
Iraq.
 
Questions about Bush's role mounted over the weekend, as The New
York Times reported in today's editions that he approved the
release of intelligence to a reporter about Saddam Hussein's
efforts to obtain uranium, even as that information was already
being discredited by senior officials in the administration.
 
Bush acted on his own to declassify parts of a National
Intelligence Estimate so that Libby could rebut the assertions
of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a diplomat who had written a July 6,
2003, New York Times op-ed article accusing Bush of having
knowingly twisted intelligence to make the case for war,
according to the filing by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special
counsel.
 
The developments in the CIA leak case were the latest blow to
the public's trust in Bush, Fabrizio said. A Gallup poll in
March found that more than 50 percent believe Bush intentionally
misled the public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction.
 
Politicians "rarely survive once their credibility has been
totally thrown into question, and when you've held yourself out
and you've put your credibility forward in the ways that he has
on issues, that makes it even worse," Fabrizio said. "If you say
you hate leakers and then it turns out that you're a leaker or
authorizing leakers, that's not good."
 
Bush tried Friday to reclaim the momentum that has eluded him in
recent weeks, hastily arranging to speak to reporters about new
data showing strong economic growth - evidence, he said, of "an
economic resurgence that is strong, broad and benefiting all
Americans."
 
But the announcement, while widely praised by congressional
Republicans eager to have some good news to report to their
constituents during their spring recess, was lost amid a flurry
of questions about the leak allegations against Bush, the
unraveling of the immigration initiative, and one of the
deadliest bombings of the year in Iraq, an attack on a Shiite
mosque in Baghdad.
 
Some strategists contend that the leak case is an
inside-Washington distraction that will only reinforce existing
opinions about Bush, further embittering those who oppose him
and having little impact with his backers. The bigger problems
for Bush, they say, are discontent about the war as sectarian
violence flares and worries about the economy as gas prices
creep up with the approach of summer.
 
Bush is "facing some very daunting challenges right now," said
Republican consultant Whit Ayers, citing negative public
perceptions of the economy and continuing violence in Iraq as
his main burdens. If he hopes to recover, as Ronald Reagan and
Bill Clinton did, Ayres said, Bush will need "a combination of
political agility and events to go his way."
 
"Based on history, these moments are eminently predictable,"
Ayres said, adding that Bush still has a chance to bounce back.
 
Circumstances are not ideal for such a reversal, however.
 
Friday was Congress' last day in town before a two-week spring
hiatus, the kind of Capital Beltway lull that often fans flames
of controversy and scandal. It was during a February recess that
diffuse criticism boiled over regarding the Bush
administration's approval of a deal giving a Dubai firm control
of some operations at U.S. ports.
 
The latest filings in the CIA leak case gave the White House
reason to fear a coming trickle of revelations about the role of
other top aides to Bush in the matter. "There exist documents,"
the filing said ominously, "that reveal a strong desire by many,
including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr.
Wilson."
 
Many Republicans close to the White House have been quietly
agitating for far-reaching changes there, including the hiring
of a seasoned Washington hand in Bush's inner circle of advisers
and a revamping of Bush's communications and congressional
liaison teams.
 
But some Republicans argue that Bush has simply lost touch with
his party's principles, such as exercising fiscal discipline, a
notion that frustrates lawmakers as they prepare to face voters
in November.
 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 			       		 	 	 	 		 			Next >> 		 	 	 	
The Baltimore Sun. 
*****************************************************************
 34 Sun Herald: With 3 engines out and a load of A-bombs aboard, he had a problem

04/09/06

        It was the height of the Cold War in the 1960s. Maj. Nicholas
Firda was flying a secret Strategic Air Command mission in a
B-52 bomber loaded with atomic bombs across the Atlantic Ocean
to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina when an oil
pressure problem caused him to shut his first engine down. It
would be the start of a long flight.

	"We were flying a mission in the Mediterranean area and were on
our way back to base in North Carolina when I noticed the oil
pressure in one of our engines was low. That was no big deal,
because we still had seven other engines to fly on," said the
74-year-old former SAC pilot, who now lives in Englewood.

	SAC had recently experienced a calamity in January 1966 when
one of its B-52s collided with a refueling tanker over eastern
Spain. The bomber broke up and three of its four unexploded
nuclear bombs landed near the village of Palomares. The forth
bomb was fished from the depths of the Mediterranean Sea.
Several of the B-52 crewmen who did not escape the collision
alive had flown as part of Firda's crew before the disaster.

	Within an hour, a second engine went out on Firda's bomber.
When they were still 800 miles from base, a third engine had to
be shut down because of mechanical problems.

	"This was the only time during my years of service in SAC
something like this happened to me," Firda said. "We could still
make it with three engines down.	

	"We had code words to let our controllers on the ground know
our B-52, that was full of atomic bombs, was having mechanical
trouble. I think it was 'Right Hand Flight,'" Firda said. "We
started yelling 'Right Hand Flight' over the radio. When they
heard the code words, they cleared all the radio frequencies for
us," he said.

	Their bomber was diverted from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base
in North Carolina to Plattsburgh Air Force Base in New York
state. It was closer.

	Firda's B-52 was carrying four internal atomic bombs in its
belly. There were two more GAM-77, jet-powered guided missile
atomic bombs mounted on the wings of the big bomber. The
combined explosive force of these six A-bombs was many times the
destructive power of the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki at the close of World War II.

	Asked about the mounting pressure on him and his crew because
of their wayward bomber's mechanical problems, Firda said, "The
training you get at SAC was exceptional. We were trained to cope
with a situation like this. 

	"They cleared the runway for us at Plattsburgh. As we were
landing, we also had hydraulic problems, which made it hard for
us to steer the airplane on the ground, and we only had limited
braking ability," he said. "We had an emergency hydraulic pump
that would momentarily improve our hydraulic problems. We put
the emergency pump on at the last moment and that gave us enough
hydraulic pressure to steer and stop the plane."

	When Firda and the other five members of his crew scrambled out
of their defective strategic bomber, the major was instructed to
report to the base commander immediately. After reviewing all of
the facts relating to the bomber's mechanical difficulties, his
superiors "thought the crew handled the problem very well," he
said.

	A few years later, Firda served a tour in Vietnam from 1969-70,
spraying Agent Orange, a controversial defoliant, from a C-123
transport plane at treetop level.

	The commendation accompanying his Distinguished Flying Cross
reads: "Maj. Nicholas Firda distinguished himself as an aircraft
commander of a UC-123 at Khan Hoa Province, Vietnam, on 23 June
1969. On this day, he flew an extremely important low-level
defoliant mission against a hostile base camp. At the beginning
of the spray run, Maj. Firda began receiving intense small arms
fire. Maj. Firda continued to maintain his course and altitude
throughout the spray run, encountering automatic weapons fire
until the termination of the target. The professional competence
and devotion to duty displayed by Maj. Firda reflects great
credit upon himself and the United States Air Force."

	What the DFC commendation doesn't say is that the major's
airplane was so badly shot full of bullet holes he couldn't make
it back to base.

	"We developed an oil leak in one of our two engines on the way
back to base and had to shut the engine down," he said. "About
the same time we lost our electrical power, which meant we
couldn't move fuel from tank to tank and were going to run out
before we got back to base.

	"I was flying down Highway 1 toward Da Nang when I realize that
if I had to I could make an emergency landing on Highway 1,"
Firda recalled. "I spotted a little grass air strip and decided
to set it down there. Unfortunately, there was a Huey
(helicopter) unloading troops at the end of the runway.

	"As we were coming in I was yelling at the Huey pilot over our
radio to get the hell out of the way. He wasn't on our radio
frequency, so he couldn't hear me.

	"I slipped the plane to the right of the 'copter and landed it
without hurting anyone," Firda said. "I was 25 feet from the end
of the runway when I got it stopped."

	By this time in the war, Firda was beginning to hear and read
bad things about Agent Orange and what it was doing to soldiers.
In recent years, it's been blamed by veterans for innumerable
cases of cancer and other life-threatening medical problems.

	"After I came back from Vietnam I got into the Air Force's
health study on Agent Orange," he said. "It only ended a couple
of years ago."

	He was sent around the country from one Air Force base to
another for testing for 30 years. They would run him through a
battery of tests for a week at a time and then send him home.

	What Firda learned from all these tests is that he doesn't have
cancer, but the dioxin level in his body is off the chart. He
attributes his medical problem to his proximity to Agent Orange
more than three decades ago in Vietnam.

	In 1997, he and his wife, Virginia, a former school teacher,
moved to Englewood. They live on a canal. He has his boat up on
davits in the back yard. A dozen or more rods and reels in a
rack on his back porch attests to the fact the former SAC pilot
likes to fish, too.

You can e-mail Don Mooreat moore@sun-herald.com.

By DON MOORE Senior Writer  

All rights reserved.
A division of Sun Coast Media Group Inc.
*****************************************************************
 35 New York Times: Playing Hardball With Secrets - 

Published: April 7, 2006                          

For more than two years, Senate Republicans have dragged out an
investigation into how the Bush administration came to use bogus
intelligence on Iraq to justify a war. A year ago, Pat Roberts,
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, called it "a
monumental waste of time" to consider whether the White House
manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by
Saddam Hussein. 

Meanwhile, the evidence has steadily mounted that President Bush
and his team not only did that before the war, but kept right on
doing it after the invasion. The most recent additions to this
pile came yesterday, in reports by The New York Sun, The
National Journal and other news organizations on documents from
the case against Lewis Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice
President Dick Cheney who is charged with lying about the
unmasking of Valerie Wilson, a covert C.I.A. agent.

According to these papers, Mr. Libby testified that President
Bush authorized him to tell reporters about classified
intelligence on Iraq as part of an effort to discredit Mrs.
Wilson's husband, Joseph Wilson, a retired diplomat who had cast
doubt on the claim that Iraq tried to acquire uranium for
nuclear bombs from Niger. The National Journal reported that Mr.
Libby has also said that Mr. Cheney authorized him to leak
classified information before the invasion to make the case for
war.

Mr. Wilson was sent by the administration to Niger to check out
the report that Iraq tried to buy uranium in the late 1990's. He
concluded that it was bogus and said so in a Times Op-Ed article
in July 2003. In response, the administration leaked word that
Mr. Wilson's wife was a C.I.A. agent.

We have seen no evidence that Mr. Bush authorized the outing of
Mrs. Wilson. But at the least, revealing selected bits of
intelligence, including information that officials may well have
known to be false, seems like a serious abuse of power. It's not
even clear that Mr. Bush can legally declassify intelligence at
whim. 

We don't know for certain whether Mr. Wilson's conclusions got
to Mr. Bush before the war. But we do know that they were
omitted from the sanitized intelligence report presented to
Congress and later to the public.

 The National Journal reported that George Tenet, then director
of central intelligence, told prosecutors that the C.I.A.
reviewed the uranium story at Mr. Cheney's behest. He said the
C.I.A. concluded there was no evidence to support it. The
National Journal said Mr. Tenet reported this to Mr. Cheney and
other officials, but the vice president continued to peddle the
Niger fairy tale to the public.

The intelligence report on Iraq, prepared in late 2002, has now
been largely declassified. But the White House has kept secret a
one-page summary prepared for Mr. Bush. According to The
National Journal, that document said the State Department and
the Energy Department had concluded that it also was not true
that Iraq bought aluminum tubes to enrich uranium. During his
State of the Union address in 2003, Mr. Bush said flatly that it
was true.

Obviously, this is not a waste of time, monumental or otherwise.
It is vital that the Senate keep its word and publish a thorough
accounting of how the intelligence on Iraq was presented to the
world.


Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 36 Public Citizen: Latest Revelation Underscores Bush Administration’s 
Manipulation of Access to Information for Political Gain; 
Statement of Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen

April 7, 2006 

The latest revelation in the Valerie Plame investigation
underscores the Bush administrations perversion of the
governments control over information for political gain. This
is an unethical administration that changes the rules to help
campaign contributors and manipulates information to score
political points. 

Now we learn of testimony that President Bush himself authorized
the leak of information in a National Intelligence Estimate for
a political reason  to discredit former ambassador Joseph C.
Wilson. This is ironic, because the Bush administration has been
one of the most secretive in history, even re-classifying
information that has long been in the public domain. Whether it
is removing information from Web sites, silencing government
scientists about global warming, changing the rules to limit the
availability of information or shielding information for
national security purposes so the public cant find out how
inadequately prepared we are for another terrorist attack, this
administration has been positively Nixonian in its obsession
with hiding facts from the public. 

Public Citizen condemns the White House for exacting retribution
against Wilson for telling the truth about the absence of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush said he would take
action against the leaker of the information that Wilsons wife,
Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative, yet he apparently was the
leaker-in-chief of sensitive and classified national security
information, even if   Bush himself did not authorize the leak
of information about Plames employment status. 

Bush needs to come clean with the American public and stop
abusing his office. He acts like a King George, rather than the
president of a democracy who is bound to follow the rule of law. 

### 

*****************************************************************
 37 AFP: Senior US lawmakers to travel to India for nuclear talks -
     
 Sat Apr 8, 1:26 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican House leader Dennis Hastert" />
Dennis Hastertand other lawmakers announced plans to visit India
next week to discuss a controversial bilateral nuclear deal made
in March. 

 Hastert will head the eight-member group, which plans to meet
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress Party president Sonia
Gandhi during the April 9-12 trip. 

"The delegation will discuss the recent initiatives between the
two countries, including the importance of civil nuclear
cooperation initiatives in strengthening the international
nonproliferation system," Hastert's office said in a statement
on Friday. 

The group will also visit Nepal and Vietnam, the statement said. 

Republican Senator Charles Hagel also announced travel plans to
India, Pakistan and Afghanistan" /> AfghanistanApril 8-15. 

"Our relationships in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan are
important to US strategic interests. Security, stability and
economic development in South Asia are critical components for
the future of this region. The US-India Civil Nuclear
Cooperation Agreement will be among the specific issues that I
will discuss with Indian officials." 

On Wednesday Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza
Ricewarned members of Congress against modifying the agreement,
lest the newly established partnership be jeopardized. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 38 AFP: Documents were faked in Rome over Iraq-Niger uranium claims - newspaper - 

 Sun Apr 9, 4:26 PM ET 		 	 

LONDON (AFP) - Two employees of the Niger embassy in Rome
allegedly forged documents that were later used to justify the
US-led invasion of Iraq" /> Iraq, a British newspaper claimed. 

 Citing unnamed sources at the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation ( NATO" /> NATO), the Sunday Times said the embassy
officials faked papers to show that former Iraqi president
Saddam Hussein" /> Saddam Husseinwas seeking uranium ore from
the west African nation. 

The documents, which emerged in 2002, were denounced as
forgeries by the International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). 

But in the run-up to military action in March 2003, both the
White House and Britain used claims that Saddam had bought or
was seeking to buy significant amounts of uranium for weapons
from a west African nation. 

According to the newspaper, the papers were forged for money by
the Niger consul and his assistant at the embassy in Rome as
western intelligence agencies sought evidence about reports that
Iraq was attempting to buy uranium ore. 

They were said to have copied a real contract to make it look as
if Niger would supply Iraq with 500 tonnes of ore, or
"yellowcake", it added. 

The documents passed into the hands of the French secret service
by way of a former Italian agent. 

The ex-agent passed the documents on to an Italian journalist in
late 2002. The journalist then took them to the US embassy,
whose officials in turn informed Washington, the newspaper said. 

Former US ambassador Joseph Wilson travelled to Niger and found
the claims about Iraq obtaining uranium to be without substance.
He publicly attacked the White House's assertions on the matter
in a critical newspaper commentary in mid-2003. 

But that led to government officials briefing journalists that
Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame" /> Valerie Plame, was a Central
Intelligence Agency" /> Central Intelligence Agency( CIA" />
CIA) operative. Naming an undercover agent is illegal in the
United States. 

Last week, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to US
Vice-President Dick Cheney" /> Dick Cheney, told an inquiry into
the leak that it was Cheney who ordered the briefings and that
President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushhad
authorised them. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 39 UPI: Bush spokesman defends leak
     
 United Press International - NewsTrack - 

4/8/2006 8:26:00 AM -0400                               

WASHINGTON, April 8 (UPI) -- A White House spokesman said
President Bush approved a leak of classified information because
it served a "public interest" and didn't compromise security. 

Press Secretary Scott McClellan was responding to a filing by a
special prosecutor that 10 days before Bush released a
declassified version of a CIA report he authorized a leak of the
information. 

The Los Angeles Times reports the information was meant to
counter claims that the administration cherry-picked
intelligence data to push the case that Saddam Hussein was
trying to get weapons of mass destruction. 

Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has charged I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby -- Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff
-- with lying to a grand jury and investigators looking into the
retaliatory leak of a covert CIA official's name. 

That official -- Valerie Plame -- is the wife of Joseph C.
Wilson IV, who was sent to Niger to find any link between that
country and Hussein. 

He went public denouncing Bush's Iraq claims that Hussein had
sought nuclear weapons materials from Niger. 

Fitzgerald alleges the release of covert agent Plame's name to
the media was a retaliation against Wilson.

© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 40 Guardian Unlimited: Why dropping nukes may not be the best way 
for President Bush to 'save' Iran - or secure his place in history
 
Comment 
		
Stuart Jeffries

Monday April 10, 2006
The Guardian 		
 		
First the good news. Britain is unlikely to participate in the 
nuclear bombing of Iranian atomic weapons research facilities. 
Instead, our role in any forthcoming nuclear blitz will be to 
fill the blogosphere with sarcastic posts and make tut-tutting 
noises. The latter may or may not be heard above B61-11s slamming 
nukes into Iran's Natanz centrifuge plant, which is challengingly 
located 75ft below ground.

Guessed the bad news? That's right, the White House is
considering nuking Iran. According to a forthcoming article by
Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, President Bush reckons that
"saving Iran is going to be his legacy". Not, then, the bang-up
job he did next door. Nor the visionary way he mopped up New
Orleans.

(Incidentally, a new survey from Clerkenwell University (ie, me) 
concludes that the new trend in politicians seeking legacies is a 
bad one, geopolitically speaking. It recommends that leaders 
should consider ensuring their place in history in other ways. 
They should have, say, tea roses named after them rather than 
securing immortality by planting a mushroom cloud 200 miles south 
of Tehran. Just a thought.)

But is this really bad news? I have amazingly few Pentagon
contacts, but one leading Stateside militarist rang yesterday to
explain the strategy. He said: "Shut your liberal cryhole, you
pussy-assed, aesthetically challenged denizen of a rain-soaked
dime of a country, sir!" By which I took him to mean that a
surgical strike on Natanz would be a feasible option and one
that would have the defensible aim of stopping President
Ahmadinejad using nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map.

Israel's 1981 strike on Saddam's Osirak nuclear reactor is a
much-quoted precedent. That, though, was an attack using
conventional weapons. US military strategists argue that what
they jauntily call "nuclear penetrator munitions" are necessary
to get past anti-aircraft batteries, through six-foot walls and
reinforced concrete roofs to destroy Natanz's huge underground
halls that may house 50,000 centrifuges that may be capable of
providing enough enriched uranium for 20 nuclear warheads a year.

But even if this nuclear blitz were successful in destroying
Natanz, it could still be futile relative to American aims. For
all the Pentagon knows, Natanz may not be essential to Iran's
nuclear weapons programme. Retired US Air Force colonel Sam
Gardiner told the Washington Post: "We could bomb it, take the
political cost and still not set them back." The only certain
effects, then, would be increased Iranian radiation levels and
an equally horrible non-nuclear fallout of more terrorism and
anti-western feeling. The blitz might consolidate Ahmadinejad's
position in Iran and make him even less likely to invite Ehud
Olmert over for tea than hitherto.

Here are more practical and ethical problems for such a US
strike. One: an international coalition, including Islamic
states, is necessary for such a venture if the US is to convince
the Middle East that it did not invade Iraq to establish a base
for military conquest of the region.

Two: American objectives are confused. At one moment it
considers a surgical strike as sufficient to end Iran's nuclear
ambitions; at another it aims at regime change, fearing that the
country's president is even more of a risk to global stability
than his US homologue. Shame for the latter aim that Iran's
president was democratically elected.

Three: using nuclear weapons is wrong and foolish because the
consequences of doing so are liable to be disastrous. (I left
that to third because I didn't think Bush would be impressed by
it.)

There are 10 other objections I have in my mind and if you can
guess them all you could win this week's prize - a family
holiday to a destination of your choice. Admittedly, the options
are Natanz or Isfahan, an above-ground nuclear facility that may
be optioned for a US nuclear strike. But they say the weather is
warm in both destinations - and likely to get much hotter!
Please send you entries to the usual address.

Pity M's snoutcasts. This isn't just a smoking ban - this is a
Marks &Spencer smoking ban. Management considers that its brand
is damaged by uniformed staff smoking in doorways, and has
demanded they stop.

What should Marks's smokers do? My advice is to buy tunics from
Imperial Tobacco Ltd and pull them over your uniforms when you
go outside for a smoke. That way M managers wouldn't mind if you
smoked, while it is unlikely that Imperial Tobacco would worry
about their brand being thus degraded.

Indeed, if Imperial Tobacco wants to compensate for declining
cigarette sales, it should move into tunic manufacture and
supply them to uniformed workers banned from smoking in public.
Profits soar, smoking thrives, brand images are safeguarded.
Everybody's happy - except me. My lunchtime prancing on London's
pavements would become even more of a toxic snoutcastarama than
it is at present.

Still typing at a keyboard like a loser? Get with the programme,
granddad! German neurologists have devised a telepathic
typewriter hat that reads your thoughts and projects them on to
a screen. Your fingers need never be depressed again.

I'm not sure how the so-called Berlin Brain-Computer Interface
will prevent the words "the boss smells" appearing on screen
when he passes by, but presumably product development boffins
will iron out that wrinkle.

Problem one: the hat is ug-ger-ly - the sort of thing rugby
players wear to prevent cauliflower ears. Problem two: the hat
asks the user to think "left" or "right" before moving the
computer's cursor over the on-screen alphabet. When the cursor
finds the letter you want, you think "select OK". Same with the
next letter. And the next.

A monkey could probably type Shakespeare faster than I could
write a column this way. Many of you will be thinking that would
be a good thing. Wearing the Berlin Brain-Computer Interface, I
would look sillier than ever and write only one more article
during the rest of my life. Perhaps fewer.

· This week Stuart read The Selfish Gene: "Thirty years after it
first appeared, Richard Dawkins admits he got the title of his
book wrong. But he got almost everything else right. Sweet."
Stuart saw Taxi Driver: "Thirty years after it first appeared,
still great - especially Bernard Hermann's music and Charles
Rosen's art direction." 

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 41 AU The Age: A new generation of nuclear weapons - 

Editorial - Opinion -
                          
theage.com.au
 
April 10, 2006

The Bush Administration last week revealed its plans for the
nation's ageing stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. The
fearsome nuclear arsenal that was developed at such great
expense during the Cold War is now several decades old. The
Administration wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear
bombs a year by 2022 as older bombs deemed unreliable or unsafe
are retired. Critics are concerned that the move will spark a
new arms race. In reply, the US says it plans to reduce its
overall inventory of weapons. 

The question of what to do with ageing bombs is one that needs
to be tackled - the US built its last nuclear weapon in 1989 and
last tested a weapon underground in 1992. As part of its new
nuclear plan, the Administration says it also wants to
consolidate its plutonium stores into one facility, which, it
argues, could be more effectively and cheaply defended against
terrorist attacks. Inevitably, however, such a move would also
make the plutonium a more central and obvious target. 

But the most disappointing aspect of the Administration's
blueprint is that it strays so far from the intent of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The treaty sought to wind back
the terrifying threat posed by the global store of nuclear
weapons by calling on participant nations to cease their
production. Plans to build a new generation of weapons appear to
be a significant departure from the treaty's aims of limiting
nuclear arms production. Superpowers are not easily dissuaded
from setting the rules that best suit their own ends. It can be
argued, however, that reinvestment in nuclear arms development
is not in the best interests of the US. At a time when we are
facing massive environmental challenges - fossil fuel depletion,
climate change and the threat of mass extinctions - does the
world need more bombs? 

Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd.                                                         
*****************************************************************
 42 WorldNetDaily: Our new strategic partner

 [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] 

Posted: April 8, 2006

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com 

"The U.S.-India civil nuclear deal is a strategic win,"
according to Secretary of State Condi Rice, and "seen in the
larger context of the elevation of India-United States
relationship" to "a strategic partnership," she urged Congress
this week to approve it. How can a "civil" nuclear deal do that? 

It can't. It's really a deal that allows the Indians to import
nuclear power plants, while focusing their domestic nuclear
program on producing nukes to be delivered via ballistic missile
to China. 

That's how this deal makes us "strategic" partners. 

So, what's the deal? 

Well, India became a member of the International Atomic Energy
Agency back in 1957. 

The primary mission of the IAEA is to facilitate the widest
possible international transfer and safe application of nuclear
energy. Its secondary mission is to ensure – insofar as it is
able – that the materials, equipment and technology so
transferred are not used in furtherance of a military purpose. 

To accomplish its missions, the IAEA requires the subjection to
the IAEA Safeguards and Physical Security regime those
materials, equipment and technology so transferred. 

In the event the IAEA determines that safeguarded materials or
equipment are used in furtherance of a military purpose, the
IAEA is required to report that to the U.N. Security Council. 

India has IAEA Safeguards Agreements in force, covering some –
but not all – civil nuclear activities. 

But the Treaty on Non-Proliferation on Nuclear Weapons entered
into force in 1970 and India – which would have had to pledge
"not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons" and to
subject all of its nuclear activities to a Safeguards Agreement
– refused to sign it. 

Then, in 1974, India tested what it claimed was a "peaceful"
nuclear explosive device. 

As a direct result, the Nuclear Suppliers Group was established.
Comprised of 44 nuclear-supplier states – including China,
Russia and the United States – NSG members voluntarily agreed to
coordinate their export controls governing transfers of civilian
nuclear material and nuclear-related equipment and technology to
non-nuclear-weapon states. 

The NSG has two sets of guidelines. Part I comprises materials
and technology intended specifically for nuclear use, including
fissile materials, nuclear reactors and associated equipment,
and nuclear material reprocessing and enrichment equipment. 

Part II comprises dual-use equipment that could have nuclear
applications. 

IAEA safeguards are only required on the specific nuclear
activity or facility where the NSG Part II imports will be
employed. 

But, since 1992, to be eligible for importing Part I items from
an NSG member – irrespective of whether they are NPT signatories
or not – importing states must have in place a comprehensive
IAEA Safeguards Agreement covering all their nuclear activities
and facilities. 

Hence, the IAEA-NSG nuke proliferation-prevention regime
effectively supercedes the NPT. The NSG "verifies" the intended
peaceful use of nuclear exports and the IAEA "verifies" the
peaceful use of nuclear imports. 

In 2001, the Bush-Cheney administration – citing NSG Part I
guidelines – had attempted to prevent the refueling of the
Safeguarded Tarapur atomic power station by Russia unless India
agreed to subject all its nuclear facilities – civil and
military – to IAEA Safeguards. Russia and India successfully
cited the necessity of refueling for emergency "safety"
considerations. 

Now, Condi's strategic partnership deal with India will require
NSG members – including China and Russia – to permanently
"waive" Part I guidelines for India. If they do, that will
effectively gut the IAEA-NSG supra-NPT nuke proliferation
prevention regime. 

But, Condi's real problem is Congress. 

You see, as a direct result of the Indian nuclear weapons tests
in 1974, Congress amended the Arms Export Control Act to
prohibit even "economic assistance" to any "recipient country"
unless that country "has entered into an agreement with the
International Atomic Energy Agency to place all such equipment,
materials, technology, and all nuclear fuel and facilities in
such country under the safeguards system of such Agency." 

So French President Chirac will probably turn out to be right.
The deal he cut with the Indians is better "because it is not
subject to the hazards of the American Congress."


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.                  
*****************************************************************
 43 Daily Times: Mushahid for zero N-proliferation 

  Sunday, April 09, 2006 
  
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League (PML) Secretary General 
Mushahid Hussain Sayed urged the Swedish government on Saturday 
to play an active role in curbing nuclear proliferation. 

Addressing a Swedish delegation at PML House, headed by Lars
Danielson, state secretary and chief of staff to the Swedish
prime minister, Mushahid stressed that the US-Indo nuclear deal
would promote proliferation and spark a new arms race in Asia. 

The accord, he said, had more to do with America’s desire to
counter China’s regional aspirations than peaceful energy
purposes. 

On the Iranian nuclear issue, Mushahid stressed that the
European Union, of which Sweden is a member, should play a
peaceful role in resolving the crisis, warning that the threat
of force would destabilise the entire region. 

Briefing the delegation on Pakistan’s political climate, he said
that democracy was the country’s destiny. “Pakistan is on the
right track to build a democratic future through free and fair
polls in 2007,” a press statement quoted him as saying.

He observed that President Pervez Musharraf should be credited
with opening up Pakistan’s political system through affording
representation to various sections of society including women,
youths, minorities and middle-class professionals. staff report 

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 44 Rediff: India won't define minimum N-deterrent - Saran
 
April 08, 2006 17:46 IST

India Saturday rejected the US suggestion that it define its
credible minimum nuclear deterrent, asserting that it has "no
responsibility" to "declare" it.

In an interview to NDTV a day after US Assistant Secretary of
State Richard Boucher made the suggestion, Foreign Secretary
Shyam Saran said "what our credible minimum deterrent would be
is really for India to decide".

He said India had on various occasions pointed out this to the
US.

"Certainly there is no responsibility on part of India to
declare what its minimum deterrent is," Saran said.
  + US asks India to define minimum deterrent

Boucher Friday had said India should "further define" its
'minimum credible deterrent' in the nuclear field, contending
that it was "absolutely necessary" for decreasing tensions in
Asia.      

Saran, who met Boucher Friday, said the US official had not
raised this issue with him.

"We have a strategic dialogue with the US where we have agreed
to exchange views on our respective nuclear doctrines as well as
issues like missile defence," he said.

On the Bush administration's contention that it was pushing
India and Pakistan for moratorium on missile tests, he said New
Delhi's position was that it would work with Washington in the
conference on disarmament in Geneva on a multilateral Fissile
Material Cut-off Treaty.

This has been under discussion in Geneva for several years and
India has been an active participant in these negotiations,
Saran said adding, "We are prepared to take part in those
negotiations."

He, however, made it clear that the FMCT that India is talking
about is a multilateral instrument. 

  © Copyright 2006 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or
  
 Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 45 Deutsche Welle: Nuclear Energy Causes Heated Debate in Europe | Germany |
                
09.04.2006 DW-World.de
 
[The German nuclear power plant in Biblis has shown some defects] 
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  The German 
nuclear power plant in Biblis has shown some defects Nuclear 
power has the reputation of being inexpensive and safe. But 
critics point out that this energy form has many disadvantages, 
too. The environmental implications also need to be considered.

Nuclear power is a sensitive and emotional issue, not only in
Germany. With the upcoming 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl
reactor catastrophe on April 26, 1986, the topic has once again
entered the public eye. 
  
"An advantage of nuclear power is its large energy security,"
said Christopher Weßelmann, editor-in-chief of the trade
magazine ATW Atomwirtschaft from the German nuclear sector. 
  
Energy security is one of the three factors by which the
International Energy Agency (IEA) measures energy policy. For
the IEA -- the energy forum for 26 industrialized countries --
economic competitiveness and environmental protection also play
a role. 
  
"Nuclear power plants can operate for several decades and there
is sufficient uranium available for the next 60 years,"
Wesselmann said. 
  
Those uranium deposits already discovered but not yet developed
would even last for up to 400 years, he said. 
  
But Henrik Paulitz from the German branch of International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) said 60
years of uranium availability were too amply calculated. Yet, 20
years more or less was irrelevant. 
  
"Uranium is an endless resource," Paulitz said. 
  
Long-term storage needed for high-level radioactive waste 
  
"A structural decision for nuclear power affects entire
generations," Paulitz said. Uranium waste radiated for several
hundred thousand years. For Paulitz, the fact that the
generation of nuclear power created less carbon dioxide than
fossil fuels, such as oil or gas, carried little weight. 
  
So far, there is no long-term storage in the world for
high-level radioactive waste. In the German city of Gorleben, a
facility is eventually supposed to be established. 
  
[The Loviisa plant in Finland could soon find long-term storage
nearby  ] Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der
Bildunterschrift:  The Loviisa plant in Finland could soon find
long-term storage nearby 
According to Wesselmann, Finland is also progressing in
exploring and test drilling for a long-term storage site.
Sweden, Switzerland and France have at least begun to think
about suitable locations, Wesselmann said. 
  
"In the next 10 to 20 years, the first long-term storage in
Europe will take up operations," Wesselmann said. The abandoned
iron mine Konrad near Salzgitter in Lower Saxony is earmarked
for low-level radioactive waste. Last month, a high court in
Lüneburg dismissed a case by affected citizens and communities. 
  
A nuclear catastrophe can be limited 
  
The safety of nuclear plants is also a decisive factor in this
type of power. 
  
"There is no 100 percent safety in nuclear power plants,"
Wesselmann said. "But they can be devised in a manner so that
possible consequences of a catastrophic accident would remain
limited to the plant." 
  
[Flamanville will be home to a new generation of  nuclear power
plants in France] Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit
der Bildunterschrift:  Flamanville will be home to a new
generation of nuclear power plants in France 
There are 444 nuclear power plants operating worldwide, 204 of
them in Europe. Currently, 23 new plants are being built, five
of which in Europe: three in Russia and one each in Romania and
Finland. Plans for new plants exist in France, Britain, the
Netherlands and the three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania). 
  
Worldwide, nuclear power makes up for 16 percent of power
generation. In Europe, it is significantly more, about
one-third. In Germany, the share in 2005 was more than 26
percent, according to the German Institute for Economic
Research. 
  
Is nuclear power really as inexpensive as it's said to be? 
  
The efficiency of a nuclear power plant also plays a role in how
much demand there is for its generated energy. The nuclear lobby
calls nuclear energy itself one of the most inexpensive
possibilities for energy supply. 
  
"In Germany, nuclear power is highly privileged and subsidized,"
IPPNW's Paulitz said. "Uranium can be obtained tax-free, the
risk reserve is tax-free and the insurance coverage is
inadequate and therefore too cheap." 
  
[How does energy get into these power lines?] Bildunterschrift:
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  How does
energy get into these power lines? 
According to a report by the Prognos consultancy group, only 0.1
percent of the expected claim is insured. The general public has
to come up for the final storage of nuclear waste. 
  
"These are all costs of nuclear energy, which are not considered
in the price of nuclear power," Paulitz said. Instead of a few
cents per kilowatt hour in generating costs, the price would
have to be over two euros ($2.45), if these other costs were
included, he said. 
  
Efficient energy use is needed 
  
For Paulitz, the solution for the energy supply lies in
significantly saving energy. The IEA also assumes a savings
potential of up to 20 nuclear power plants, spread across the 30
countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). 
  
In addition, an efficient use of energy could reduce worldwide
demand by 15 percent, according to the IEA. Renewable energies
such as sun, wind or water have to finally be seriously promoted
and used, said Paulitz. 
  
At least the share of nuclear energy in Europe will not change
significantly in the next 20 years. 
  
"One-third of the energy mix is a good size," said Wesselmann.
Paulitz also doesn't expect any major changes in the European
nuclear sector.  
Klaudia Prevezanos (sac) 

  1. © 2006 Deutsche Welle

*****************************************************************
 46 Guardian Unlimited: MPs to reject new nuclear generators
 
As a Commons committee argues against nuclear energy, a
project to harness the might of an estuary has been revived 		
 		
Ned Temko, chief political correspondent

Sunday April 9, 2006
The Observer 		
 		
Tony Blair's hopes of approval for a new generation of nuclear 
power stations face a major setback from the influential Commons 
environmental committee, which he set up in 1997 to emphasise New 
Labour's green credentials.

Following a series of hearings closely watched by Downing Street, 
the all-party Environmental Audit Committee will conclude that 
new nuclear stations will be of little or no short-term use in 
filling an anticipated electricity 'generation gap' in Britain. 
In a report to be published next weekend, it will raise a series 
of questions it says must be answered before the case can be made 
for longer-term benefits from a new nuclear programme.

The report will reignite the debate on how best to deal with the 
interlocking challenges of declining North Sea oil production, 
growing energy imports from the Middle East and Russia, and an 
ambitious government target of cutting UK carbon emissions by 60 
per cent by 2050. Later this year a White Paper is expected to 
argue that, even with wind power and other renewable energy 
sources, it will be essential to replace ageing nuclear-power 
plants, which provide about a quarter of Britain's electricity. 
No MP on the audit committee was willing to comment ahead of 
publication of the EAC report. But a source told The Observer 
that it would raise serious concerns about commissioning new 
nuclear power stations.

Given the long lead-time required for the approval and
construction of new nuclear plants, the report will suggest
that, even if the government does decide to go down the nuclear
route, a projected eight 'new generation' nuclear plants would
not be fully operational until 2020. The report is also
understood to emphasise a series of unanswered questions. They
include how to deal with nuclear waste - particularly if the new
stations use fuel that includes plutonium - and how the plants
would be financed.

The Trade and Industry Secretary, Alan Johnson, told the
committee that any new stations would not be subsidised by
taxpayers' money. But other evidence suggests that to get the
private sector to invest some form of government 'cap' on the
companies' liabilities, and possibly a guarantee of a minimum
future energy price, were likely to prove necessary.

The committee will also question assumptions that nuclear power
will necessarily provide an essential 'carbon-free' boost to
meeting environmental targets. Concerns were raised that, with
available uranium supplies on the wane, the new stations might
have to rely on lower-grade uranium which requires processing
that could add to carbon emissions. There were also suggestions
that the current share of electricity provided by nuclear
stations should instead be met by a combination of increased
renewable energy, other sources such as new 'clean coal'
technology, and a stronger drive to encourage consumers to be
less wasteful.

The source said the report did not reject the nuclear option
outright: 'But it suggests that there is no short-term case for
a new generation of nuclear power stations, and serious issues
have to be addressed to make the case beyond 2020.'

Johnson told the committee that no final decision on nuclear
stations had been taken and shrugged off a suggestion that Blair
had been issuing 'hints, nudges, nods and winks' in favour of
the nuclear option. But a senior Blairite figure said Downing
Street had concluded that there was no realistic way of
providing sufficient electricity generation and meeting
carbon-emission targets without replacing the existing nuclear
stations.
 	
   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
*****************************************************************
 47 London Times: Unions set to back nuclear power stations

The Sunday Times        April 09, 2006

Kathleen Nutt

TRADE unionists are expected to heap pressure on Jack McConnell 
this week by backing the construction of a new generation of 
nuclear power stations.

Delegates at the Scottish Trades Union congress in Perth, which 
begins tomorrow, have tabled two motions supporting the policy, 
which has been resisted by the first minister even though it is 
backed by his own party.

McConnell has said he will not agree to build nuclear power 
stations until radioactive waste can be disposed of safely.

The gathering takes place as political parties prepare their 
manifestos for next year's Holyrood election.

Amicus, the trade union which represents workers in the nuclear 
industry, argues that rising energy costs risk making certain 
industries uncompetitive and could lead to the loss of thousands 
of jobs. It says that energy costs in the UK are 40% higher than 
in other European Union countries.

The Amicus motion urges the government to include nuclear in its 
energy review to avoid "the nation's energy needs being held 
hostage by politically unstable states".

John Quigley, the union's Scottish secretary, said it was vital 
that new nuclear power stations were built as part of a balanced 
energy policy because renewables would not deliver enough energy.

A separate motion by the National Union of Mineworkers also calls 
for the replacement of existing nuclear power stations.

Meanwhile, Prospect, the union for professional, skilled and 
technical workers, will call for talks on energy policy between 
the Scottish executive, the British government and the STUC.

The nuclear power stations at Hunterston B in Ayrshire and 
Torness in East Lothian generate between a third and a half of 
Scotland's energy needs.

Hunterston is expected to cease production by 2015, while Torness 
is due to be decommissioned in 2023. Coal-burning power stations 
at Cockenzie, East Lothian and Longannet, Fife, will also close 
in nine years.

In a separate move, union leaders at the STUC conference will set 
out five demands for the Scottish economy in a public challenge 
to the Scottish executive.

The "key demands" set out by the STUC are for government, 
enterprise bodies and industry bodies to restate a commitment to 
the executive's "smart successful Scotland" blueprint, based on 
quality and innovation, rather than low costs and a "disposable" 
workforce.The Sunday Times      April 09, 2006

Unions set to back nuclear power stations
Kathleen Nutt
TRADE unionists are expected to heap pressure on Jack McConnell 
this week by backing the construction of a new generation of 
nuclear power stations.

Delegates at the Scottish Trades Union congress in Perth, which 
begins tomorrow, have tabled two motions supporting the policy, 
which has been resisted by the first minister even though it is 
backed by his own party.

McConnell has said he will not agree to build nuclear power 
stations until radioactive waste can be disposed of safely.

The gathering takes place as political parties prepare their 
manifestos for next year's Holyrood election.

Amicus, the trade union which represents workers in the nuclear 
industry, argues that rising energy costs risk making certain 
industries uncompetitive and could lead to the loss of thousands 
of jobs. It says that energy costs in the UK are 40% higher than 
in other European Union countries.

The Amicus motion urges the government to include nuclear in its 
energy review to avoid "the nation's energy needs being held 
hostage by politically unstable states".

John Quigley, the union's Scottish secretary, said it was vital 
that new nuclear power stations were built as part of a balanced 
energy policy because renewables would not deliver enough energy.

A separate motion by the National Union of Mineworkers also calls 
for the replacement of existing nuclear power stations.

Meanwhile, Prospect, the union for professional, skilled and 
technical workers, will call for talks on energy policy between 
the Scottish executive, the British government and the STUC.

The nuclear power stations at Hunterston B in Ayrshire and 
Torness in East Lothian generate between a third and a half of 
Scotland's energy needs.

Hunterston is expected to cease production by 2015, while Torness 
is due to be decommissioned in 2023. Coal-burning power stations 
at Cockenzie, East Lothian and Longannet, Fife, will also close 
in nine years.

In a separate move, union leaders at the STUC conference will set 
out five demands for the Scottish economy in a public challenge 
to the Scottish executive.

The "key demands" set out by the STUC are for government, 
enterprise bodies and industry bodies to restate a commitment to 
the executive's "smart successful Scotland" blueprint, based on 
quality and innovation, rather than low costs and a "disposable" 
workforce.

Unions set to back nuclear power stations - Sunday Times - Times

McConnell has said he will not agree to build nuclear power
stations until radioactive waste can be disposed of safely. 

The gathering takes place as political parties prepare their
manifestos for next year’s Holyrood election. 

Amicus, the trade union which represents workers in the nuclear
industry, argues that rising energy costs risk making certain
industries uncompetitive and could lead to the loss of thousands
of jobs. It says that energy costs in the UK are 40% higher than
in other European Union countries. 

The Amicus motion urges the government to include nuclear in its
energy review to avoid “the nation’s energy needs being held
hostage by politically unstable states”. 

John Quigley, the union’s Scottish secretary, said it was vital
that new nuclear power stations were built as part of a balanced
energy policy because renewables would not deliver enough
energy. 

A separate motion by the National Union of Mineworkers also
calls for the replacement of existing nuclear power stations. 

Meanwhile, Prospect, the union for professional, skilled and
technical workers, will call for talks on energy policy between
the Scottish executive, the British government and the STUC. 

The nuclear power stations at Hunterston B in Ayrshire and
Torness in East Lothian generate between a third and a half of
Scotland’s energy needs. 

Hunterston is expected to cease production by 2015, while
Torness is due to be decommissioned in 2023. Coal-burning power
stations at Cockenzie, East Lothian and Longannet, Fife, will
also close in nine years. 

In a separate move, union leaders at the STUC conference will
set out five demands for the Scottish economy in a public
challenge to the Scottish executive. 

The “key demands” set out by the STUC are for government,
enterprise bodies and industry bodies to restate a commitment to
the executive’s “smart successful Scotland” blueprint, based on
quality and innovation, rather than low costs and a “disposable”
workforce.   	 		

							   	 	
 The Times and The Sunday Times. 
*****************************************************************
 48 London Times: Doh, let's ignore our need for nuclear power and it'll go away

The Sunday Times - Ireland

April 09, 2006

Comment: Matt Cooper: 

The unlikely combination of a cartoon character and a 
humanitarian aid campaigner has coloured public attitudes towards 
nuclear energy to such an extent that it is almost impossible to 
have a rational discussion on the subject. But Homer Simpson and 
Adi Roche aside, a nuclear debate will become more urgent if we 
continue to consume oil in gluttonous quantities.

Oil now accounts for nearly 64% of Irish energy consumption, more 
than 20 points higher than the EU average. This oil slick has 
helped make Ireland prosperous, but our overdependence on this 
expensive commodity also threatens this prosperity. Like drunks 
who couldn't care where their next drink is coming from, we have 
been slow to develop an alternative strategy.

The facts tell the story. Ireland consumed more than 9m tonnes of 
oil in 2004, more than double the amount in 1990. We are the 
sixth most dependent country in the EU for fuelling electricity 
generators with oil, and we have a transport sector that consumes 
about 50% more of the black stuff than our European neighbours.

Our insatiable appetite for oil has turned us into serial 
environmental offenders, contributing to a rising and 
unsustainable level of carbon dioxide omissions. Add in gas and 
coal, and our fossil fuel inputs make up more than 90% of our 
energy requirements. Even the prospect of paying substantial 
Kyoto-linked levies has done nothing to cool our consumption.

Wind, waves and biomass are excellent energy-generation 
alternatives, but all require significant investment. Even if 
government policy were pushed more aggressively in these areas, 
it still wouldn't be enough to replace our oil demands. Even 
though Homer and Adi have conditioned us to oppose nuclear 
energy, let's talk about it anyway.

The anti-nuclear brigade love to conjure up images of a nuclear 
power plant in rural Ireland run by Homer Simpson-type employees. 
Better still, there might even be a few foreign Homers prepared 
to work for less than the locals. Naturally, the plant would be 
mismanaged and short of skilled personnel. In short, an Irish 
nuclear plant would be an accident waiting to happen.

The reality would be different. Cost containment is always a 
priority for businesses, but assuming a nuclear operator would be 
operated by the private sector rather than the state, then the 
presence of a strong regulator would ensure that cost savings 
would not compromise safety. In any event, no rational owner of 
an investment costing many hundreds of millions of euros would 
knowingly risk losing it through a serious accident or disaster.

The objectors also enjoy conjuring up images of Montgomery Burns, 
the skinflint owner of the Springfield plant where Homer barely 
holds down a job. Any nuclear facility, they argue, would be 
controlled by greedy and cynical figures who would deliberately 
cut corners on construction and safety.

Admittedly, our record on large infrastructure projects is not 
inspiring. There was that leaking roof at the National Aquatic 
Centre, leaks in the yet-to-be completed Dublin Port Tunnel and 
some track reinforcement is already required on parts of the 
recently constructed Luas lines. But the fact that these 
incidents have attracted so much publicity is almost an insurance 
policy against similar incidents occurring in the construction of 
something as potentially dangerous as a nuclear plant.

In the same way that construction standards cannot be taken for 
granted, neither should the health concerns. In alerting Irish 
people to the plight of the children of Belarus following the 
Chernobyl disaster in 1986, Adi Roche has increased awareness of 
the cancers and birth deformations that can result from radiation 
poisoning.

It's hard to argue with distressing pictures of sick children, 
even if the former Soviet Union was operating a plant in an aged 
and dangerous condition that regulatory authorities in western 
Europe would never have allowed. But recent United Nations 
reports have suggested the number of deaths directly attributed 
to the disaster was less than 100 and that the damage to health 
in the area has been exaggerated.

Much more significant, surely, is the presence of dozens of 
nuclear power plants throughout Europe, especially in Britain 
(where there are 23) and France (59). The fact that these operate 
safely and efficiently, does not impress the Nimbys. Who could 
seriously argue that Sweden, Belgium, France, Germany, Finland 
and Holland, all of whom use nuclear power, have noticeably lower 
environmental standards than we implement?

An American physics professor, Bernard Cohen, argued in The 
Nuclear Energy Option that, averaged over time, only two people 
per year have died in nuclear accidents in America. This compares 
with the 10,000 who die each year from air pollution caused by 
coal-burning electricity.

In Britain, high-profile environmentalists such as James Lovelock 
and Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, 
argue that a new generation of nuclear power stations is the only 
way to meet energy demand while cutting carbon dioxide pollution. 
Many disagree, but their objections are unlikely to carry much 
weight. All but one of Britain's existing plants are due to shut 
by 2023 and these currently supply 20% of Britain's requirements.

Any scientific evidence produced to overturn the 1999 law that 
bans the construction of nuclear plants in Ireland would be 
drowned out by scaremongering. The spurious arguments put forward 
by Nimbys to ensure that Ireland remains a nuclear-free zone 
would be even more extreme than those used to prevent the 
construction of other controversial infrastructure projects. 
Incinerators have long been considered essential to cope with the 
huge amounts of refuse the country produces. But, because of 
objections, building will only get under way in the next year, 
despite firm evidence of their economic benefits and despite 
technological advances that have made them environmentally safe. 

Then there is the dispute over the routing of a gas pipeline into 
Co Mayo from the Corrib off-shore field, with delays being caused 
by exaggerated fears about highly unlikely explosions. These 
unsubstantiated concerns dictate the debate, even though we 
import 80% of our gas requirements, the life of the Kinsale gas 
field is finite and supplies from eastern Europe via an 
interconnector, are, like oil, going to become more scarce and 
expensive.

Our natural antipathy towards large infrastructure projects 
explains why Forfas, the state agency responsible for offering 
advice on industrial policy, pulled its punches when analysing 
the country's future energy needs in a report published last 
week. Right or wrong, Forfas painted a picture of economic 
disaster arising from oil dependence. Then it raised the 
possibility of nuclear energy, but stopped short of recommending 
it.

So what will we do in the absence of the nuclear option? Energy 
efficiency is a worthwhile aspiration, but it is naive to believe 
conservation will be the solution given the projections for 
economic growth up to 2020. By all means let us press ahead with 
plans to construct better-insulated housing stock, to ban one-off 
houses in the countryside, to increase investment in public 
transport at the expense of roads, and to encourage biofuel cars 
through tax incentives. But none of these will be enough if we 
are to reduce our dependence on oil.

Like it or not, we will most likely end up importing nuclear 
power. Here's how it will work. The British are likely to have so 
much of the stuff, they'll be looking to market their surplus 
electricity. A giant interconnector will be built beneath the 
Irish Sea, similar to the gas interconnector that exists at 
present. Much of the electricity that will be fed into that 
connection will be produced at nuclear processing fuel stations. 
It will be cheaper than oil-based electricity and we'll be so 
grateful that we won't be too bothered where it's coming from. 
And we certainly won't do anything hare-brained like set 
conditions about how our imported electricity should be 
generated. If there is any health risk attached to this nuclear 
business, sure it's the British who'll have to worry about it, 
not us.

In fact, our nuclear pact with the devil will look like our 
approach to abortion. Not in my back yard, if you don't mind, but 
we're perfectly willing to jump into the neighbour's garden and 
do all those things that, for one reason or another, we deem 
unacceptable on our own patch.

In fact, the solution is so downright lazy, it could almost have 
been inspired by Homer himself.
The Times and The Sunday Times. 
*****************************************************************
 49 AZ Daily Star: Nuclear plants find human resources difficult to replenish |
                      
www.azstarnet.com ®

Shortage comes as Congress OKs building funds 

By Lance Gay Scripps Howard News Service Tucson, Arizona | 

Published: 04.09.2006 

As the nuclear industry stirs with the first plans in 30 years to 
build new power plants in the United States, there's an 
unexpected hurdle to be overcome: There may not be enough nuclear 
engineers around anymore to build and run them.

What's worse, the generation that built and ran America's nuclear 
plants is aging and headed towards retirement, taking decades of 
know-how that have kept reactors operating safely.

"This is a huge problem for the nuclear industry, because it goes 
without saying it can't afford to make a single mistake," said 
David DeLong, a research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology's AgeLab.

DeLong said 28 percent of the 58,000 workers in the U.S. 
nuclear-power industry will be eligible to retire within five 
years, representing a huge loss of institutional memory.

At the other end, America isn't producing enough new nuclear 
engineers to fill the ranks of the retirees.

Student influx falling short

The Defense Science Board says the number of engineers produced 
at U.S. universities has declined 10 percent since the Cold War 
ended in 1990. That poses national security concerns because the 
military will need a new generation of engineers to design and 
run the successors to America's long-range nuclear strike systems 
like the Peacekeeper and Trident missiles.

The industry is already taking steps to encourage universities to 
attract more students into engineering.

"We're watching this area very carefully," said Carol Berrigan, 
senior project manager for advanced reactors at the Nuclear 
Energy Institute.

She said a low point came in 1998 when some universities 
threatened to close nuclear programs because so few had enrolled. 

The number of students has since increased, but "this is a 
gathering storm for science and engineering nationally," she 
said.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it also is feeling the 
pinch as it looks for engineers who can oversee regulation of the 
nation's 103 nuclear power plants already operating.

"The overall available crop of scientists and students is not 
what it used to be," said NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.

Shortage at critical juncture

The engineering shortage comes as the nuclear industry is 
preparing the first construction of power plants in 30 years. 

Construction of new nuclear power plants stopped because of 
safety concerns after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.

What's spurred interest in new plants is legislation adopted by 
Congress last year. It provides more than $3 billion in 
incentives to the industry for new plants and limits damage 
awards from lawsuits in the event of nuclear accidents.

The Nuclear Energy Institute expects 11 new plants to be built, 
and the NRC's Burnell said the agency expects to consider the 
first requests for new plants by next year or 2008.

David Lochbaum, director for nuclear-safety projects at the Union 
of Concerned Scientists, said it's not just the lack of 
experienced engineers, but other specialists who will be required 
to build the plants.

"When you move beyond the blueprint, it requires welders and pipe 
fitters and others with specialized knowledge," he said.

The industry says the new plants will incorporate three decades 
of new knowledge, with new designs known in the industry as 
"Generation 3-Plus" that will make the reactors safer to operate. 

Newer generations of nuclear plants have upgraded electrical 
systems and rely less on mechanical switches that can be subject 
to human error, and more on natural-gravity devices to deal with 
emergencies.

Advocates of nuclear power argue that after five decades, the 
technology has shown it can be operated safely, but opponents 
point to the Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 meltdown at 
Chernobyl for what can go wrong. Lochbaum noted that since 1952, 
when the first electricity-producing nuclear reactor opened, 40 
of the 130 reactors that have operated in the United States have 
been shut down for safety reasons for more than a year - a 
measure of the dangers of the technology.


*****************************************************************
 50 MiamiHerald.com: Nuclear energy has environmental advantages

04/09/2006 | 

UTILITIES
 
The April 4 front-page story FPL to seek a new nuclear plant
points out the economic advantage of nuclear energy and its
ability to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. 

Not mentioned but also true, are the environmental advantages.
Nuclear plants do not put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as
do fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is believed to contribute to
global warming. Also, there are no emissions of sulfur dioxide,
blamed for acid rain, nor nitrogen oxides, another environmental
concern. 

I take issue with the Sierra Club spokesman who said that, ''The
nuclear industry hasn't figured out what to do with high-level
waste.'' Not so. The nuclear industry has come up with not one,
but two solutions. Some years back, the federal government
planned to convert high-level waste from all U.S. reactors to a
stable form and put it into underground storage. 

The current generation of nuclear plants was built with only
limited on-site storage capacity. After years of delay in the
federal project, as the original on-site storage facilities
began to fill up, private utilities built additional safe,
secure storage capacity. 

RICHARD SCHUERGER, Ramrod Key About Herald.com | About the Real
*****************************************************************
 51 The State: Energy independence? We only have to decide to go for it

| 04/09/2006 | 

From now on we live in a world where man has walked on the
moon. Its not a miracle. We just decided to go. 

 Tom Hanks, as Astronaut Jim Lovell in Apollo 13 

I REMEMBER when this country would just decide to go and do
something that had never been done  something so hard that it
seemed impossible  and then just go. 

I was not yet 16 when men first stepped into the gray talcum of
Tranquillity Base, and I didnt know that I was living through
the last days of the age of heroic national effort. I thought
the muscular, confident idealism of World War II veterans such
as John Kennedy was the norm. JFK said lets go to the moon. It
didnt matter that nothing like it had ever been done, or that
the technologies had not yet been invented. We just said OK,
lets do it. 

We built rockets. Brave men stepped forward to sit atop them in
hissing, flashing, buzzing, wired-up sardine cans. Slide-ruler
nerds who feared no challenge designed all the gadgets that went
into the rockets and made them fly true. The rest of us paid the
astronomical bills, and suspended our lives to watch each
launch, in fuzzy black-and-white. We held our breaths together
as though we were the ones waiting to be blasted to glory, live
or die. 

And in a sense, we were. That was us. We were there. 

Why did we stop doing things like that? Where did we lose the
confidence? When did we lose interest in working together? How
did we lose the will? 

Was it the bitter end of Vietnam, which caused us to swear off
fighting for justice beyond our borders for a generation? Was it
Watergate, which ended common trust in leadership? (I watched
All the Presidents Men with my children recently, and to help
them fully appreciate the suspense, I had to stop the disc and
try to explain a time in which most people could not imagine the
president of the United States would really do such a thing.) 

Was it the end of National Service, which gave rise to a
generation that had never pulled together in common cause, and
couldnt even imagine doing so? Was it the I got mine
hypergreed of the 80s and 90s, which made shared sacrifice
passe? 

I dont know. Maybe all of the above. I do know Im tired of it.
I miss the country I used to live in. 

That country would have stayed united for more than a few weeks
after 9/11. It would have rolled up its sleeves and sacrificed
to make itself economically independent of Mideast regimes that
currently have no motivation to change the conditions that
produce suicide bombers. 

But we dont volunteer for that today, and leaders dont dare
suggest it. 

What got me started on all this? Lonnie Carter, president of
Santee Cooper, said several things last week that sent my
thoughts down these paths. He got me thinking how easy it would
be for this nation to move toward energy independence, reduce
greenhouse gases and even save money. It wouldnt even be hard,
or require sacrifice or inventiveness. We have the tools. Its a
matter of attitude. 

Mr. Carter showed us one of those curlicue fluorescent light
bulbs. Big deal, I thought. Ive got a few of those at home; my
wife bought them. They look goofy, and dont fit into some of
our smaller fixtures. 

But Mr. Carter said that while such a bulb costs a couple of
bucks more, it uses only 30 percent of the energy to produce the
same light, and lasts 10 times as long. That one 60-watt bulb
(really only 15) would save you $53 before it gave out. 

Think how much energy we could save if all of us bought them.
The things are already on the store shelves, but most of us
bypass them for the old unreliables. Its a matter of changing
our habits, Mr. Carter said. 

How about renewable energy? Mr. Carter said utilities already
offer that option to customers. But while 40 percent say they
would pay a little more for such greener, smarter energy, only 1
percent actually do when it comes time to check that box on the
bill. 

Attitude again. 

Then theres nuclear power. If our country is interested in
energy independence and affecting climate change, said Mr.
Carter, nuclear is the best option. Its clean, its
efficient, and we dont have to buy the fuel from lunatics. 

The government is even offering incentives to build the new
generation of super-safe plants. But theres still an attitude
problem, as evidenced in the approval process. Santee Cooper
plans to build two such plants. Just getting approval will take
until 2010, so the plants cant produce power before 2015. We
managed to go from rockets that always blew up to The Eagle has
landed in less time than that. And this time, we already have
the technology. 

We need all due diligence, said Mr. Carter. But we dont need
to drag our feet. 

Still worried about spent fuel? We know how to handle it
safely, he said. Weve been doing so for 50 years. We also know
how to put it away permanently; its just a policy issue. 

If we could take such obvious steps, maybe we could then start
taking the tough ones. 

Maybe we could even put the SUVs up on blocks and reduce our
gasoline consumption to the point that Big Oil  and maybe even
Washington  would see that they ought to invest some real
effort in developing hydrogen, or biofuels, or whatever it
takes. 

Did you know that Brazil expects to achieve energy independence
this year? Maybe it has become the kind of country we used to be
 the kind of country we could be again. 

It just takes the right attitude. 

Visit bradwarthensblog/.
*****************************************************************
 52 The Sun News: New power plants only part of energy plans

04/09/2006 | 

S.C. GROWTH, FUTURE NEEDS
 
 By O.L. Thompson 

Santee Cooper is moving ahead to fulfill its obligation to
continue to meet the power needs of the state through the
implementation of a new generation plan. The plan is critical to
the company's success; it serves as our long-term foundation for
building essential base-load generation to meet the potential
growth of the state. 

Our state is growing at a tremendous rate, which makes planning
for future energy needs critical. South Carolina's population is
increasing about 3 percent to 4 percent annually, and the state
is expected to have 5 million residents by 2025. 

Santee Cooper has a responsibility to keep the lights on for the
growing numbers of customers. Each day, we generate the power
used by more than 2 million South Carolinians, either as direct
customers or through the state's 20 electric cooperatives. The
state's growth, along with significant changes in gas and coal
prices, the National Energy Policy Act's incentives for
developing nuclear energy and a renewed interest in fuel
diversity have necessitated the need to review our company's
generation plan. 

Santee Cooper will continue to explore nuclear energy as a
viable option in conjunction with S.C. Electric & Gas Co. at the
V.C. Summer Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville. Nuclear power is
safe, clean, reliable and can help us become more
energy-independent. 

We need support for shorter permitting cycles for nuclear plant
construction in order to meet the power requirements of the
state in a timely fashion. 

In addition, we will consider the possibility of building a new
coal-fired facility to meet the state's energy needs. 

Building power plants isn't the only answer. Energy conservation
is an important component of a successful energy utility as it
helps reduce energy demand, saves money and protects the
environment. The company is taking steps to encourage everyone
to conserve energy. 

Santee Cooper is proud of its renewable energy record and will
continue to expand its renewable efforts. The company is the
first and only utility in the state to offer green power to its
customers. We will construct several solar, wind and additional
landfill gas-powered projects in the near future as renewable
energy sources will continue to be an important part of the
company's fuel portfolio. 

By implementing and managing our generation plan, we are
demonstrating a commitment to balance environmental
responsibility while providing reliable, low-cost power to the
citizens of this state. 

The choices we are making today will ensure future generations
can enjoy the extraordinary standard of life we have in South
Carolina. 
*****************************************************************
 53 APP.COM: AmerGen to watch drywell closely | 

Asbury Park Press Online
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Concerns raised about Oyster Creek corrosion

 Posted by the Asbury Park Presson 04/8/06 

BY TODD B. BATES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER

The company that runs the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in 
Lacey will take more steps to test for and prevent potential 
corrosion in its radiation containment system, according to a 
letter to federal officials.

Yet, critics remain unimpressed.

"They should have been testing (all) along," said Janet Tauro, a
Brick resident and member of Grandmothers, Mothers and More for
Energy Safety. The group opposes Oyster Creek owner Exelon
Corp.'s efforts to renew its operating license for 20 years
beyond 2009.

Meanwhile, six activist groups, including GRAMMES, again have
asked a federal panel to expand the scope of a planned hearing
on corrosion in Oyster Creek's steel containment barrier,
according to a document dated Thursday. The barrier is called a
drywell.

AmerGen Energy Co., which runs Oyster Creek, the oldest
commercial nuclear plant in the nation, said in a document filed
Friday that the appeal should be rejected.

Corrosion in Oyster Creek's containment system, which surrounds
its nuclear reactor and is designed to prevent a radioactive
release in case an accident occurs, has been a key focus in the
debate over whether the plant should run until 2029.

AmerGen's 40-year operating license from the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission expires in three years.

Critics are worried about corrosion discovered in the
containment system in the 1980s. AmerGen has said the corrosion
has been stopped.

"AmerGen is now committing to perform additional actions to
provide further assurance that the drywell shell will remain
capable" of functioning until 2029, according to an AmerGen
letter dated Tuesday.

"Too little, too late," said Richard Webster, a staff attorney
for the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic in Newark who is
representing GRAMMES and the five other activist groups.

NRC members are considering whether to back a recent ruling by
an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a quasi-judicial panel
that granted a hearing on one aspect of the activists' corrosion
concerns.

On Friday, AmerGen officials gave a presentation at a meeting
with several mayors and others at the Oyster Creek emergency
operations facility in Dover Township, said Brick Mayor Joseph
C. Scarpelli, a plant opponent who attended the event.

The presentation was "professionally done" and "very
intelligent," but it was basically one-sided, Scarpelli said. He
had wanted representatives of the state Department of
Environmental Protection and environmental community to attend.

The atomic safety board has rejected the DEP's request for a
hearing on concerns about aircraft attack risks, metal fatigue
and backup power for the plant.

In its March 28 appeal of that decision, the DEP said "Oyster
Creek presents a prime target for a terrorist attack."

Stafford Township Councilwoman Marie-Elena O'Connor, who
attended the Friday meeting, praised the event. It's a "shame
that more people weren't there," she said. "It was very
informative."

The safety of people is "really the number one concern,"
O'Connor said. "We're definitely concerned about the jobs," as
well.


This story includes material from previous Press stories.

Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com		 		 		 [E-mail]
 		   		 
  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 54 Sarasota Herald-Tribune: FPL's risky proposition 
	 	 	 	 	 	

Florida isn't ready for another nuclear power plant 
Before Florida Power &Light gets permission to build another
nuclear power plant in Florida, the company should prove three
things:

1. The plant, its fuel and its waste would pose no significant
danger -- whether long term, on a daily basis or in times of
hurricanes, terrorism or simple human error.

2. The power generated would be cost-effective once the expense
of construction, operation, security, waste storage and eventual
decommissioning and cleanup are factored in.

3. Its highly radioactive waste would be removed in a timely
fashion to permanent, safe disposal.

Those are high standards, and some of them aren't within reach.
Disposal, in particular, is the Achilles' heel of nuclear power,
and it won't be resolved any time soon.

Though risks have been reduced through technological advances,
design changes, training and safety procedures, the fact remains
that the U.S. -- like many nations -- lacks a permanent, safe
storage facility for highly radioactive waste engendered by its
commercial nuclear reactors.

FPL last week issued a letter of intent to apply in 2009 for
permits to build and operate another nuclear power plant
somewhere in Florida. The earliest the project could be
completed would be 2018 -- but even then the storage problem
seems likely to persist. A national waste-storage site in Nevada
has long been designated, but the project -- on which $9 billion
has been spent, with possibly another $49 billion ahead -- is
mired in political and scientific controversy, with no end in
sight.

Risks are unpredictable

In the meantime, waste is often stored on site at the nation's
103 commercial nuclear reactors. It's kept under carefully
controlled conditions to protect it from sabotage, hurricanes
and other threats. For example, at FPL's St. Lucie and Turkey
Point sites in Florida, nuclear waste is stored underwater in
steel-lined pools, located in watertight buildings constructed
at least 18 feet above sea level.

But experience elsewhere over the past 30 years serves as a
constant reminder that the risks are not always predictable. A
2003 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency found
numerous incidents worldwide where extraordinary events combined
in unanticipated ways to wreak havoc at nuclear power plants.
For example:

In December 1999, in Blayais, France, dikes that protected a
nuclear-power facility -- and which were designed to exceed
1,000-year storm-surge projections -- were breached by 
exceptional flooding, winds and waves. Two of the plant's four 
units "were severely affected by incoming water: One of the 
essential service water pumps was lost as a result of immersion 
of the motors," the IAEA report stated.

A July 1993 flood on the Missouri River collapsed a levee 
upstream of the Cooper nuclear power station in Nebraska. 
Below-grade rooms in the reactor and turbine buildings suffered 
leakage -- a concern because of the damage it can cause to 
electrical equipment crucial to plant safety.

In June 1998, the Davis-Besse nuclear power station in Ohio was 
hit by tornadoes, cutting electricity and telephone 
communication. Bad switches and other problems complicated the 
start-up of emergency generators, but they eventually functioned 
until main power was restarted.

Though no radiation dangers resulted from Hurricane Andrew's 
direct hit on FPL's Turkey Point plant in 1992, wind and debris 
knocked out power, communications and a firefighting system -- 
bad news, considering that the site also contained large 
quantities of flammable fuel oil. Some of it reportedly leaked 
when debris ruptured a storage tank, but no fire occurred. 
Officials later said one of the lessons learned in the hurricane 
was that equipment not directly related to nuclear operations can 
be damaged in ways that potentially threaten vital safety 
systems.

Fail-safe solutions difficult

To the industry's credit, it has learned from these episodes. But 
their unpredictable nature demonstrates the difficulty of trying 
to engineer a fail-safe solution to such a complex, inherently 
risky operation as nuclear power generation. It's good to know, 
for instance, that the thick foundations for FPL's Florida 
nuclear plants -- both adjacent to the waterfront -- are 18 feet 
above sea level, but what happens if a 30-foot storm surge washes 
in, as it did in Mississippi during Hurricane Katrina? That storm 
did not harm the nuclear power stations in the upper Gulf states, 
but all of those operations are farther inland.

To be sure, the world is in serious need of energy sources that 
won't contribute to global warming -- as the oil, gas and coal 
used in most power plants do. Nuclear power is appealing from 
that standpoint. But with its difficult waste dilemma and 
radiation risks -- which last for hundreds of thousands of years 
beyond the 

fe of the power plants -- it cannot be considered clean energy. 
Nor is it inexpensive once the after-expenses are added in. 
(Britain, for example, estimates that it will cost at least $118 
billion to decommission its aging nuclear plants.)

FPL should be encouraged to maintain its generally good safety 
record at its existing nuclear power stations. But another one 
for Florida? Not until this inherently risky prospect can be made 
truly safe. 
*****************************************************************
 55 Rockford Register Star: Byron nuclear plant awaits safety report

  Sunday, April 09, 2006

ROCKFORD REGISTER STAR
 
BYRON  Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff Monday will discuss
the agency’s assessment of safety performance at Byron’s nuclear
power plant. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to
begin at 6 p.m. at the Byron Station Training Center, Room 107,
4448 N. German Church Road, Byron. 

The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be
available to respond to questions or comments from the public. 

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Byron plant
and the nation’s other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC
Region III Administrator James Caldwell said in a news release.
“This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of
our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and
with local officials and residents who live near the plant.” 

Chicago-based Exelon has come under fire recently for a series
of tritium leaks at three of its northern Illinois plants,
including the Byron facility, the Braidwood generating station
in rural Will County and the Dresden generating station in
Grundy County. 

Tritium is a radioactive substance commonly found in small
concentrations in most surface water. 

Studies have shown long-term exposure, through drinking or
bathing, can lead to cancer and birth defects. 

Tests by the company found low levels of tritium in groundwater
at the Byron nuclear plant. 

Environmental monitors found slightly elevated tritium levels in
two of six test wells near the Ogle County station’s discharge
pipe, but the amount is less than federal safe drinking levels
and does not pose a safety hazard, the company said in a
statement in late March. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the last year and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC Web site at . 


The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Byron plant operated
safely during the period. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. 

The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,”
“yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of
the issues involved. 

All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for
Byron during 2005 were determined to be “green.” 

As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the
normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. 

Copyright © 2006 Rockford Register Star.
*****************************************************************
 56 Rutland Herald: Invisible threat of radiation

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
April 8, 2006 

If I remember correctly, in the book "The Little Prince" by
Antoine De Saint-Exupery, we are told that it is the things that
we can't see that are most important. The Little Prince, of
course, was speaking about love and having been tamed by a
flower. I would like to suggest that, in the conflict raging in
Vermont over windmills, we have missed that which we can't see.
Sadly, it is not love, but radiation.

The United States is the only country that ever used a nuclear
bomb. After years of deadly testing, the United States now has
some 70,000 nuclear bombs ready to go. Since the first Gulf War,
this time in a practically unnoticed nuclear war, the United
States has been spreading about the world several thousand tons
of so-called "depleted" uranium. And then there is Vermont
Yankee, that, under normal circumstances constantly releases a
certain amount of radiation, causes us to live in the shadow of
a nuclear accident or a terrorist attack, requires that we have
an evacuation plan that can't work, and worse, presents us daily
with more and more dangerous nuclear waste for which there is no
solution and which will contaminate our world for millions of
years to come. And now, as if that nightmare were not enough,
and as most of us looked away, the NRC and the PSB approved a 20
percent "uprate" at the plant, (which began a short time ago),
and Entergy Vermont Yankee is working on a plan to extend the
life of the plant 20 years beyond 2012, thus creating a
situation in an old creaky plant that is almost sure to kill us,
or make us sick, and make New England uninhabitable.

I can't tell you if there is any hope, but if there is, it lies
in the questionable hands of the Vermont Legislature, which,
having sold us out on dry cask storage, may not help us now if
most of us either remain in the dark, or are so preoccupied by
windmills, that we can see, that we pay no attention to the most
important thing that we can't see, radiation.

Please, by learning about the dangers of nuclear power in the
hands of a giant, profit-driven corporation that has no concern
for our safety, help us shut down Vermont Yankee, if not right
away, at least by the once agreed upon year of 2012. Windmills
in Vermont are not going to stop Entergy-Vermont Yankee from
creating what might easily be, like war, one more corporate
crime against humanity, but they could be one tiny step in the
right direction. The anniversaries of Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl are upon us. Please think about radiation, after
which, if we survive, we may be able to give our attention to
things like love and flowers.

JANE NEWTON

South Londonderry
   
© 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 57 Brattleboro Reformer: Group seeks halt to uprate

  By KRISTI CECCAROSSI, Reformer Staff  

 Saturday, April 8 BRATTLEBORO -- Lawyers for a nuclear watchdog
group are calling for an immediate halt to Vermont Yankee's
power boost, and they're asking the state's highest court to
step in. 

A firm representing the New England Coalition filed an
injunction on Friday, claiming the controversial boost in the
plant's output is posing an imminent danger to the public. 

In March, plant engineers began incrementally increasing power
and twice -- including once this week -- they've had to put
those plans on hold because the uprate may have been putting too
much stress on plant systems. 

Attorneys cite those incidents, as well as other factors, as
proof that the uprate needs to be suspended until further study
of the plant's safety is done. 

The New England Coalition's legal documents were submitted late
Friday afternoon to the Vermont Public Service Board, a
quasi-judicial panel that deals with the state's utilities. The
board authorized the uprate and to suspend it, New England
Coalition attorneys must first petition the board. 

The board apparently issued a late order saying it would not
stop the uprate. That means the New England Coalition's appeal
will go directly to the Vermont Supreme Court on Monday. 

Right now, Vermont Yankee is operating at 112.5 percent of its
original power capacity. On Thursday, engineers were in the
process of boosting the reactor's output to 115 percent --
marking the third incremental power increase -- when stress was
detected in a steam line. That's a component that has been
problematic in other nuclear power plants that have been
"uprated." 

"This underscores the importance of conducting an immediate and
thorough evaluation of the plant," Burlington attorney Ronald
Shems wrote in the New England Coalition's filing on Friday.
"Each incremental power increase further imperils (the plant's)
reliability." 

The New England Coalition has been fighting the uprate since it
was first proposed more than two years ago. It has challenged
Entergy Nuclear, Vermont Yankee's Mississippi-based owners, in
state and federal proceedings on the issue. 

Coalition members insist that the 34-year-old Vernon reactor,
one of the oldest in operation in the country, cannot withstand
the increased pressure of a full 20 percent power uprate. 

Hundreds of residents, state and local officials have also
criticized the uprate. To assuage some of their concerns,
Entergy and federal nuclear regulators created an uprate plan
whereby plant engineers would raise power in 5 percent
increments and hold at each level for four days of analysis. 

Ray Shadis, technical adviser for the New England Coalition,
says the results of the first month of the uprate show that
so-called "Power Ascension Test Program" isn't enough. 

"The whole reason for that program was to show that Entergy
couldn't demonstrate with analysis that the steam dryer would
survive at 120 percent," he said. "Even if they inch it up
carefully, it's all still an experiment." 

Rob Williams, plant spokesman, said Entergy and U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission officials are studying the pressure caused
by this week's power increase. He said by early next week,
officials will have a clearer sense of when and how they will
proceed with the uprate. 

  
New England Newspapers, Inc.
» BerkshireEagle.com
» TheTranscript.com
*****************************************************************
 58 TheStar.com: Storage: the next generation
 
Why build a new power plant when the technology exists to store 
excess megawatts until needed?

Apr. 9, 2006. 01:00 AMADRIANA MUGNATTO-HAMU 

SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Ontario is moving ahead with a natural-gas-fired generator on
the Portlands, with plans to start building this summer. Local
opposition is growing louder. Meanwhile, engineer Greg Allen of
Sustainable EDGE Ltd., a Toronto engineering and design firm,
has been quietly promoting an alternative he believes is
cheaper, cleaner and faster to build.

One reason natural gas is attractive to the McGuinty government
is that it is a natural complement to nuclear energy, which
maintains a steady flow 24 hours a day. Natural-gas generators
can accommodate fluctuations in electrical demand, filling in
the daily peaks that nuclear reactors don't address.

The government's urgency in building the new generator is the
result of warnings that the city could face rolling blackouts in
the summer of 2008 without an increase in capacity during peak
hours.

But there is another, cleaner way to handle peak demands. In the
same way that natural-gas generators dovetail with nuclear
reactors, the natural complements to wind and solar power are
storage systems, or batteries, that collect the power of the sun
and wind and deliver it to us even on calm, still evenings.

Storage systems can store power from the existing grid as easily
as they can store power from renewable sources. This feature,
Allen says, can conveniently solve Toronto's looming energy
crisis today while simultaneously preparing us for a sustainable
future tomorrow. 

There is actually no shortage of electricity available to
Toronto, on average. The problem is that for parts of the day
electricity is abundant and inexpensive, while at others,
particularly summer afternoons when everyone turns on their air
conditioner, the transmission lines are inadequate and available
energy is very expensive. 

A battery could purchase the power at the lowest price
available, store it, and release it to the city when
transmission lines reach capacity at a much higher price. The
battery that will one day save solar energy for night-time
delivery can also be used now to store night-time generation for
daytime delivery.

A variety of storage options are available or in development
today. The one Allen proposes is a flow battery. Flow batteries
are liquid electrolyte fuel cells that have been
cost-effectively employed in power grids in Japan, Australia and
the United States. The National Research Council of Canada is
currently testing a small flow battery in its labs in Ottawa for
applications involving renewable energy sources, such as wind
and solar power, and remote-area power supply.

What distinguishes flow batteries from other storage options is
that the energy is stored separately from the power cell in two
separate tanks, each filled with electrolyte solution. The
electrolyte is rotated with pumps through power cells, where the
solutions from the two tanks are separated by a membrane that
permits ionic interchange. Electrodes force a charge from one
side of the membrane to the other. As the battery gets charged,
the charge moves from one electrolyte tank to the other. As the
battery is discharged, the charge moves back. The power is
determined by the size, number and configuration of the power
cells.

As a result, flow batteries can be reconfigured to provide high
power or high capacity. A 15 kilowatt-hour (kWh) system can
power 10 homes for one hour, or one home for 10 hours.

While flow batteries are not new, the first dating back to the
19th century, interest has grown since the 1970s, and especially
recently as they have become commercially viable for large-scale
applications. They currently sell for approximately $500 per kWh
of storage capacity, with incremental storage costs in
large-scale systems of only $150 per kWh. In comparison, the
cost of the 550 MW Portlands Energy Centre is projected to be
$700 million.

Installation costs are difficult to compare, as generator size
is measured in megawatts (MW) while batteries are measured in
megawatt-hours (MWh). The installation cost of a generator, to
be compared to a battery, would have to take into account the
number of hours it is expected to operate. If the Portlands
Energy Centre served a daily peak of five hours duration,
installation would cost $255 for each daily kWh it produced.
Installation of a five-hour flow battery would cost $220 per
kWh. Working lifetimes of the systems are comparable.

Operating and maintenance costs of flow batteries are
dramatically lower than those of gas-fired generation, at a
tenth of a penny per kWh. The system operates automatically. The
"fuel" for flow batteries is inexpensive energy purchased
off-peak at about 3 cents per kWh. With energy losses of 25 to
30 per cent, total costs for delivery are about 4 cents per kWh. 

Gas-fired generation, by contrast, fluctuates around 7 cents per
kWh just for the fuel to produce it, with much higher operating
and maintenance costs that can bring the total cost to 10 cents
per kWh produced.

Flow batteries offer other advantages over generation. They can
be installed quickly  eight months for large multi-megawatt
systems that require environmental assessments, and three months
or less for small systems. They have no emissions and are very
quiet. The only moving parts are the pumps, which need
replacement every five to seven years. One drawback of flow
batteries, at least compared to other batteries, is their size.
While the power cells are not unusually large, the storage tanks
of electrolyte solution can be enormous. 

For vanadium redox flow batteries, for example, a 600 MWh system
would require 30 million litres of electrolyte. If stored in
six-metre-high tanks, its footprint would be the size of a
football field. 

On the other hand, Allen says, the Hearn building that will
house the planned gas generator in the Portlands is four
football fields in size.

Another concern is the toxicity of the electrolyte. The
electrolyte for the vanadium redox battery, for example, is
dissolved in dilute sulphuric acid. Under normal conditions,
there is no human exposure to the electrolyte, which is stored
in lined and double-walled tanks. However, leaks are possible.

One solution to the risk of a major leak is the distribution of
many small batteries as backup power sources for buildings
throughout the city. This has the advantage of distributing the
enormous volume of electrolyte required over a vast network of
small installations. Small, distributed applications are very
well understood and marketed. The disadvantage is that the total
cost would be higher.

Alternatively, Toronto could opt to install a single large
battery. The largest flow batteries built to date are 12 MWh in
size. Any single battery that would make a significant impact
for a city the size of Toronto would be the largest battery ever
built. 

VRB Power Systems, a Canadian company that installs primarily
vanadium redox flow batteries, also offers a new technology
developed for very large applications for a project of this
size. The RGN system has a much more concentrated energy density
level, meaning that it would be substantially smaller than a
vanadium redox system. The electrolytes it uses are also less
toxic saline solutions of sodium bromide and sodium
polysulphide. The drawback: It is somewhat less efficient, with
five per cent more energy loss than vanadium redox batteries.

The RGN flow battery has no existing practical application.
Developed as the Regenesys Project with the Tennessee Valley
Authority and partly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy,
the project generated tremendous interest through 2003. A 120
MWh peak system was to provide the power for 7,500 homes for 10
hours each day.

The project reached the point where electrolyte was being
brought in. But when the energy company developing the process
was purchased by a German firm, the project was suddenly halted.
RGN has only been marketed again since VRB Power Systems
acquired the rights to the technology late last year. An RGN
battery would be a world first.

Allen's company has promoted several innovative sustainable
technologies, from deep lake-water cooling to wetland
bioregeneration to creating buildings that make soft footprints
on the landscape. Preparing Toronto for a future powered by
renewables would continue in this tradition. A flow battery to
offset Toronto's energy needs would support a robust solar and
wind program in the coming decades, and allow this city to set a
new standard in urban energy planning.


Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu is the chief executive officer of the
Toronto-Danforth riding association of the Green Party of
Canada. Greg Allen will be speaking about flow batteries at the
St. Lawrence Centre Forum, 27 Front St. East, Wednesday at 7:30
p.m.


Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited.
*****************************************************************
 59 Daily Times: Nuclear regulatory authority soon 

Monday, April 10, 2006

LAHORE: The government will set up an independent organisation to 
operate nuclear power plants and to build new across the country.

Sources in the Water and Power Ministry said the government had
sought proposals from various ministries and departments on
setting up a Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA).
Sources said that the government’s plan to generate about 8,800
megawatts of nuclear power by 2030 necessitated a separate
authority. The government was also planning to separate the
civil and military nuclear sectors, the sources said.

At a recent meeting chaired by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, the
Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) said it was working on
the authority’s structure, powers, jurisdiction and operations.
The government is holding talks with China to set up nuclear
power plants to generate 2,000 megawatts of electricity. The
sources said the site of the new plants had not yet been
selected. They said the government was trying to get nuclear
power technology from Europe, especially France and Italy. SANA 

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 60 OpEdNews: No New Nemesis? No New Nukes

  April 9, 2006

by Ron Fullwood  

http://www.opednews.com

India has detonated nuclear bombs in the past and hasn't signed
on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet, Condoleeza Rice
said yesterday that India differs from Iran because the U.S. had
asked India to "adhere to many of the important elements of the
guidelines that are making up the nonproliferation regime".

That's right. India is different from Iran because they were
"asked" to "adhere" to "many" of the "important elements" of the
"guidelines" that make up the "non-proliferation regime.

If that statement represents the totality of India's obligations
and actually intends to distinguish India from Iran, it should
give the international community reason to wonder about what the
"important elements" actually are, and what the U.S. intends to
do about their own lack of adherenceto the NPT.

I don't see how the U.N can contemplate sanctioning Iran and not
take into account India's nuclear program, especially since the
U.S., a signatory of the NPT, just made this deal with India to
supply them with nuclear fuel.

Also, Rice told a senate committee that the Bush regime - who
broke the U.S. committment to adhere to the NPT by seeking to
build new nuclear weapons with new justifications for their use
- now wants to re-writethe terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 Seymour Hershsays Bush wants to bomb Iran with a 'refurbished'
B61 nuke. B61-11 is the nuclear 'bunker-buster' that was added
to our arsenal in 2001. The administration has said that it will
have to be 'refurbished' to be effective against 'deep,
underground bunkers'. 

Is Bush hyping the threat from Iran to justify his plan for new
nukes? The 'new generation' nuclear plan Bush just unveiled is
being justified by claiming a need to 'refurbish' our nuclear
arsenal. The thrust of the program, besides building new plants
and plutonium pits, is to replace the casings on the nuclear
warheads of the B61 to make them 'more effective'.

Work on preliminary designs for the weapons known as "Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrators" began first at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California and at Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico. Livermore's scientists will attempt to
modify the existing B83, a hydrogen bomb designed for the B-1
bomber, while those at Los Alamos will work on the B61, which
already has been modified for earth-penetrating use.

Bush intends to open the Yucca Mt. site in Nevada to recieve old
nuclear waste, and new waste from his new nuclear plants that he
intends to build to produce the 'next generation' of nuclear
weaponry. Without a waste transport agreement from Congress,
Bush won't be able to put his nuclear agenda in motion. There is
strong opposition from the districts that surround the Livermore
site where the research and production is to take place. 

A Democratic congresswoman there, Rep. Ellen Tauscher,
reportedly just overcame her objections to the new activity at
the lab because the administration promised her the waste would
be moving out of the facility as part of the deal. Someone
should tell the congresswoman that this Yucca Mt. bill is far
from a done deal. 

The DOE presented a bill to Congress this week that intends to
allow the dumping of nuclear waste in Yucca Mt. The legislation
is entitled the "Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act."

I don't think they've gotten approval to modify the B61-11s yet.
I don't see any sign that they've overcome the obstacles of
waste transport and the falsification of the Yucca data that
measured the potential for groundwater to leak into the facility
through fissures and become contaminated. 

That doesn't mean that they won't go ahead and use the old bomb.
But, who really thinks they actually care about Iran's 'nuclear
ambitions'? What if all of this action in the U.N., and all of
the sabre rattling, is just a stalking horse for their own
nuclear plan?

 They need an enemy to get us on board with the production of
these weapons that can 'penetrate hardened, deep, underground
bunkers'. But, as Seymour Hersh points out, officials believe
that "even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there
and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure."

 I smell a rat. I think this is more about the future of our own
nuclear program than it is about the future nuclear ambitions of
the Iranians.

The current B61-11 bomb only burrows about 20 feet, not deep
enough to avoid contaminating and flattening the area, and not
deep enough to get at these bunkers they claim to be after. That
appears to be what the Nevada non-nuclear, 700lb bomb test in
June is all about. They will reportedly use the blast to gauge
its effectiveness (the B61-11 is about 700lbs), and the decision
to allow a visible mushroom cloud is likely to gauge the fallout
effect of such a blast.

To produce a bomb that would burrow deep enough to avoid a
massive radiation cloud they would need to move ahead with their
nuke refurbishment program they just presented. Indeed, an
advisor from Rumsfeld's sham Defense Science Board is quoted in
Seymour Hersh's article saying the DSB is "telling the Pentagon
that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation."

 At some point, I believe, they will stand before us and claim
that conventional weapons can't do the job, so they'll just so
happen to need to begin production of new nukes.

 They need a place to use as an antagonist since Saddam isn't
there for them to lie about. They've got Iran to pose as the
threat, the evil, that they need to justify their meddling.

 I don't think this is as much about Iran, as it's a
convienience to have part of Bush's 'evil axis' and the legend
of these underground bunkers to serve as an impetus for their
meddling with the existing arsenal. That's something they
haven't mustered the gravity for up until now. 

Curious that they unfolded their 'blueprint' for new nukes
(their plans have been known for years) during the same period
that they are pushing to deny Iran the capacity to develop their
own. You'd think they would shy away from the linkage, but they
won't because the association is deliberate.

 No enemy with a deep underground target? No need for new,
nuclear 'bunker-busters', and no need for new nuclear weapons
production plants with the "capacity to produce 125 nuclear
bombs a year".

Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author
of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives
are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price 

Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2006     
*****************************************************************
 61 Orlando Sentinel: Power-plant approvals could get easier - 

The laws would reduce public input and allow the state to
overrule local decisions. 

Rich Mckay |    Sentinel Staff Writer   

Posted April 9, 2006    
 
Lennar Corporation - Orlando Land Division                                                                                              
		 		 		 		 		ACHMAC 		 		 		 			» 			» 			» 		 		 	   
In response to rising electric bills, state lawmakers are working 
on several proposed laws that would make it faster and easier for 
power companies to build new electric plants in Florida, 
including nuclear power plants.

 The new laws would streamline the process to get approval for a 
plant, reduce the number of public hearings and allow the state 
to overrule any local ordinances or zoning rules that could slow 
or halt the location of plants that use nuclear energy, coal or 
gas.

The idea is to encourage more power plants that don't use natural 
gas or oil, providing Florida with a more diverse range of energy 
sources. With an average of 1,000 people a day moving to the 
state, Florida is going to need as much as 40 percent more 
electricity by 2014, according to the Florida Public Service 
Commission.

 At least six coal plants are in the works in the state.
Progress Energy has said that it plans to build a nuclear power
plant in Florida. Progress spokesman C.J. Drake said the
determination of a site is at least several months away.

 The proposed bills are sponsored by state Rep. Adam Hasner,
R-Delray Beach, Rep. Frank Attkinson, R-Kissimmee, and Sen.
Carey Baker, R-Eustis. Although the bills are similar, they
still call for some changes, which will need to be worked out in
committees. But they are expected to easily win approval in the
House and Senate before the end of the session.

 Although the bills have the backing of the governor's office
and the utilities, several activist groups are crying foul.

 The chief complaint from groups including the Florida Public
Interest Research Group is that the proposed laws would reduce
public input. "Streamlining is code for keeping the public out
as much as possible," said Holly Binns, field coordinator for
Florida PIRG. "It means they're going to make it as hard as
possible for Joe Citizen to have a say in where these plants get
built."

 Attkinson, whose bill focuses on nuclear plants, said the
changes are needed.

 "There are still checks and balances," he said. "But right now,
locals can say yes or no on something of regional impact.

 "We know some [groups] are having heartburn over this, but
zoning for a Motel 6 is something that just affects the locals.
A nuclear power plant affects the whole state."

 Susan Glickman, a spokeswoman with the Natural Resources
Defense Council, said the bills are "a power grab for the
utilities. It makes it easier for the big utilities and harder
for the people."

 The public would still have input with meetings by Florida's
Department of Environmental Protection as well as the state's
Public Service Commission, which oversees electric utilities.

 Barry Moline, executive director of the Florida Municipal
Electric Association, is championing the proposed regulations.

 "It gives the [state] PSC the final authority," he said.
"Today, any local government can make a lot of noise."

 The changes also have the support of Mike Twomey, president and
founder of Florida Utility Watch, who is critical of the
industry at times. "For one, this promotes fuel diversity, which
will help consumers in their pocketbooks," he said. "I've been
yelling for years that there's not enough fuel diversity."

 Rich McKay can be reached at 407-420-5470 or
rmckay@orlandosentinel.com.

© 2006 Orlando Sentinel Communications           
*****************************************************************
 62 Public Citizen: The Southeast Needs a Rapid Investment in Renewable Energy 
Technologies, Not New Nuclear Power Plants
 
April 7, 2006 

Statement of Melissa Kemp, Policy Analyst of
 Public Citizens Energy Program 

The Southeast should invest in renewable energy technologies to
meet its energy needs instead of building new nuclear power
plants in the region. According to a new analysis by Public
Citizen based on the work of governments, universities and other
organizations in the United States, Europe and Japan, it is
technically and economically feasible for a diverse mix of
existing renewable technologies to completely meet U.S. energy
needs over the coming decades. Clean, safe renewable energy
sources  such as wind, solar, advanced hydroelectric and some
types of biomass and geothermal energy  are central to dealing
with these issues. 

The analysis finds that renewable resources are vast, that
difficulties related to their intermittency and variability can
be overcome, and that renewable technologies can reliably
generate as much energy as conventional fuels without
significant carbon emissions, destructive mining or the
production of radioactive waste. Under this scenario,
electricity demand could be met by renewable energy in the near
term, and transportation could be fueled by these clean energy
sources in the long term. 

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is not a clean or safe
technology. New nuclear reactors have been proposed at 11 sites
in the Southeast, but building new nuclear power plants would
not solve our environmental, public health or energy problems.
Nuclear power generates radioactive waste, which remains
dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, brings the risk of
nuclear weapons proliferation and reactor accidents, and
involves uranium mining that contaminates groundwater and
burdens local communities. In fact, this month marks the 20th
anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, which released
radioactive material over Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and
ultimately the entire globe in 1986. Many people  especially
children  are still suffering from this accident. Nuclear
reactors are also expensive and slow to build, which further
reduces their potential for rapidly addressing climate change. 

As the Southern Energy Network, a student coalition from across
the Southeast promoting the use of renewable energy and improved
energy efficiency, holds its third annual conference in
Knoxville, Tenn., this weekend, Public Citizen urges citizens
across the Southeast to resist the building of new nuclear
reactors in their communities and to demand renewable energy
technologies that can truly protect public health and bring
long-term prosperity. 
For more information on the Public Citizen Energy Program, click
here. 

For Public Citizens analysis of renewable energy, click here. 

*****************************************************************
 63 ITAR-TASS: Federal nuclear center in Sarov marks its 60th anniversary

09.04.2006, 12.32

NIZHNY NOVGOROD, April 9 (Itar-Tass) - The Federal Nuclear
Center in Sarov marks its 60th anniversary this Sunday. 

The prime center of Russian nuclear weapons was initiated by a
closed decision of the Soviet Council of Ministers of April 9,
1946 on establishing the design bureau KB-11 at Laboratory No.
2, which became later better known as Arzamas –16 by the place
of the location of the top secret project. 

There was an initial structure there in forest thickets,
situated far from big cities, -- a factory manufacturing cases
for artillery shells. The factory was used as a base for
accelerated development of production. 

The first production sheds of the future Project Arzamas-16 were
built early 1947. Some laboratories were housed in monastery
buildings. Work was also going with a swing to build housing, a
medical center, a park, a stadium and a theater form coming
specialists. The new industry, fully ensuring solution of the
atomic problem, was created in a short period of time.
Arzamas-16 already tested its first atom bomb RDS-1 even in
1949. 

The Federal Nuclear Center concentrated an impressive
scientific, technical and design personnel. Outstanding
researchers worked at the federal center and at the All-Russian
Research Institute of Experimental Physics. The names of
Kurchatov, Khariton, Lavrentyev, Tamm, Flerov and Sakharov are
well known not only in Russia, but the world over. 

Now, former Arzamas-16 tackles not only the task of maintaining
reliability and security of Russian nuclear weapons. Starting
from 1990s, the federal center and the All-Russian Research
Institute of Experimental Physics, which have on their payroll
around 24,000 people, actively participate in international
scientific cooperation in open scientific spheres. 

An industrial park of high technologies is being built near
Sarov; it is being erected with assistance from Arzamas-16
nuclear specialists. Researchers of the All-Russian research
institute plan to produce protective systems for Russian planes
on its production facilities. 

Director of the nuclear center Rady Ilkayev said at a meeting
between the Russian president and the scientific community,
which was held in the Nizhny Novgorod during the visiting
session of the Russian State Council last February, that
production of such systems can be started already in 2007. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 64 ITAR-TASS: Rosatom chief visits Indian nuclear power plant construction site

08.04.2006, 15.59

NEW DELHI, April 8 (Itar-Tass) -- The Rosatom atomic energy
agency's head Sergei Kiriyenko, who is on a visit to India,
inspected the site of construction of two reactors of the Indian
Kudankulam nuclear power plant in the southern state of Tamil
Nadu on Saturday, the Rosatom head's press secretary Sergei
Novikov told Itar-Tass by telephone. 

The reactors are being constructed with Russian assistance. 

Kiriyenko also met with senior managers of the Atomstroiexport
company and the Indian atomic energy corporation participating
in the construction. 

The construction of the first reactor is 67-percent completed,
and the second is more than 50-percent completed, Novikov said
referring to the information of the meeting. 

About 63 percent of the earmarked Russian plant construction
funds totaling one billion and 182 million dollars are used. 

Earlier, the Rosatom chief met with the head of the Indian
atomic energy department, Anil Kakodkar. 




© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 65 BBC: FBI probes nuclear reactor hole
 
Last Updated: Saturday, 8 April 2006
 
[FBI logo]                              

The FBI says it "has a few leads"                       
			   		
A Florida energy company has called in the FBI and offered a 
$100,000 reward to try and find out who drilled a hole in one of 
its nuclear power stations. 

Workers at Florida Power and Light found the small hole when 
doing pre-start up tests on a reactor at the Turkey Point Unit 
Three power plant. 

It had been drilled - inadvertently or deliberately - into a 
cooling system pipe for one of its nuclear reactors. 

Florida Power has now repaired the damage and plans to restart 
the unit. 

Sabotage or accident? 

"At no time was the public's safety at risk," said an FBI 
statement. 

It is now investigating the damage, along with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. 

A Florida Power spokeswoman said that the company thought the 
hole was produced intentionally, but didn't know if it was a case 
of human error or a deliberate act of sabotage. 

The reactor had been shut down for routine maintenance, but many 
of the contractors hired to work on the plant have since left the 
site and might not know about the problem. 

"This way they will certainly hear about it," the spokeswoman 
told Reuters.                                                    



*****************************************************************
 66 ALERT: Homeland Security Would Allow No Cleanup Of Dirty Bomb Radiation!
 
Friday, April 07, 2006 2:46 PM

Subject: SIGN ON to STOP inadequate DHS Radiation Standards!

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) GUIDANCE TO ALLOW PUBLIC 
EXPOSURE TO MASSIVE RADIATION DOSES FROM “DIRTY BOMBS”

SIGN ON BY APRIL 12

The Department of Homeland Security has issued new guidance that 
would allow the government to do no cleanup of radioactive 
contamination after detonation of a radiological weapon (a 
so-called “dirty bomb”) and instead let people move back in and 
be exposed to doses as high as the equivalent of 50,000 chest 
X-rays. By the radiation risk estimates of the National Academy 
of Sciences, a third of the people so exposed would get cancer 
from the radiation. This is grossly unacceptable.

PLEASE: Sign on to the group letter opposing the dirty bomb 
guidance by emailing cindyf@nirs.org by close of business 
April 12.

Indicate your name, organization (if applicable), city and state. 
The letter and attachments can be viewed/downloaded at 

http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/cleanup/html

(2) In addition, if you can, please also send in individual 
comments to DHS by April 14.  Suggested points to make, 
background information, and instructions on how to send in the 
comments by email, fax or internet can be found at 
http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/urgentaction/urgentaction3.html

for more information, contact Dan Hirsch of the Committee to 
Bridge the Gap at (831) 336-8003.

*****************************************************************
 67 Las Vegas SUN: Rep. Probes Nuclear Compensation Program 

April 08, 2006 

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - 

For years, radiation experts at the nation's nuclear weapons
sites failed to adequately protect workers from on-the-job
hazards. Now, some of those experts are helping run a
compensation program for the workers. 

The situation has attracted the attention of Congress, with one
lawmaker pressing for an investigation into whether the workers
are being treated fairly. 

Rep. John Hostettler recently wrote to the investigative arm of
Congress to ask whether the contractor running the compensation
program has policies that are "sufficient to ensure that
conflicts or biases do not taint the credibility and quality of
the science produced to date." 

Hostettler, R-Ind., is chairman of a House subcommittee that
deals with people bringing claims against the government. 

Critics contend that the contractor, Oak Ridge Associated
Universities, has put into key jobs people who have managed
radiation monitoring programs at the weapons sites. In some
cases, those people were witnesses for the government when it
fought compensation claims. 

Jim Melius, who is on a presidential advisory board that
oversees the program, said, "It's so critical for this program
to be credible and for the claimants to have an understanding
and confidence that the people who were monitoring them - and
maybe in some cases failing to monitor them properly - will not
be the people passing judgment on their exposures and on their
compensation." 

Nearly 73,000 workers or their survivors have filed claims under
the program, according to the Labor Department. 

Government officials say they are preparing a policy that will
spell out how the contractor should handle conflicts of
interest. 

"It's a very difficult, complex dilemma that we face," said
Larry Elliott, who heads the office of compensation in the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The
agency oversees the contract. 

Elliott said the guidelines would try to balance the need to
rely on the radiation experts at the nuclear facilities for
their knowledge of the sites with concerns about potential
biases. 

He said it was difficult to find experts on the effects of
radiation who were not tied to the government's nuclear weapons
program. 

"There is a limited pool of experts here," he said. 

Kate Kimpan, who directs the contractor's program, said her
group will adhere to the guidelines and "ensure that our
conclusions are beyond refute." 

Five years ago, Congress decided to compensate the Cold War-era
workers - tens of thousands of whom worked at sites nationwide -
after the government admitted putting them at risk of cancer
caused by radiation exposure. Sick workers get $150,000 plus
medical benefits. 

The Oak Ridge, Tenn.-based contractor is writing reports that
detail hazards at weapons facilities. The reports are blueprints
the contractor is using to estimate how much radiation workers
were exposed to. 

Critics say some of the authors appear biased. 

Kelly Schmidt, a worker and union leader at the Hanford site in
Washington state, has complained that authors of the Hanford
report managed important aspects of the radiation program there. 

Schmidt noted that a version of the report stated it was
unlikely workers received large intakes of radiation that went
unnoticed because there was "rigorous workplace monitoring" at
Hanford. 

"It gives the impression that they're saying, 'Gosh, we did a
great job,'" Schmidt said. 

An auditor working for the advisory board raised concerns, too,
saying the Hanford report relied too heavily on the ability of
shields placed around nuclear reactors to protect workers from
radiation. 

The auditor also found that the Hanford report did not account
for all the possible radiation that workers who handled recycled
uranium might have been exposed to. 

An audit of Oak Ridge Associated Universities' report describing
the Y-12 weapons plant in Tennessee found that exposure to
radiation from thorium and plutonium was not adequately
accounted for. 

An audit of the report the contractor did involving the Rocky
Flats facility in Colorado found that the authors did not cast a
critical enough eye on "possible data integrity issues." That is
a reference, in part, to documents indicating workers had no
radiation exposure when evidence would suggest otherwise. 

Some workers there are upset that a manager of the radiation
monitoring program, Roger Falk, was an author. 

"By admitting that he didn't keep accurate records, he would be
admitting that he didn't do a good job," said Tony DeMaiori, the
former president of the local chapter of the United Steelworkers
Union. "He is not objective." 

The contractor declined to make Falk available to The Associated
Press. 

Kimpan, the program manager, said that under the new guidelines,
site reports would include more details regarding who
contributed to them and how. 

She also said there would be more oversight and more rigorous
editing of the reports, though she reiterated that the experts
who ran the monitoring programs would still be relied on. 

One instance where there is some agreement of a problem involves
the report for the Paducah uranium plant in Kentucky. 

Carol Berger wrote the report for the compensation contractor
and previously wrote an analysis assessing radiation exposure at
Paducah for an Energy Department contractor. Berger copied parts
of her old report into the new one, even though her earlier work
had been challenged for underestimating radiation hazards in a
subsequent Energy Department study. 

"Do I think a conflict of interest occurred at Paducah? Yes, I
do," said Elliott, of NIOSH. 

The report is being revised. 

--- 

On the Net: 

Compensation Program: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities: http://www.orau.org/ 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 68 AP Wire: Miss. court asked if medical monitoring issue ever contested in state

04/08/2006 | 

 JACK ELLIOTT JR. Associated Press 

JACKSON, Miss. - A federal appeals court has overturned the
dismissal of a toxic substance exposure lawsuit brought by a
group of employees seeking the establishment of a medical
monitoring trust fund. 

However, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday
withheld a final decision until the Mississippi Supreme Court
certifies that a medical monitoring cause of action is allowed
under state law. 

A cause of action is a specific legal claim - such as for
negligence or medical malpractice - for which a plaintiff seeks
compensation. Each cause of action is divided into elements, all
of which must be proved to present a winning case. 

In 2004, the plaintiffs sued the Boeing Company, Brush
Engineered Materials Inc. and Wess-Del Inc. The employees
alleged they were exposed to products containing beryllium while
employed at Boeing's facilities at the Stennis Space Center in
Hancock County and at Canoga Park in California. 

U.S. District Court Judge Louis Guirola Jr. dismissed the
lawsuit in 2005. 

The plaintiffs did not allege any present physical injury but
sought to have future medical examinations paid for by the
defendants through a medical monitoring fund. 

The issue of medical monitoring has been raised in several
states with mixed results. 

Organizations such as the American Tort Reform Association have
argued the theory of medical monitoring would hold defendants
responsible for an injury that the plaintiff has not and may
never develop. 

Others, including defense lawyers, claim that a plaintiff's fear
of developing an injury constitutes an injury in itself. 

In overturning Guirola's ruling, the 5th Circuit said the
plaintiffs proved that the defendants can be sued in Mississippi
because they have a presence in the state - such as Boeing's
plant - or produce and distributed products that were being used
in the state. 

However, the court said it could not determine whether the issue
of medical monitoring had ever been addressed by courts in
Mississippi. 

The 5th Circuit asked the Mississippi Supreme Court to answer
that question before the case would proceed in the federal
district court. 

Friday's ruling was issued by a panel of three 5th Circuit
judges: Eugene Davis, Jerry Smith and James Dennis. It was
written by Dennis. 

"The answers provided ... will determine the issue on appeal in
this case," Dennis said. 

Beryllium is a metallic element used in aerospace and defense
industries. It's not dangerous in solid form, but inhalation of
beryllium dust can cause a scarring lung disease that can be
fatal. 

Boeing used the material in the manufacture of parts for a space
shuttle. Brush Engineered Materials sold Boeing many of the
beryllium-containing products, according to the court record. 

Wess-Del allegedly sold the products to Boeing with the
knowledge that they would be used in space shuttle construction
in Boeing's Mississippi facility, according to the lawsuit.
*****************************************************************
 69 CINCINNATI ENQUIRER: Firefighters Called To Fernald Plant
                     
 Reported by: 9News

 Web produced by: Neil Relyea

 Photographed by: 9News

 First posted: 4/9/2006 11:40:42 AM 

There were some tense moments when the call went out, but no 
major problems were reported with a fire alarm Saturday afternoon 
at the Fernald uranium processing plant. 

Officials say no one was hurt and that there were no evacuations. 

The smoke was discovered in insulation from a building that's 
being torn down there. 

The fire was out and the smoke cleared in less than an hour. 

[Cincinnati.Com]     
	
All material © 2006 WCPO-TV Scripps Howard Broadcasting
*****************************************************************
 70 Medical News Today: When Cells Exposed To Uranium They Acquire Mutations
      
Main Category: Genetics News

 Article Date: 09 Apr 2006 - 4:00am (UK)[ align=] 

 Low-grade uranium ore is nicknamed "yellowcake" for its color
and powdered consistency. The Navajo have another name: Leetso,
or "yellow monster." 

The yellow monster surfaced on the Navajo Nation with uranium
mining that started in the 1940s and continued for the next
several decades. In its aftermath came illnesses such as among
mine workers and worries about environmental contamination among
people who live on that land. 

The Navajos believe you must gain knowledge of a monster to slay
it and restore nature's balance. Northern Arizona University
biochemist Diane Stearns and her Navajo students are not only
gaining knowledge, they are adding to that knowledge with new
discoveries about uranium. 

The fact that uranium, as a radioactive metal, can damage DNA is
well documented. But what Stearns and her collaborators recently
have found is that uranium can also damage DNA as a heavy metal,
independent of its radioactive properties. 

Stearns and her team are the first to show that when cells are
exposed to uranium, the uranium binds to DNA and the cells
acquire mutations. When uranium attaches to DNA, the genetic
code in the cells of living organisms, it can change that code.
As a result, the DNA can make the wrong protein or wrong amounts
of protein, which affects how the cells grow. Some of these
cells can grow to become cancer. 

"Essentially, if you get a heavy metal stuck on DNA, you can get
a mutation," Stearns explained. Other heavy metals are known to
bind to DNA, but Stearns and her colleagues are the first to
identify this trait with uranium. Their results were published
recently in the journals Mutagenesis and Molecular
Carcinogenesis. 

Their findings have far-reaching implications for people living
near abandoned mine tailings in the Four Corners area of the
Southwest and for war-torn countries and the military, which
uses depleted uranium for anti-tank weapons, tank armor and
ammunition rounds. Depleted uranium is what is left over when
most of the highly radioactive isotopes of uranium are removed. 

"The health effects of uranium really haven't been studied since
the Manhattan Project (the development of the atomic bomb in the
early 1940s). But now there is more interest in the health
effects of depleted uranium. People are asking questions now,"
Stearns said. 

The questions include whether there is a connection between
exposure to depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome or to
increased cancers and birth defects in the Middle East. Stearns
said it is estimated that more than 300 tons of depleted uranium
were used during the first Gulf War. Military uses of depleted
uranium in weapons continue today. 

Closer to home, questions continue to be asked about
environmental exposure to uranium from mine tailings that dot
the landscape across the Navajo Nation. 

"When the uranium mining boom crashed in the '80s, it really
crashed and there wasn't much cleanup," Stearns said. Estimates
put the number of abandoned mines on the Navajo Nation at more
than 1,100. 

NAU senior Hertha Woody grew up on the Navajo Nation in
Shiprock, N.M. Before joining Stearns' research group, Woody
said she was not very aware of heavy metal contamination of soil
and water from a large uranium tailing pile near her hometown.
But now she wonders about the ongoing health problems of her
uncle who worked in the uranium mine at Shiprock. And she
worries about others living in the area. 

"My parents still live there and drink the water," she noted. 

There's another Navajo word that Woody shares. It is hozho,
which relates to harmony, balance and beauty. Woody explained
that the yellow monster disrupts hozho and that uranium should
remain in the ground to ensure balance. In fact, in the spring
of 2005, Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley, Jr., signed the
Diné Natural Resources Protection Act, which bans uranium
mining and processing on the Navajo Nation. 

Woody said she has learned a great deal and not just in the
realm of science. "It opens up doors and windows everywhere
else," she said, noting that the work has raised her awareness
about mine safety, tribal issues and reclamation efforts. 

"When we first heard of the yellow monster, it was scary and not
much was understood until the research began and it was passed
on to the people through booklets and talks at the chapter
houses," said Sheryl Martinez, a junior in NAU's nursing program
and another member of Stearns' research group. Martinez, also a
native of Shiprock, hopes to return to her community and put her
knowledge to work after graduation. 

The funding for Stearns' work is tied to improving health among
Native American communities. Stearns is the NAU principal
investigator of a grant jointly awarded to NAU and the Arizona
Cancer Center by the National Cancer Institute. Louise Canfield
is the principal investigator on the grant for the Arizona
Cancer Center. Collectively, these two grants comprise the
Native American Cancer Research Partnership, a consortium of
cancer researchers and educators at NAU and the Arizona Cancer
Center. NACRP is one of only five such partnerships in the
nation and the only one focused on Native American issues. 

"The data on Native Americans for cancer evidence is very poor,"
Stearns said. "Navajo and Hopi may not get cancer to a greater
extent, but the survival rate is lower than the general
population." Stearns said the lower survival rate might be more
the result of limited access to care or cultural boundaries that
may prevent people from seeking care. 

A goal of the partnership is to address these disparities by
training Native students for cancer-related careers. 

In this way, Stearns and her students can help slay the yellow
monster, whether on the Navajo Nation or abroad. 

### 

-NAU- 

Photo Caption: Northern Arizona University biochemist Diane
Stearns, top, working with student researchers like Hertha
Woody, has discovered that uranium damages DNA as a heavy metal,
independent of its radioactive properties. Photo by Jerry
Foreman. 

Contact: Lisa Nelson
 Lisa.Nelson@nau.edu
 

© 2006 MediLexicon International Ltd   

*****************************************************************
 71 Deseret News: No nuclear waste plant, says EnergySolutions
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Sunday, April 9, 2006

Associated Press
                                              
SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah company is among nearly 40 firms 
expressing interest in operating a pilot plant to recycle nuclear 
waste for the Department of Energy.

       But EnergySolutions — formerly Envirocare — says it has no 
plans to build a recycling facility in Utah.

       "I can promise you, categorically, it's not anywhere in 
Utah," said Tim Barney, vice president of governmental relations 
at the company.

       Barney declined to say where such a facility might be 
built.

       Last month, the DOE asked communities and companies to 
state their interest in a project aimed at finding ways to 
reusing spent nuclear fuel.

       Congress has allocated $20 million this year to evaluate 
possible sites. DOE expects to begin accepting formal proposals 
by the spring and begin site evaluation studies in the summer.

       On Friday DOE released a list of 36 names, including 
individuals, counties and corporations interested in the project. 
Some names, including EnergySolutions', were withheld at the 
companies' request.

       Duratek Inc., a South Carolina company which is in the 
process of being acquired by EnergySolutions, was on the list of 
companies bidding for a shot at the project.                                                       

	 	 	 		 	 
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		
*****************************************************************
 72 Ventura County Star: Runoff limits at field lab delayed

By Daniel Miller dmiller@VenturaCountyStar.com and Teresa
Rochester trochester@VenturaCountyStar.com

April 8, 2006

Agreeing with Boeing Co.'s argument that no substantial harm will 
come to the public interest, a state regulator on Friday 
temporarily delayed tighter limits on storm-water runoff from the 
company's Santa Susana Field Laboratory south of Simi Valley. 

The State Water Resources Control Board granted the company's 
request to postpone the new rules at least for several months 
until a hearing is held by the board. 

 Boeing sought the freeze after the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board denied the company's request to ease the
pollution limits in storm water running off the 2,850-acre
laboratory in January. 

The regional board is responsible for issuing permits that set
contaminant levels in storm water. 

Boeing spokeswoman Inger Hodgson said the company is pleased
with the board's decision. 

"We now look forward to a hearing on the merits," Hodgson said. 

Friday's decision granting the stay was made by the state
control board's vice chair, Gerald D. Secundy, said State Water
Resources Control Board spokesman William L. Rukeyser. Later
this year, the full state control board will hear the case
again, when the issue will be examined on merits, Rukeyser said. 

"When the full board meets, it will be a much broader
examination of all the issues," Rukeyser said, "rather than a
narrow examination of the process issues" which preceded the
Friday announcement. 

The field laboratory, which is a former rocket engine test site,
had accumulated 48 violations of pollution discharge limits in a
nine-month period. 

The Department of Energy conducted nuclear research at the site,
which also was the location of a 1956 nuclear reactor meltdown. 

"It appears the decision simply takes Boeing's word that it will
make its best effort," said John Farrow, an attorney
representing the nuclear watchdog group the Committee to Bridge
the Gap. Farrow made legal arguments at Monday's hearing on
behalf of the group. 

"We don't think the regulatory system is supposed to simply
accept Boeing's representation that they will continue to make
their best efforts. There is plenty of evidence introduced that
the site has contaminated water, adjacent property, and it
continues to exude pollutants," Farrow said. 

Radioactive and chemical contaminants have been found in water
and soil at the site, which has been undergoing cleanup for
years. 

Farrow said he expects the watchdog group to "weigh in" at the
full board meeting. 

Boeing wanted the pollution limits relaxed for eight months in
order to give it time to study better ways to meet the board's
demands, which included tighter pollutant limits in water
runoff. Regional board members said no and suggested the company
bring in a independent monitor to test what is coming off the
hill. 

Two months earlier, in November, the regional board issued
Boeing a cleanup and abatement order, requiring the company to
immediately initiate a cleanup program and to start corrective
and preventive actions to bring the discharges into full
compliance. 

Also in November, Boeing received a subpoena for documents of
the locations of where storm water discharges at the field
laboratory and the level of substances found in the water. A
federal grand jury has launched an inquiry into the laboratory. 

The contaminant level in water runoff at the lab also resulted
in a lawsuit filed last month in federal court in Los Angeles.
Three environmental interest groups, including the Committee to
Bridge the Gap, filed the suit asking a federal judge to order
Boeing to adhere to established limits. 

Up to 272 million gallons of storm water per day and 1.5 million
gallons per day of industrial wastewater are discharged into
Bell Creek, Arroyo Simi, Dayton Canyon Creek and other
tributaries of the Los Angeles River, according to the suit. 

  2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co.       Ventura County Star
subscription services
*****************************************************************
 73 St. Paul Pioneer Press: Yucca Mountain nuclear storage gets more attention

| 04/09/2006 | 

Promises, promises. The federal government long has promised to
take responsibility for permanent storage of waste from nuclear
power plants, including the two in Minnesota. The government's
own deadline was 1998. So far, that promise has amounted to a $9
billion investment in the waste dump site at Yucca Mountain,
Nev., that is still years away from accepting spent nuclear
material from plants like those at Prairie Island, Minn. 

The Bush administration is renewing momentum to get the Nevada
site running. It is behind legislation that, among other things,
would increase the amount of spent fuel the site can take. It
would also designate the money utilities are required to pay
each year for developing the storage site expressly for Yucca
Mountain. 

Nuclear generation will remain a part of the mix for powering
the future. It is reasonable to argue how much of the mix it
should be. But there are 55,000 tons of waste already waiting at
sites around the country, including at Prairie Island, where
above-ground storage began in 1995. 

To take charge of reality, this national nuclear waste storage
site is essential. Legislation to press for it deserves public
attention and support. 

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., introduced the legislation last
week. It faces an uphill battle, as have other attempts to get
this job done at the Nevada site over the last two decades. But
the administration's strong push to solve the Yucca problem is a
positive one. 

Perhaps nowhere in the country is the case for a permanent
national nuclear waste solution more compelling than in the
experience of Prairie Island. The two Xcel Energy nuclear plants
there are located in close quarters with the Prairie Island
Indian Community. Above-ground storage of waste waiting for the
permanent repository is located within 600 yards of housing on
the reservation. The property adjoins the Mississippi River.
Both the Indian Community and the power plants use one access
road to the area. The Indians estimate that up to 10,000 people
are on Prairie Island when it is a busy day at their casino. 

The state granted permission for Xcel Energy to allow 17 casks
where the waste is encased. In 2003, with those casks full, the
Prairie Island community negotiated a settlement with Xcel that
allows enough additional casks in order for the plant to keep
running until its operating licenses for the twin reactors
expire in 2013 and 2014. 

The amount of spent fuel waste of course continues to grow.
There are now 20 casks, each holding 16 metric tons of uranium,
at the Prairie Island site. Excel says the total weight of
material in each cask is 52,000 pounds, counting such debris as
fuel assemblies. On average, Xcel says, two casks are filled
each year. The storage platform — or pad —under the containers
at Prairie Island is designed to hold a maximum of 48. 

In the best case, the federal estimates are that Yucca Mountain
won't be ready until 2020. There are other initiatives afoot,
such as how to reinstitute reprocessing — or recycling of
nuclear material — so there is less overall waste from each
generating plant. But waste is accumulating at nuclear power
plants and will continue to do so. A permanent storage site is
an inescapable part of nuclear waste management. 

Minnesota's Xcel Energy customers alone have contributed more
than $345 million — $585 million with interest — to the federal
government's required payments for the nuclear waste storage
project. But the federal government plays loose with the money,
which of course slows down the project. 

Around the country, more than 100 sites in 39 states are storing
waste. Nuclear power will remain a part of the electrical energy
equation. The feds have to solve this problem by keeping their
promise with Yucca Mountain storage. 

*****************************************************************
 74 Deseret News: How to comment on high-level nuclear waste transportation
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, April 8, 2006

Fight nuclear waste, Utahns urged

To comment on high-level nuclear waste
transportation across public lands, contact:

       Pam Schuller
       U.S. Bureau of Land
       Management
       Salt Lake Field Office
       2370 S. 2300 West
       Salt Lake City, UT 84119
       E-mail address: pam_schuller@blm.gov
      Deadline: May 8

Source: Salt Lake Chamber
 			  		 		   

	 	 	 		 	 
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		
*****************************************************************
 75 Taipei Times: Not in my backyard By Lisa Zagaroli

  Sun, Apr 09, 2006

 NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE , WASHINGTON 

Sunday, Apr 09, 2006,Page 17 

  A handout picture provided by Greenpeace shows the Russian
ship Kapitan Kuroptev arriving in the port of St. Petersburg
with nuclear waste. The Russian vessel transports to Russia
nuclear fuel and waste produced in Europe.

 PHOTO: AFP
   

Engineers from around the world come to Malcolm Gray for lessons
about how to dispose of their nuclear waste.

 Gray acknowledges there are technical matters that aren't
completely resolved. No country has actually started burying its
waste yet, after all. But the science isn't really going to be
the hard part, he tells them.

 "To get the social acceptance is the difficult and tricky
thing," says Gray, a Vienna, Austria-based engineer who manages
the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) training and
development program for high-level radioactive waste disposal.

 Though 33 countries have spent nuclear fuel from electricity
production, only the US, with Yucca Mountain, and Finland, with
Olkiluoto, have singled out actual sites for its burial.

 The question of what to do with the world's nuclear waste is a
growing concern as more countries look to nuclear power to solve
their long-term energy needs and the Bush administration
considers the global role the US will play in keeping that power
source safe from terrorists.

  Young activists of Ukraine's Green party protest in Kiev
against president Viktor Yushchenko's plan to store foreign
nuclear waste at Chernobyl.

The Department of Energy last week unveiled major nuclear waste
legislation it hopes will accelerate progress on the stalled
Yucca Mountain project and plans this summer to submit a new
timetable for when the government will begin accepting waste for
burial.

 Though it is years behind schedule, the US is unique in that it
even tries to maintain deadlines, says Charles Fairhurst, a
professor emeritus who headed the civil engineering department
at the University of Minnesota.

"The United States, we always have timetables," says Fairhurst,
who once chaired a National Academy of Sciences panel on waste
isolation. "We're always setting deadlines which we've never
met."

 "A lot of countries don't give timetables, so the issue doesn't
become quite as focused."

 Fairhurst has been a consultant to the Swiss nuclear waste
program, an adviser to the French, and was also involved in the
Swedish project.

 "A number of countries are making good progress, but for
various reasons, they don't feel under the same time pressures
as the US," he says.

At the end of last year, there were about 284,000 tons of spent
fuel in storage worldwide, with about 54,000 tons of it in the
US, said Steven Kraft, senior director of used fuel management
at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a policy organization for the
commercial nuclear industry.

 There's one conclusion that all of the countries who have a
plan, even a loose one, can agree on. Waste that could be
radioactive for tens of thousands of years should be buried in
the ground.

  Twelve containers loaded on trucks and carrying nuclear waste
from a French resprocessing plant enter the storage facility in
Goleben, Germany.
 PHOTO: AFP
   

A number of nations considered a range of options that included
shooting the waste into the sun, embedding it under polar ice
sheets and burrowing it below the ocean floor.

 But burying it in dry, stable ground is considered the safest
option for both transporting it and disposing of it by every
country that has made any decisions.

 "Of the 33 nations that currently have inventories of used
fuel, 23 have specific plans to develop a geological
depository," Kraft said. "The others don't seem to have any
plans just yet."
 		 
What nations are grappling with is site selection.

 The scientific question centers on whether they should go with
clay, salt, granite or some other formation that will keep the
radioactive waste safe from seepage, penetration and disruption
as it takes centuries to cool.

 Many countries are so small they don't have as many choices as
the US had before settling on Yucca Mountain, which is made up
of layers of volcanic tuff in rural Nevada. It was picked over
sites across the country including salt domes and granite mines.

  A ''no trespassing'' sign stands at the edge of a village on
the Skull Valley Goshute reservation in western Utah. A group of
nuclear utilities is planning to build a private nuclear waste
dump on the Indian reservation. 

PHOTO: NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE
   
In one of the nation's least populated areas, Yucca's choice
still has many critics vexed that it was chosen for political
reasons more than its geologic suitability.

 "Politics trumped science," said Kevin Kamps, a waste
specialist at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. "We
need a genuine search for a geology that can contain waste for
the duration of the hazard. ... We have not found that geology
yet."

 Though Yucca is mired in lawsuits and doubt, the objections
have been rather tame compared to what protesters in some
countries have pulled off.

 "I'd have to say that in the US, even though there's widespread
resistance, we just haven't seen the huge numbers that some of
these countries have," Kamps said. "That may still be to come if
shipments were to start, for example."

 Kamps said one of the more dramatic examples of how the public
can quash a site came a couple years ago in Italy. Italians had
years earlier decided to stop using nuclear energy because of
the Chernobyl disaster, which occurred 20 years ago this month.
But the Italians still needed a place to store the waste they'd
created at four reactors.

 When the Italian government announced it had picked a site near
the Mediterranean on Italy's southernmost tip, 100,000 people
took to the streets within days to protest. They used vehicles
and farm animals to block roadways, according to news reports at
the time. Within two weeks, the whole idea was killed.

 South Korea faced candlelight vigils nightly for months and
protesters were harmed, Kamps said, and the government
eventually backed down as well.

 German protests have become notorious over the last decade.
Anti-nuclear demonstrators strap themselves to train tracks when
waste is being transported between a reprocessing center in
France to a centralized storage spot in Germany, and when
they're disrupted by police, they repeat the protest at another
place along the track. A French environmentalist died in one
such protest in 2004.

 The Germans decided to phase out atomic energy, though their
legislators are still bickering about the decision. And they've
been struggling with finding a permanent repository over the
strong public objections.

 "They were perfectly acceptable," Gray said of earlier
identified German sites. "It's a classic problem."

 Canada and probably the UK, which recently formed a new
national agency on the subject, will continue to rely on storage
while they do more in-depth studies of long-term repositories,
Gray said.

 "Storage as an option is more acceptable than disposal for the
time-being," Gray said.

 France, which walked away from a site several years ago and is
re-evaluating where to go next, in the meantime is reprocessing
its waste in a centralized location. While the French reprocess
fuel for the Germans and Japanese and other nations, the waste
has to be returned to the countries of origin.

 The Japanese have a new reprocessing plant they are testing but
don't have a candidate disposal site yet, Kraft said.

 Reprocessing makes the product smaller, but the waste is no
less radioactive than before.

 "The waste, a small constituent of spent fuel itself, is what
drives all the requirements for disposal and storage," Kraft
said. "With reprocessing, you do have a smaller item to deal
with. Radiation and heat levels are the same, that's the key
point."

 The Finnish bedrock at Olkiluoto is crystalline rock. Having
secured the site, the Finns now are working on excavation and
licensing.

 "I know the Finnish people have come to seem to be more
accepting and see the financial benefits and have trust that
it's going to be done correctly," Kraft said.

 Aside from the IAEA, which doesn't have any binding authority
over nations, there's no international governing body whose job
is to make sure there's a long-term plan for nuclear waste,
which, with a few exceptions of centralized storage spots, is
simply being stored at all of the sites where it was generated.
There are more than 100 sites in the US alone.

 Still, the international agency is trying to do its part,
training engineers from countries as varied as China, South
Korea, South Africa, Argentina, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia
on both the scientific and social challenges of nuclear waste
disposal.

 "(The IAEA) can make suggestions and give guidelines, but the
real control comes from the individual national authorities,"
said Gray, who operates a series of underground laboratories at
various research facilities in the US, Sweden, Switzerland and
Belgium.

 He says he's encouraged by the efforts of growing countries to
come up with a plan for their waste.

 Gray said China plans to add 23 new reactors to the few it has
already and is incorporating waste management early on its
plans. "They're being very, very responsible for their attitudes
in that regard," he said.

 Several trainees from India also have taken part in the
international program, he said.

 "They do have a large waste management section in the research
institute," Gray said.

 The international cooperation is important because so few
people worldwide have the technological knowledge to deal with
nuclear waste, he said.

 "Fundamentally it will end up being an international concern,"
Gray said.

 More than 400 nuclear power plants are in operation worldwide.

This story has been viewed 342 times.     
  
Copyright © 1999-2006 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 76 Las Vegas SUN: Hal Rothman on why Nevadans should continue to oppose Bush's nuclear waste project 

Today: April 09, 2006 at 7:52:38 PDT 

It is back! Just when you thought it was safe to go back into
the desert, Yucca Mountain rears its convoluted, ugly head. Even
after we've driven a spike in the vampire's heart, the darn
thing refuses to die. A few signs of life remain, at least if
you're a member of the Bush administration. Hal Rothman on why
Nevadans should continue to oppose Bush's nuclear waste project 

This time, the efforts to revive it reek of desperation. 

This past week Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman spearheaded an
administration effort to clear away obstacles to opening the
dump - whoops, I mean, the repository. 

Basically, the bill sent to Congress this past week seeks to
overturn Nevada law and diminish the regulatory structure that
governs the site. No longer are they trying to persuade us that
Yucca Mountain is scientifically sound, morally defensible and
nationally significant. The pretense is gone. With the same deft
skill that took us to Iraq, they are trying to ram it down our
throat. Science? Law? Out the window. 

Former Gov. Bob List can make an argument that we should accept
the dump, but if he does it around me, he had better bring his
good stuff. I will whack the lame tripe you have been spewing
right back at you, Governor! 

Yucca Mountain was a bad idea to begin with and it has gotten
worse. The siting process has never been about science. It has
always been about politics, and vicious power politics at that. 

We were singled out for this one in 1987. Sen. Bennett Johnston
of Louisiana crafted legislation that insiders know as the
"Screw Nevada Bill." Instead of two repositories, one east of
the Mississippi River and one in the West, there was only to be
one: Yucca Mountain. No more Deaf Smith County, Texas, or
Hanford, Wash., the other two proposed sites, each with baggage
equal to the Nevada Test Site. Only Yucca Mountain remained. 

Where was science in this, then or now? Nowhere to be seen. The
subsequent 20 years of maneuvering have been all about politics.
No one seems to care whether the location can actually safely
hold the nuclear waste. That is apparent as the administration
seeks to increase the carrying capacity of the dump from 77,000
tons to 132,000 tons before they even have approval to open the
darned thing. What's an extra 55,000 tons of nuclear waste
between friends? 

I hate to break it to the nuclear industry, but Yucca Mountain
is beyond repair, crashed on the rocks of Nevada's newfound
national significance. The phenomenal growth of Las Vegas and
the ever-increasing role Nevada plays in national politics have
combined to make Yucca Mountain a tenuous proposition. 

Sen. Harry Reid is the most powerful politician in this state's
history, far surpassing Sen. Pat McCarran, the only other
possible claimant. Reid gets a great deal of the credit for
stymieing Yucca Mountain. The resolute objections of the rest of
the congressional delegation have also helped. And Nevada's
incredible generosity to both political parties has made it
easier to get our point of view across. We have turned the tide
on this one. 

But we are not through yet. 

The Energy Department has a long history of initiating projects
with minimal attention to rules and law, and when faced with
objection, arguing that since it has already spent so much
money, it should just continue. After all, why not throw good
money after bad? 

This has become the rationale for Yucca Mountain. Instead of
saying it is the right place to safely store the dangerous
remnants that nuclear power generates, they now say "we promised
the nuclear industry and we already spent a lot of money." This
is perfect reasoning if your goal is expedience and you don't
care a whit about the nearly 2 million people who live in Clark
County, not to mention the 40 million who visit here annually. 

We have held out against this scourge for a long time and have
finally turned the corner. Each year since President Bush
recommended Yucca Mountain for the storage of nuclear waste, the
opening of the dump has become less likely. Even though List
would like you to think the dump is inevitable, it is not. If it
were inevitable, the nuclear industry would not pay a fat fee
for his services as its frontman. Hal Rothman is a history
professor at UNLV. His column appears Sunday in the Las Vegas
Sun. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 77 San Bernardino County Sun: Groundwater contamination fight may just be beginning

Jeff Horwitz, Staff Writer  

  After nearly four years of litigation and more than $1.5
million in attorneys fees, San Bernardino County officials and
attorneys say the legal wrangling over perchlorate pollution in
groundwater may just be getting started.

 On Tuesday, the County Counsel's Office is expected to request
an additional $200,000 to cover legal fees stemming from
perchlorate suits between government agencies.

 "It's nowhere near done," Peter Wulfman, the county's solid
waste management division manager, said of the litigation. "We
might be on the tip of the iceberg on that."

 The $200,000 would be the most recent addition to the county's
contract with Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winston &Blinderman LLP, a
Los Angeles-based law firm that handles
perchlorate-contamination litigation for the county at a cost of
$320 an hour.

 Given the fact there are multiple lawsuits involving more than
three dozen defendants, legal maneuvers over the contamination
have taken both time - one trial is tentatively scheduled to
begin in late 2007 - and deep pockets.

 "In terms of where money goes in litigation, obviously, there
are the lawyers," said Joel Moskowitz, an attorney for the
county. "And after that there are the experts. And after that,
there are the paralegals and support personnel."

 Perchlorate, a salt used to make certain rocket fuels and
explosives, can inhibit thyroid function. Multiple businesses in
north Rialto handled or stored perchlorate, including some that
were once located on land the county later bought for an
expansion of the Mid-Valley Landfill.

 The chemical seeped into the groundwater, where it has slowly
migrated into wells that supply water to Colton and Rialto.
Though the county is not responsible for the original
contamination, the county's waste management division has been
drawn into litigation over efforts to safeguard local wells and 
ultimately remove the chemical from the water supply.

 The big bills racked up aren't a sign that anyone's
litigation-happy, said Bob Owen, city attorney for Rialto. His
city, a plaintiff in a case against the county, has likely
outspent the county, he said. Perchlorate litigation in other
areas of Southern California has dragged on for literally
decades without any resolution, he said.

 In contrast, the county has already invested in a Rialto
water-cleansing facility, Owen said, and will be participating
in mediation that could potentially resolve some of the dispute
between the two jurisdictions next week.

 "The city and the county are talking settlement, and I believe
we're close, but I can't comment on that," Owen said. 

"I think the City Council and the Board of Supervisors believe
it's nonsensical for two public agencies to be litigating these
issues and that they'd be better focused on solving the problem
with those same dollars," he said.

 The county has no reason to stonewall, Wulfman said.

 "It was pretty evident that perchlorate was found on property
we purchased," he said, "and being the county, we took a
proactive role rather than a resistance role."

 Who ultimately will pay for the litigation is unclear, Wulfman
said. In addition to the central litigation over perchlorate
contamination, the county has hired a second firm to pursue
claims filed with the county's insurers.

 "Until the county sees the insurance money, we're not saying
we're getting any," Wulfman said.   
                  
Updated: April 09, 2006 7:49 AM PDT
  
Los Angeles Newspaper Group 
*****************************************************************
 78 Daily Herald: Utah company interested in waste recycling project
              
Sunday, April 09, 2006

The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY -- A Utah company is among nearly 40 firms
expressing interest in operating a pilot plant to recycle
nuclear waste for the Department of Energy.

But EnergySolutions -- formerly Envirocare -- says it has no
plans to build a recycling facility in Utah. 

"I can promise you, categorically, it's not anywhere in Utah,"
said Tim Barney, vice president of governmental relations at the
company.

Barney declined to say where such a facility might be built.
Last month, the DOE asked communities and companies to state
their interest in a project aimed at finding ways to reuse spent
nuclear fuel.

Congress has allocated $20 million this year to evaluate
possible sites. DOE expects to begin accepting formal proposals
by the spring and begin site evaluation studies in the summer.

On Friday DOE released a list of 36 names, including
individuals, counties and corporations interested in the
project. Some names, including EnergySolutions', were withheld
at the companies' request.

Duratek Inc., a South Carolina company which is in the process
of being acquired by EnergySolutions, was on the list of
companies bidding for a shot at the project.

Others on the list include firms with established nuclear
operations, such as AREVA Enterprises Inc., CH2M Hill, and
General Electric Co., as well as Washington Savannah River Co.,
which operates the Energy Department's Savannah River facility
in South Carolina.

The United States abandoned reprocessing during the Carter
administration. Great Britain, France, Russia and Japan have
continued to pursue reprocessing programs.

DOE Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell says a successful
demonstration of recycling technologies will enable the U.S. and
other countries to change the way spent nuclear fuel is stored
and reduce proliferation concerns.

Duratek currently handles Class A, B and C radioactive wastes.
EnergySolutions, which owns a landfill in the desert 80 miles
west of Salt Lake City, is only allowed to handle Class A, the
lowest level of waste.

In February, EnergySolutions also announced it would buy BNG
America, another waste firm. 

The acquisition expands EnergySolutions' ability to handle a
range of processes involving radioactive materials, including
cleanups, power-plant maintenance, shipping, packaging, waste
minimization, recycling, treatment and disposal. This story
appeared in The Daily Herald on page B5. 				   			 			

Copyright © 2006 Daily Herald
*****************************************************************
 79 Wiscasset: Maine Yankee Waiting For Waste Removal Legislation

apr 06, 2006   

Charlotte Boynton 

Eric Howes, spokesperson for Maine Yankee, told the Community
Advisory Panel (CAP) On the Removal of Spent Fuel at their March
30 meeting that the Bush administration is preparing legislation
to reform the Spent Nuclear Facility Disposal Program. 

According to Howes, based on recent testimony before Congress by
Department of Energy (DOE) officials, the bill would bring about
a change in the way the program is funded and solve some of the
problems that have caused delays in the underground nuclear
waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, called Yucca
Mountain. 

Each year about $750 million goes into the fund, but the program
in the past has received only a portion of that. In fiscal year
2007, DOE is requesting $544.5 million for the nuclear waste
disposal program. That is nearly $100 million more than the
current $450 million budget of 2006, and less than the 2005
budget, which was $577 million. 

The fund was created in 1982 specifically to pay for the
development of Yucca Mountain. "The money comes from an
assessment on users of electricity generated by nuclear
reactors. However, lawmakers have used the nuclear waste fund to
offset other spending," Howes said. 

According to Charles Pray, nuclear waste advisor to Governor
John Baldacci, and a member of the CAP, the nuclear industry is
pressing the Bush administration to include in the legislation
the transport and storage of spent nuclear fuel prior to the
opening of Yucca Mountain. 

A program to reduce nuclear waste and recover energy was
discussed at the CAP meeting. 

According to Pray, the Bush administration has unveiled the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Program (GNEP) 

The administration is asking for $243 million this year for the
program. If and when the program is implemented it will promote
nuclear energy at home and abroad and recycle spent nuclear fuel
using new proliferation-resistant technologies to reduce waste. 

"The technologies being proposed are not proven," Howes said.
"It will cost billions of dollars for research and is decades
away before being commercially viable." 

"DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman has said several times, that Yucca
Mountain will proceed independent of the GNEP," Howes said. The
DOE was required by the federal government to have a place where
nuclear fuel generated by nuclear power plants could be stored
by 1998. 

Maine Yankee had sought approximately $160 million in damages
through 2010 from the federal government for its failure to
begin removing the fuel as required in 1998. 

The case was heard in 2004 in the U.S. Court of Claims. In a
2005 case the court ruled that nuclear power plants like Maine
Yankee could not recover future damages and limited recovery to
those damages that have actually been sustained . 

Therefore, in December of 2005 Maine Yankee filed an amended
claim of $79 million for damages through 2002. A decision is
expected later this year. 

According to Howes, Maine Yankee will file separate claims for
damages after 2002. 

Maine Yankee closed in 1997, and has completed a successful
decommissioning with all the plant structures removed and the
site restored to required clean-up standards. 

This past December the company received a letter from the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 Administrator Samuel
Collins, congratulating Maine Yankee on safely and successfully
completing the initial phase of decommissioning of the Maine
Yankee site. 

The plant's spent fuel as well as its Greater than Class C waste
is stored in dry cask storage units on approximately 12 acres of
the land called the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation,
(ISFSI) The waste will remain there until DOE fulfils its
obligation and provides a site for it to be disposed of. When
that time comes, the spent fuel and Greater than Class C waste
will be removed from the concrete casks and shipped in the
sealed steel transport canisters by DOE for permanent storage.
Exactly how that will happen is unclear since DOE is in the
process of developing a standard shipping canister and has not
yet indicated how it intends to handle spent nuclear fuel like
Maine Yankee's that is now ready for transport in NRC-licensed
containers. This issue affects about 30 dry cask storage sites
in the country. More information on DOE's plans are expected
this summer. 

"Once the spent fuel is removed, the ISFSI will be
decommissioned in a manner similar to the power plant," said
Howes.	The concrete casks and other ISFSI structures will be
demolished and disposed of. Then the site will be radiologically
surveyed. During the decommissioning, if there is any low level
radioactive waste, it will be disposed of at a licensed
facility. 

There are 60 canisters of spent fuel (containing 1,434 spent
fuel assemblies removed from the plant's fuel pool) located on
the ISFSI site with four canisters of Greater than Class C
material (steel that was removed from the plant reactor vessel). 

Maine Yankee has joined with other groups dedicated to moving
the spent nuclear fuel from the site. 

The CAP established in 1997 on decommissioning of the plant took
on a new role after the plant was decommissioned to advocate the
prompt removal of the nuclear waste. 

The CAP's next meeting will be in October.

  The Wiscasset Newspaper headlines
 
  editor@wiscassetnewspaper.maine.com   Wiscasset Newspaper P.O. 
Box 429, Wiscasset, ME 04578     Tel: 207.882.6355 
MaineStreethttp://wiscassetnewspaper.maine.com/2006-04-06/maine_y 
ankee.html rev 2006-04-07 
*****************************************************************
 80 Cañon City Daily Record: Mixed reaction to Cotter ruling
 
Cañon City and the Greater Royal Gorge Region
   
  Publish Date: 4/7/2006 			 

Debbie Bell The Daily Record                                                                                

The ruling to uphold a decision barring Cotter Corp. from 
accepting radioactive waste from Maywood, N.J., at its Cañon City 
plant has been met with widely varied local reaction. 

Members of Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste heralded
Tuesday’s decision by administrative law judge Richard Dana. The
judge upheld an earlier state health department decision
following public hearings last fall, banning Cotter from
accepting soil from the New Jersey Superfund site. 

But the Fremont County Independent Outreach Committee took a
more pragmatic approach to the decision and saw many positive
results in Dana’s findings. 

The seven-member committee met Thursday afternoon to discuss the
judge’s decision and the group’s next steps. 

FCIOC emphasized although Cotter has been banned from accepting
the Maywood soil, the company is still moving forward with its
request to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment to accept about 11,000 tons of raffinate materials
from Sequoyah Fuels Corporation. 

The SFC site in Gore, Okla., is owned by General Atomics, which
also owns Cotter. The raffinate materials contain 0.7 percent
uranium, while the plant processes ore that contains
approximately 0.25 percent, according to plant manager John
Hamrick. 

“This ruling came out fairly positive,” said FCIOC member Drew
Lamoreux. 

The group pointed out seven positive results of Dana’s findings,
including adequate air monitoring at the site, no present
evidence that the impoundment is leaking, no prohibition against
continued use of the impoundment, and sufficient procedures to
protect the public and Cotter workers. 

Randy Roberts, another FCIOC member, said the decision was the
culmination of three years of legal wrangling and was based on
the volume of negative comments during the public comment
period. 

“It was denied because of socioeconomic reasons,” Roberts said,
pointing out that the judge’s ruling was based on evidence of
possible impacts to the community. 

“But are these comments reflective of the community?” Roberts
asked. “Are the silent ones being heard?“ 

Hamrick said that was a fair question. 

“There were many people who spoke, but the question is, was that
the voice of the community,” Hamrick said. 

“I have a high respect for Judge Dana,” Hamrick said. “He tends
to get things pretty right.” 

Sharyn Cunningham, co-chair of CCAT, said her group was happy
the judge upheld the denial of the Maywood soil. 

“We’re really kind of stunned that the judge stated that the
work we did at the hearing proved that the community’s concerns
weren’t frivolous, that there really was a significant social
impact and economic impact that could happen from Cotter
becoming a radioactive waste facility,” Cunningham said. 

Cunningham said her group, a party in the legal process, worked
hundreds of hours in four months to stop the Maywood soil
acceptance. 

“There were many legal documents we had to file,” she said. “We
had to answer numerous questions. We hired an expert from
Germany. The community donated thousands of dollars to help pay
for that, just ordinary people.” 

Cunningham knows her group’s work is not finished because, she
said, the ruling stopped “only half of the problem.” 

“The other huge side of radioactive waste coming in here is what
they want to bring in to process,” Cun-ningham said. 

But she said CCAT was ready to finish the fight. 

“The most important thing our community has done with this issue
is prove that the individual can make a difference when you
stand up against giants,” Cunningham said. “If you stand up and
give your opinion, each person really can make a difference and
you can have a say about what happens in your community — even
when it looks impossible.” 

The timing for a final decision on acceptance of the Sequoyah
materials is unclear. The CDPHE has requested clarification and
more information from Cotter on its request to receive and
process about 11,000 tons of the radioactive raffinate
materials. 				   

Cañon City and the Greater Royal Gorge Region
   
All contents Copyright © 2005 The Cañon City Daily Record. All
*****************************************************************
 81 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear Workers Sites 

April 08, 2006 

By The Associated Press ASSOCIATED PRESS 

The government contractor helping run a compensation program for
sick nuclear weapons workers has written reports describing
historical activities at the following sites - some federal,
some commercial - that were hired to assist the government's
nuclear weapons program: 

-Aliquippa Forge, in Aliquippa, Pa. 

-Allied Chemical Corp., Metropolis, Ill. 

-Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Valley, Calif. 

-Argonne National Laboratory East, Argonne, Ill. 

-Argonne National Laboratory West, Scoville, Idaho. 

-Bethlehem Steel Company, Lackawanna, N.Y. 

-Blockson Chemical Company, Joliet, Ill. 

-Bridgeport Brass Company, Adrian, Mich. and Bridgeport, Conn. 

-Chapman Valve, Indian Orchard, Mass. 

-Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald, Ohio 

-Hanford, Richland, Wash. 

-Huntington Pilot Plant, Huntington, W.Va. 

-Idaho National Laboratory, Scoville, Idaho 

-Iowa Ordnance Plant, Burlington Iowa 

-Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Mo. 

-Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. 

-Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N.M. 

-Linde Ceramics, Tonawanda, N.Y. 

-Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., St. Louis. 

-Mound Plant, Miamisburg, Ohio 

-Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nev. 

-Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

-Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

-Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Wash. 

-Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Ky. 

-Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas. 

-Pinellas Plant, Clearwater, Fla. 

-Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio 

-Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colo. 

-Savannah River Site, Aiken, S.C. 

-Simonds Saw and Steel Co., Lockport, N.Y. 

-Superior Steel Co., Carnegie, Pa. 

-Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Ala. 

-Weldon Spring Plant, Weldon Spring, Mo. 

-W.R. Grace, also known as Nuclear Fuels Services, Erwin, Tenn. 

-Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

--- 

Source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 82 Knox News: Officials: New Y-12 facility OK

Plant representatives say four evacuations this year no big deal

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 

April 8, 2006                                                           

OAK RIDGE - The new $50 million Purification Facility at the Y-12 
nuclear weapons plant has been evacuated four times this year, 
including once earlier this week, but plant representatives said 
there's not a major problem. 

The building's alarm system is designed to detect acetonitrile, a 
solvent apparently used in the processing operations, and that 
was a trigger for at least some of the evacuations. 

There were three evacuations the week of Feb. 27-March 3, 
according to a report from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board. 

"Based on the location of the alarm and facility activities, it
appears that two of these alarms were not associated with
(acetonitrile)," the safety board's report states. "While
critiques were conducted for the first two events, a critique
was not conducted for the third evacuation." 

Bill Wilburn of BWXT Y-12, the government's managing contractor,
said, "Acetonitrile is a highly flammable liquid and vapor. The
alarms are set so that we are getting notification that
acetonitrile vapor may be present before it becomes
problematic." 

According to published safety reports on acetonitrile, the
chemical can be hazardous if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed by
the skin. In the body, it metabolizes into hydrogen cyanide or
thiocynanate. At high doses, it can cause death by respiratory
failure. At lower doses, it can cause symptoms ranging from
irritation to headache and nausea to convulsions. 

The building's alarms are calibrated to "lockin" when
acetonitrile levels reach 25 percent of their "lower explosive
limit," said Ellen Boatner, also of BWXT. The detection
capabilities also make the alarm system sensitive to other
hydrocarbons such as oil, she said. 

At least one alarm likely was triggered by residual vapors of
acetonitrile, but Boatner said investigators determined that
another was caused by vapors from a cleaning agent "routinely
used in construction for cleaning out piping systems after
installation." Those vapors were not considered a health threat,
she said. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the U.S.
Department of Energy, approved the start-up of the Purification
Facility late last year, and production activities are still at
a "prove-in" stage, Boatner said. 

About 10 full-time employees work at the facility, she said. 

Y-12 officials won't discuss the material being processed at the
Purification Facility, except to acknowledge its use in nuclear
weapons. 

Former general manager Dennis Ruddy, in an interview last year,
said workers process a material that's taken out of old weapons
so it can be reused in refurbished weapons. 

"The material is classified. Its composition is classified. Its
use in the weapon is classified, and the process itself is
classified," Ruddy said. 

Steven Wyatt, a spokesman with the National Nuclear Security
Administration, said each evacuation at the Purification
Facility was handled appropriately. 

"It is not uncommon to experience problems of this type when
bringing any new production facility into operation,
particularly one that involves the use of hazardous materials,"
Wyatt said. "We are confident that this facility is being
operated in a safe manner." 

According to Wilburn, "We were very conservative in our
approach, believing that is better to over-respond than
under-respond." 

He said BWXT would evaluate possible changes in the "response
protocol" based on the operating experiences at the new
facility. 

The 10,000-square-foot Purification Facility is the first new
production facility built at Y-12 in 30 years. Other facilities
are being planned as part of a major modernization program at
the Oak Ridge complex. 

Senior Writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
								
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 83 kgw.com: Study: Hanford workers' comp system meets state standards 

News for Oregon and SW Washington | AP Wire
 
04/08/2006 

Associated Press 

The workers' compensation system established for workers at the
Hanford nuclear reservation is being appropriately administered
but could be improved in several areas, according to a new study
commissioned by the state Department of Labor and Industries. 

The review followed complaints by workers last year that their
claims were being mishandled by the Texas-based company hired to
oversee the program for the U.S. Department of Energy, which
manages cleanup at the highly contaminated Hanford site. 

The Energy Department asked the state to look at its
self-insured program, and the state in turn hired Seattle
auditing firm Miller &Miller to conduct a three-month review.
The results were released at a public meeting Thursday night in
Richland before a crowd of more than 100 people. 

Some workers have complained about long delays in getting
payments or having to hire lawyers to ensure their claims were
processed by Contract Claims Service Inc., of Irving, Texas. 

The review compared the program with other self-insured worker
compensation programs in Washington state. CCSI's performance
was in line with those programs, said Steve Miller of the audit
firm. 

When the state reviewed 46 randomly selected files, it rated the
claims management of five as excellent, 22 as good, 13 as fair
and six as poor. 

For cases that rated fair or poor, the problem was often
infrequent contact between CCSI and the worker or delays in
collecting medical information, Miller said. 

He recommended that CCSI contact workers who file a claim and
their doctors as soon as possible and improve its review of
problem cases to speed up processing. 

"I definitely noticed some claims that were open way too long,"
Miller said. 

There is room to create a more realistic set of expectations
from injured workers and a more responsive customer services
approach, the study said. 

Retirees seemed particularly confused about the workers'
compensation program, and the Energy Department should consider
an advocate to help them understand overlapping compensation
programs, the study found. 

Some who spoke at the meeting appeared skeptical that their
problems would be addressed. 

Former Kennewick City Councilman Cliff Groff said he had trouble
getting information on the status of his worker compensation
claim. Instead of information, he received a request from CCSI
to evaluate the service he received, he said. 

Janet Peterson said she spent $2,600 on legal fees in a dispute
over prescription payment for her husband. 

"Clearly the workers deserve better," said Lea Mitchell, an
investigator for the worker advocacy group the Government
Accountability Project. 

The study has helped the Energy Department to better understand
the extent to which injured workers are dissatisfied with the
program and provides evidence of where it could be improved,
said Rob Barr of the agency's Office of River Protection at
Hanford. 

Some steps have already been taken. CCSI is working to assign
fewer claims to each claims examiner and the Energy Department
has established a monthly meeting with an organized labor health
advocate and its contractors to discuss claims, said Jeanie
Schwier of the Energy Department's Richland Operations Office. 

___: 

Washington state Department of Labor and Industries:
http://www.lni.wa.gov 

: Tri-City Herald, http://www.tri-cityherald.com 

    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************