*****************************************************************
04/16/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.90
*****************************************************************
   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 [southnews] Blair refuses to back Iran strike
2 [NYTr] Blitzing Iran: Risking the Ultimate Blowback
3 [NYTr] Crackdown on Iran could be exactly the wrong thing
4 [NYTr] US analysts detail war plans against Iran
5 [NYTr] Moscow to Host Meeting on Iran Nuclear Crisis
6 UN Atomic Agency Chief Calls For Iran To Suspend Uranium Enrichment 
7 IRNA: US policy on Iran nuclear program untrustworthy
8 Guardian Unlimited: Leaders call for calm over Iran's nuclear ambiti
9 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian: U.S. Waging 'Psychological War'
10 Observer: Drumbeat of war is drowning out wiser counsels
11 UK: Observer: So how close is a showdown over Iran?
12 IRNA: African states happy with Iran's joining nuclear world - FM 
13 USNews.com: Washington Whispers
14 BBC: Pope calls for end to Iran crisis
15 IRNA: Iran's uranium enrichment a great work: Pak cleric 
16 IRNA: FM says nuclear case a national 
17 IRNA: FM stresses diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear case 
18 AFP: Iran issues stark military warning to United States 
19 AFP: Chinese official hold nuclear talks with Iran 
20 IRNA: Pak, Saudi leaders express opposition to use of force against 
21 AFP: Iran says US in no position to attack 
22 IRNA: Haddad-Adel condemns foreign intervention in regional states -
23 AFP: US analysts detail war plans against Iran 
24 AFP: Six major powers to meet in Moscow on Iran nuclear crisis -
25 Xinhua: U.S. plans to design new nuclear warheads: report   
26 Zee News: India-US deal will destroy nuclear research   
27 CAQ: HIROSHIMA: NEEDLESS SLAUGHTER, USEFUL TERROR
28 London Times: Nuclear break-up on cards - 
29 IRNA: Algerian official denounces US double-standard -
30 WorldNetDaily: Busting empty bunkers
31 UK: Independent: What happened to wind power? 
32 Japan Times: A-bomb legacy fading: filmmaker 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
33 Guardian Unlimited: More nuclear power will not avert energy crisis,
34 Guardian Unlimited: Blair hints at go-ahead for new nuclear power pl
35 London Times: More nuclear power ‘likely’ - 
36 UK: Observer: MPs warn of electricity crisis in UK
37 Guardian Unlimited: MPs warn of electricity crisis in UK
38 AU: The Age: Nuclear power's sick legacy - 
39 TorontoSun.com: Hydro crisis worse than ever before
40 US: VOA News: Nuclear Power, The Scary IF
41 Korea Herald: The myths of Chernobyl   
42 Sunday Herald: Nuclear wont plug power gap - 
43 FT.com: UK - Doubts raised over new nuclear plants
44 US: Grist Magazine: Nuclear: no alternatives? 
45 Independent: Blair warned of 'energy gap' 
46 US: APP.COM: Cracks in Oyster Creek wall questioned 
47 AFP: Nuclear not only energy solution: British lawmakers 
48 CNIC: Chernobyl 20th Anniversary in Tokyo
49 AFP: Twenty years on, effects from Chernobyl disaster linger 
50 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY passes safety review
51 THERECORD.COM: Nuclear costs unknown
52 US: Burlington Free Press: Let's focus on clean, local energy
53 Daily Times: VIEW: Turning point at Chernobyl 
54 People's Daily Online: View of Chernobyl nuclear power plant
55 Japan Times: Myths and misconceptions on Chernobyl 
56 AFP: Anti-nuclear activists rally against new reactor for France -
57 US: Boston Globe: Decision looms over Pilgrim - 
58 Japan Times: Specter of Chernobyl lingers, 20 years on 
59 US: Odessa American Online: God, country and nuclear energy
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
60 Radio New Zealand: Bikini Islanders file lawsuit against US govt
61 US: Deseret News: Matheson objects to plans for blast in Nevada
62 US: Herald News: New group collecting cancer facts
63 US: Pahrump Valley Times: Bomb test will 'meet air quality regulatio
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
64 London Times: Watchdog hits at Dounreay’s false reporting - 
65 US: Belleville News-Democrat: Despite plant leaks, low tritium level
66 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast might not have borders
67 US: Deseret News: County aims to block nuclear waste
68 US: Deseret News: Western governors assail nuclear waste bill 
69 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A messenger visits Yucca
70 US: reviewjournal.com: Nuclear project draws interest
71 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Feds want states out of nuclear shipping 
72 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Mercury levels stir new outcry 
73 US: Ely Times: Ely still designated route for nuclear waste
74 US: Pahrump Valley Times: NUCLEAR WASTE REPROCESSING 
75 US: WATE: Cleanup of former uranium site months behind schedule
76 Sunday Business Post: Government to oppose any nuclear plants at Sel
77 Pahrump Valley Times: 'The Machine' is highlight of Yucca Mountain t
78 US: Deseret News: Utah leaders assess divisions in '06 session 
 
                           PEACE
 
79 AU ABC: Aust 'can help curb' nuclear proliferation. 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
80 KnoxNews: Oak Ridge engineer gets award for venture
81 KnoxNews: Cleanup of former K-25 site behind schedule
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [southnews] Blair refuses to back Iran strike
 
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:14:53 -0500 (CDT)


TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military 
support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the 
backing of the international community, government sources claimed 
yesterday.

The timing of military strikes is now being openly debated in 
Washington. Cirincione says he believes there will be secret strikes 
announced by Bush after they happen.

Blair refuses to back Iran strike

Scotland on Sunday  16 Apr 2006
BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR

TONY Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military 
support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the 
backing of the international community, government sources claimed 
yesterday.

Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to develop a military 
nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his 
support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault 
on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations 
to consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets 
next week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support 
the call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate 
Iran from the international community.

But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on 
Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the 
government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "We 
will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source 
told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a 
military strike."

Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that 
neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" 
with Tehran.

The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair's "favourite 
think-tank", will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic 
solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director 
Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: "It is essential 
UK policy on Iran is well informed... We want to engage with the various 
reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.

"There is potential for political dialogue, economic ties and cultural 
contacts to act as catalysts for the strengthening of civil society in 
Iran."

While the sense of crisis over Iran has been escalated by the fiery 
rhetoric between Tehran and the West - particularly Washington - many 
within the British government are now convinced that the impasse can be 
resolved by repeating the same sort of painstaking diplomatic activity 
that returned Libya to the international fold.

The approach contrasts sharply with the strategy employed during the 
run-up to the war in Iraq, when ministers repeatedly issued grim 
warnings to Saddam Hussein over the consequences of not falling in line 
with their demands.

"The only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy," said Alex 
Bigham, co-author of the FPC report. "But it cannot be dictated, 
Iraq-style, or it will backfire. Iran may seem superficially like Iraq 
but we need to treat Iran more like Libya. Diplomatic engagement must be 
allowed to run its course. There need to be bigger carrots as well as 
bigger sticks."

However, the conciliatory language was not reflected in the approach 
from Washington, where senior figures in the Bush administration remain 
keen to stress the danger of Tehran's intentions.

In a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed 
the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a 
test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security 
Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' 
and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that 
are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security 
Council is going to have to act."

Rice dismissed Iran's declaration that it is only interested in 
enriching uranium for use in civil nuclear power facilities, saying the 
international community must remain focused on the potential military 
applications of this technology.

"The world community does not want them to have that nuclear know-how 
and that's why nobody wants them to be able to enrich and reprocess on 
their territory, getting to the place that they can produce what we call 
a full-scale nuclear plant to be able to do this," she said.

Rice reiterated that President Bush has not taken any option off the 
table, including a military response, if Iran fails to comply with the 
demands of the international community.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=577092006
____________________________-
U.S. strike on Iran could make Iraq look like a warm-up bout

Fallout around the world would be grim
But will cost of inaction be too high?
Toronto Star Apr. 15, 2006. 01:00 AM
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTONOn the ground, more terror.

Poison-laced missiles raining down on U.S. troops in Iraq or 
Afghanistan, the downing of a U.S. passenger airliner, suicide bombers 
in major cities, perhaps unleashing their deadly payload in a shopping 
mall food court. It could be 9/11 all over again. Or worse.

On the political front, more anti-Americanism.

Renewed venom aimed at Washington from European capitals, greater 
distrust from China and Russia, outright hatred in the Arab and Muslim 
world. Oil prices spiralling out of control, a global recession at hand.

In Iran, a galvanizing of a splintered nation. An end to hopes for 
political reform, a rally-around-the-leader phenomenon common among the 
victimized, an ability to rebuild a nuclear program in two to four years.

These are the potential costs of a U.S. military strike in Iran.

"It would be Iran's Pearl Harbor and it will be the beginning of a war, 
not the end of a war. It will set back American strategic interests for 
a generation," says Joseph Cirincione, the director for 
non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"The war will take place at a time and location of Iran's choosing. It 
will make Iraq look like a preliminary bout."

But the cost of inaction could be even higher: a defiant nation with an 
apparently unstable leadership steeped in hatred for Americans in the 
heart of the Middle East with nuclear capabilities.

With Tehran ignoring both threats and cajoling from the international 
community and declaring itself  prematurely  part of the world's 
"nuclear club" this week, talk of the Washington stick moved to the 
forefront, while the carrot, now discredited, was pushed off centre stage.

While the week began with the White House trying to tamp down 
speculation about military strikes in Iran, reported by The Washington 
Post and by journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, it was becoming 
clear the Bush administration was growing impatient with a diplomatic 
effort that is not working with Tehran.

It may have also welcomed talk of potential military strikes, even if it 
would be extremely reluctant to use them, simply to remind some 
recalcitrant United Nations members such as China and Russia that 
diplomacy does have an end date.

The bluntest assessment of diplomatic success came from Karl Rove, U.S. 
President George W. Bush's political adviser and deputy chief of staff, 
who told a Houston audience Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was 
"not a rational human being."

"We are engaged in a diplomatic process with our European partners and 
the United Nations to keep (Iran) from developing such a weapon," Rove 
said. "It's going to be tough because they are led by ideologues who 
have a weird sense of history."

Ahmadinejad announced this week that Iran had taken its nuclear 
enrichment program to new levels. Before he did so, he dismissed any 
influence of the United Nations, according to state media. "They know 
they cannot do a damned thing," he said.

The Iranian government has stated it will construct 3,000 centrifuges at 
a facility in Natanz and would eventually expand that to 54,000 
centrifuges, which spin uranium into fuel rich enough to produce atom 
bombs. Estimates of their capability date range from 2010 to 2020.

Bush has been clear he wants to stop Tehran from acquiring even the 
knowledge needed to build nuclear weapons, and last month he vowed U.S. 
military might could be used to protect staunch allies such as Israel.

But, earlier this week, Bush called reports of potential military 
strikes on Iran "wild speculation." British Foreign Minister Jack Straw 
said the stories were "completely nuts."

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld weighed in, saying he wouldn't 
address things from "fantasy land," but then added: "The last thing I'm 
going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the 
world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. 
It just isn't useful."

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sternly called for action at 
the UN, but didn't say what it could be, leaving her spokesman 
sputtering about "re-underlining" the call for Iran to suspend its 
enrichment program and vowing this time the Security Council will do 
more than just release a statement.

"This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power," Rice 
said. "This is a question that the world does not believe that Iran 
should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a 
nuclear weapon.

"When the Security Council reconvenes, it will be time for action."

The timing of military strikes is now being openly debated in Washington.

Cirincione says he believes there will be secret strikes announced by 
Bush after they happen. But first, he says, Bush should be expected to 
go to the U.S. Congress for authorization before mid-term elections in 
November, while Republicans still control the House of Representatives 
and the Senate.

Approval before the elections, the strike after the elections, because 
the almost certain spike in U.S. gas prices following such action will 
blunt any rally-round-the-flag effect at election time, he says. John 
Pike, a military analyst at globalsecurity.org, predicts strikes in the 
summer of 2007, safely away from the presidential election the next 
year. He argues, as many do, that Bush already has congressional 
approval and needs not go back to lawmakers. "It will be a surprise," he 
says. "There's nothing like dropping bombs on evil-doers to give 
Republicans some political updraft."

Pike argues that, despite all the breast-beating in Congress about 
misuse of a resolution that got the country into war in Iraq and all the 
sound and fury about clandestine surveillance in this country, nothing 
has been done to strip Bush of any power when it comes to war. "He will 
be looking at atomic ayatollahs. There will be some real downsides (to 
military action) and there will be efforts to redouble diplomatic moves, 
but in Tehran, the U.S. is equated with Satan.

"What kind of diplomatic solution do they believe they can get from Satan?"

Other analysts have been blunt in their assessment of the cost to the 
United States.

"The most dangerous delusion is that a conflict would be either small or 
quick," says Richard Haass, the president of the non-partisan Council on 
Foreign Relations.

Haass, who until July 2003 was a principal adviser to former secretary 
of state Colin Powell, says destroying Iran's nuclear capacity would 
require numerous cruise missiles and aircraft.

"Iran would be sure to retaliate, using terrorist groups such as 
Hezbollah and Hamas and attacking U.S. and British forces and interests 
in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said in a written analysis this week. "This 
would require the U.S. to respond militarily against a larger set of 
targets inside Iran. What would begin as a limited strike would not 
remain limited for long."

Haass also warned that such a strike would likely push oil prices above 
$100 (U.S.) per barrel, setting off an economic chain reaction that 
could lead to global recession. He predicts a certain increase in 
anti-Americanism in Europe, further rage against the U.S. in the Arab 
and Muslim world, and a questioning of U.S. ties in Russia and China.

Ken Pollack of the more liberal Brookings Institution argues for 
sanctions restricting investment in Tehran.

"The world community should force Iranians to have an internal debate  
do they want their nuclear program more than a healthy economy?" he told 
a recent forum.

But Pollack adds a sobering point. If the administration truly believes 
it cannot live in a world in which Iran has nuclear weapons, the 
military option may be the only way to prevent that.

But it would be seen as an unprovoked attack on a country that has 
attacked no one. It would be likened to Osama bin Laden's attack on the 
U.S., Pollack said, reminding his audience how the United States 
responded to that.

Additional articles by Tim Harper

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/
Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1145051411410&call_pageid=968332188492

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

*****************************************************************
 2 [NYTr] Blitzing Iran: Risking the Ultimate Blowback
 
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 12:33:52 -0400 (EDT)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
CounterPunch - April 15 / 16, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley04152006.html

Don't Blitz Iran

Risking the Ultimate Blowback

By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY


"Iran's testing of a new missile . . . 'demonstrates that Iran has a very
active and aggressive military program under way,' US State Department
deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said. 'That includes both, as we've talked about
before, efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction as well as delivery
systems'." -Middle East News, April 1.

"The Pentagon is preparing to set off a record-breaking bang, detonating 635
tonnes of high explosives and sending a mushroom cloud into the sky over the
Nevada desert. The blast, on June 2, codenamed Divine Strake [sic], is
likely to be the biggest controlled conventional explosion in military
history, experts said, and is designed to test the impact of bunker-busting
[nuclear] bombs aimed at underground targets." -Guardian (UK) April 1.


The Bush Administration is preparing for a series of air strikes (or Divine
Strakes) on Iran. There is a chance that the Christian fundamentalists of
Washington could be persuaded that attacking the country would be insane,
but the hard core of loonies will probably win, and there will be yet
another war.

The consequences for the US and the rest of the world will be terrible. Lots
of people will die, but since that is irrelevant to Bush zealots in any
context there is no point in examining their plans from the perspectives of
morality or international law.

An April LA Times' poll showed that 48 per cent of Americans want war on
Iran, while only 40 don't, when answering the question "If Iran continued to
produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you
support or oppose military action?" They've been brainwashed, just like the
millions who still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, and the
Washington mind-benders are licking their lips.

Notification of the 'Divine Strake' quasi-nuclear test in June may have been
designed in part to frighten Iran's government out of continuing its nuclear
program, but its purpose was officially advertised as improvement of
"warfighters' confidence in their ability to plan to defeat hardened and
deeply buried targets". Don't you love the word "defeat"? What they mean, in
their absurd and savage jargon, is "obliterate by nuclear bomb". And if they
were anything but bloody-minded barbaric humbugs they would say so. With
their fingers poised on the buttons of seven thousand US nukes they trot out
fatuous phrases like "weapons of mass destruction" which would reduce us all
to fits of laughter if the purpose of these fanatics was not so evil.

The psychos intend to destroy the Iranian government, and it will take a
near-miracle for their planned onslaught to be cancelled. They do not care
about what will happen after they blitz the place with their bunker-busters
and all the other demented video-game whizzery at their disposal. The word
'strake' is meaningless in hi-technology language, but preceded by 'Divine'
it conveys exactly, crudely and brutally, what is intended : Watch out,
Islamic nations : the Crusaders are going to get you.

Iran recently tested four items of antique military technology. The missiles
and torpedoes it fired off so publicly are about the standard of weapons
that the US had 30-40 years ago. But this does not mean to say they won't be
effective in achieving the immediate aims of Iran's leaders if their country
is attacked.

If the US attacks Iran the Tehran government will then try to close the
Persian Gulf to the passage of oil tankers. It will also try to destroy as
many oilfields as possible along and off the west coast of the Gulf, and
fire as many missiles as it can towards the bases of its enemies.

What are the Iranians expected to do if they are blitzed by Divine
"deep-penetration" nuclear bombs, cruise missiles and sundry other air
strikes? Does anyone in their right mind think they will sit back and say
'Oh, well, that's life' after the US has attacked their territory and killed
Iranian citizens? (Perhaps thousands of them ; maybe more. Who cares?--not
the psychopaths in Washington and their ideological brothers in Tel Aviv.)

Of course the Iranians will hit back, and they will do so to the utmost of
their power. Sure, that isn't much. But in addition to destabilizing the
entire Middle East the US war will ensure that Iran won't lack allies. One
thing even Cheney and Bush can't claim is that Al Qaeda and Iran are linked,
simply because the former is Sunni Muslim and Iranians are mostly Shias. But
when the bombs and cruise missiles thunder down on Iran, there will not be a
Sunni Muslim country or organization in the world that will not rally to
support the 'victim of the Infidels', no matter that it is Shia. I wouldn't
like to be an American citizen on the streets of any country in the world
after Washington hit Iran.

And the truly terrible thing is that the large and growing number of
pro-western young Iranians, hundreds of thousands of them, desperate to be
released from a humorless, unmerciful and cretinous medieval theocracy, will
automatically unite in hatred of the country that attacked them.

The Pentagon has packed the Persian Gulf with dozens of warships that have
identified and tracked almost every radar and missile site along the Iraqi
coast. Satellites have done the same inland. Strike aircraft from US
carriers have been trailing their coats and practicing attacks on Iranian
defense installations for years. The shooting down of an Iranian civil
airliner by the USS Vincennes was only part of the game. (300 innocent
people were murdered and the captain of the ship was decorated, which gave
Iran the message about where it stands in the US scheme of things.)

Washington will not dare invade Iran, of course, because Iran's military
would not be the walkover that the pathetic Iraqi army was, and US ground
forces would suffer thousands of casualties. The stand-off attack will be
the usual video game, controlled from air-conditioned coke-swigging comfort,
followed by ham-handed attempts at public relations damage control.

The first US priority after attacking Iran will be to try to stop the
Iranians closing the Gulf at the Strait of Hormuz which they could do by
sinking a passing tanker. 90 per cent of oil from the Gulf--about two fifths
of the world's supply--is moved by tanker through the Strait, which is less
than five navigable miles wide. An easy target area.

It will probably take only one sunk ship to seriously disrupt world oil
supplies. But even if a single tanker doesn't actually block the Strait, the
crews of others are not going to be happy about sailing into danger.
Insurance rates will go through the roof, and recent spikes in oil prices
will be nothing compared with what would come. If the Iranians manage to
sink two large tankers at the Gulf choke point, say goodbye to Gulf oil
exports for a week or so. Perhaps US citizens will be happy to pay $10 or
more per gallon to fill their cars ; but maybe not.

Even then, does anyone think that Iran would let the US clear the Hormuz
Strait without doing its best to disrupt salvage efforts? Like hell it
would. There would be suicide boat attacks, suicide plane attacks, and
further missile strikes. Although most airfields in Iran would be destroyed
by cruise missiles and much of the Iranian air force would be shot out of
the sky by roving US fighter jocks within hours of the war beginning, Tehran
would still retain a limited offensive capability.

The Iranians would fire most of the some 400 medium-range ballistic missiles
they've got at US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and at the oil fields across
the Gulf. They know exactly where they are, without need for all the clever
satellite technology the Pentagon has, because their myriad supporters tell
them the precise locations. (There are hundreds of thousands of Shias in
these countries.) The missiles might not cause many casualties among US
troops, but they will destroy a lot of oil production capacity in Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia and the southern Gulf nations. (Some US troops will die, of
course : maybe a few hundred if a couple of missiles strike lucky. But what
does that matter to the Bush Administration?)

If Israel is involved in the attacks (and, given the paranoia of some of
Iran's leaders about Israel, probably even if Israel is not involved in the
attacks), then some longer-range missiles will be pooped off in a westerly
direction, hoping to impact somewhere in Israel, which at least some of them
would do. They might deliver biological or chemical warheads, but even if
they are just high explosive and cause only a dozen or so casualties each
there would be irresistible pressure within Israel to retaliate, probably
with nuclear weapons. Nobody except a few Librul peaceniks will care about
that.

But even before Israel's strikes, the price of oil would have gone to $100 a
barrel, and rising. In the US $10 a gallon would be only a memory. In
Europe, and especially the UK, governments would be forced to reduce their
enormous taxes imposed on vehicle fuel, signaling a downward economic
spiral. Russia and China would cope remarkably well, but almost all the
developed world, and especially Japan, would suffer to the verge of
catastrophe. The social development of thrusting India could unravel with
disastrous consequences, given the already critical state of the Naxalite
(Maoist) insurrection in eight states of the country.

Most of South America would laugh at the plight of the US. The
democratically-elected Mr Chavez of Venezuela (excellent piece about him in
The Atlantic, this month), so much hated by Bush and Cheney who are plotting
his overthrow because Venezuela does not support US Big Oil, would take
delight in playing the oil card.

It is not well known in the US that Venezuela is so important, even vital,
in the matrix of American oil consumption. (Although its oil is thick and
difficult to process.) But it produces about 5 per cent of the world's
total, and American citizens will rapidly realize that it does, when the oil
crunch begins. The US Department of Energy states that "Venezuela contains
some of the largest oil and natural gas reserves in the world. It
consistently ranks as one the top suppliers of U.S. oil imports and is among
the top ten crude oil producers." And this is the country that the
Cheney-Bush administration is determined to alienate. If this sort of thing
appeared in fiction it would be ridiculed as being too far-fetched.

In the Malacca Strait and other sea routes around Indonesia there would be
disruption, even if Iran did not manage to close the Gulf. The citizens of
Muslim countries of East Asia despise, distrust and hate the US just as much
as those elsewhere. It would be surprising, after a US attack on Iran, if
there was not an attempt to block these tanker routes. Again, a single
flaming tanker hulk could do it, causing enormous extra costs to oil
transportation to Japan.

The US banned oil imports from Iran after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979,
but it is estimated that Iran exports about 4 million barrels a day. This
amount is scheduled to rise because India and China and some others have
invested in oil and gas production facilities. India resents being ordered
by Washington to discontinue its negotiations with Iran about an overland
pipeline. China has an agreement worth US$100 billion for supply of Iranian
natural gas over the next 25 years. And China, although saying nothing
publicly about the US obsession with Iran, is going to react fiercely if its
long-term energy plans are disrupted by the Bush administration, which it
regards with contempt. A US blitzkrieg on Iran is not going to be regarded
favorably by Tehran's trading partners, if only because it will interfere
drastically with their economic development.

Even if Cheney and Bush are not lunatic enough to send their cruise missiles
and bombers to attack Iran they might manage to have harsh economic
sanctions imposed, additional to the unilateral ones in place by the US for
years. They usually ignore warning signals, so doubtless they dismissed the
unmistakable threat in September 2005 that Iran could endure a
self-inflicted cut in oil exports in the national interest of combating what
it would consider rabidly hostile action. It is estimated that cutting
exports would raise the price of oil to $80-100 a barrel. This wouldn't
matter to the rich in America, who are all that Cheney and Bush care about.
But it would matter to the average man and woman who are even now struggling
to make ends meet as a result of the rich-supportive tax policy of the
present Administration.

There is no point in putting the moral position against attacking Iran. The
Cheney-Bush administration has shown itself impervious to argument, and
presenting a case against killing thousands of innocent people cuts no ice
with blinkered zealots. The planned blitzkrieg of divine strikes will
probably take place. It will alter the entire world and create hatred of
America that will never be eradicated. And there is nothing we can do about
it. At this Easter time (and Thai New Year), God help us all.

[Brian Cloughley writes on military and political affairs. He can be reached
through his website http://www.briancloughley.com ]


       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 3 [NYTr] Crackdown on Iran could be exactly the wrong thing
 
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:35:58 -0500 (CDT)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
St. Petersburg Times - Apr 15, 2006
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/15/Worldandnation/Crackdown_on_Iran_cou.shtml

Crackdown on Iran could be exactly the wrong thing

The world has reason to worry as Iran moves along a course that could lead
to development of nuclear weapons. But there's no need to panic or rush into
military action, most experts agree.

By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN
Times Senior Correspondent

Although it has enriched uranium, Iran is probably seven to eight years away
from producing a workable bomb. And if it does develop one, it is unlikely
to use it for offensive purposes, but rather as a deterrent against what it
sees as two hostile nuclear powers, Israel and the United States.

"If somewhere down the line Iran has nuclear capability, the question is:
What are they going to do with it?" asks Brian Michael Jenkins, an expert on
terrorism at the Rand Corp.

"Are they going to launch a missile and wipe out Tel Aviv? Are they going to
launch a nuclear weapon against the United States? That would be the end of
Iran."

Iran has no recent history of aggression against other countries, although
it supports Islamic proxies like Hezbollah that have been blamed for terror
attacks against Israel and U.S. soldiers in the Middle East.

Iranian radicals also held 52 American hostages for 444 days after an
Islamic revolution toppled a secular, U.S.-backed government in 1979.

"Iran wants to be a nuisance for the U.S. and Israel but they have never
taken the real hard steps that would force the U.S. or Israel to enter into
conflict," says Abbas Milani, head of the Iranian Studies Program at
Stanford.

Milani says last week's boast by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran
"has joined the club of nuclear nations" had two main goals: to boost
internal support for his regime and to convince outsiders that Iran is so
far along in uranium enrichment there is no point trying to stop it.

"It was partly to build national pride and show Iranians the regime is
standing up to the West, but it was also intended for the world in the sense
that the enrichment game is a fait accompli," Milani says.

"I don't think it is a fait accompli - I think if the Chinese and Russians
join the Europeans and U.S. in a very firm position, the regime will have to
reconsider."

The Bush administration is pressing for a U.N. Security Council resolution
that could lead to sanctions or pave the way for force unless Iran drops its
nuclear ambitions. But getting a resolution will be hard because two key
council members, Russia and China, have strong economic ties to Iran, the
world's fourth-largest oil exporter.

China, with its huge appetite for fuel, might be especially reluctant to act
for fear of jeopardizing its new $100-billion oil deal. In agreeing to let a
Chinese company develop a vast oil field, Iran "hopes China will pay back
the favor by making sure the council doesn't pass any harsh and punitive
resolution," Milani says. China's president, though, will undoubtedly feel
pressure from the White House when he visits this week.

Since the hostage crisis, the United States has maintained its own economic
sanctions against Iran as part of what analysts say has become a
counterproductive policy.

"Ahmadinejad and the nuclear crisis are the product of U.S. policies toward
Iran in the last two decades," says Hooshang Amirahmadi, head of Rutgers'
Mideastern studies program and president of the American-Iranian Council.

"The more you isolate, the more you sanction, the more you breed dictators.
That's just a fact of life - look at Cuba, North Korea, Iraq."

Hooshang says there "really is no alternative" to dialogue with Iran, and
thinks the United States should resume diplomatic relations. Wouldn't that
legitimize a radical regime?

"If you have established ties, then you have taken away the regime's most
vicious instrument and that is its anti-Americanism," Hooshang says.

Despite their president's harsh rhetoric, Iranians are considered among the
most pro-American people in the Muslim world. The State Department is asking
Congress for
$85-million to "promote democracy" in Iran, with the money to be used by
dissidents in and out of the country to improve communications, shore up
civic education and encourage political participation.

However, analysts say the United States must walk a fine line between
supporting reforms and appearing to force a new government on Iran's
69-million staunchly independent people.

Any change "must be seen as coming from within Iran and shaped by Iranians,"
Milani says.

Most Arab countries are nervous about the growing power of Iran, a non-Arab
nation whose influence now extends through Iraq and clear to the
Mediterranean. Given the problems in Iraq, however, the United States would
have little public support for bombing Iran, a country far larger in size
and with more than twice as as many people.

"I would be concerned about the United States being put in the position of
taking unilateral military action, which others may even secretly want us to
do but where we pay the price," says Jenkins of the Rand Corp. He thinks the
administration should cool its rhetoric: Continuing the war of words only
feeds Iranian nationalism and "plays to a script written in Tehran," he
says.

Amirahmadi of Rutgers also warns against precipitous military action, noting
that in the time it would take to develop a nuclear bomb, Iran will have
held two or three presidential elections.

"There will be another person in charge, and more importantly, by then most
of its first generation of radicals are dead," he says. "But if we continue
the way we are, the next generation will also be radical."

) Copyright, St. Petersburg Times.

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 4 [NYTr] US analysts detail war plans against Iran
 
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:36:09 -0500 (CDT)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
AFP - Apr 16, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060416/wl_afp/usirannuclearmilitary_060416083710&printer=1;_ylt=AujaUvmKQ.kJQN2RP9osgECROrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

US analysts detail war plans against Iran

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States began planning a full-scale military
campaign against Iran that involves missile strikes, a land invasion and a
naval operation to establish control over the Strait of Hormuz even before
the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, a former US intelligence analyst disclosed.

William Arkin, who served as the US Army's top intelligence mind on West
Berlin in the 1970s and accurately predicted US military operations against
Iraq, said the plan is known in military circles as TIRANNT, an acronym for
"Theater Iran Near Term."

It includes a scenario for a land invasion led by the US Marine Corps, a
detailed analysis of the Iranian missile force and a global strike plan
against any Iranian weapons of mass destruction, Arkin wrote in The
Washington Post.

US and British planners have already conducted a Caspian Sea war game as
part of these preparations, the scholar said.

"According to military sources close to the planning process, this task was
given to Army General John Abizaid, now commander of CENTCOM, in 2002,"
Arkin wrote, referring to the Florida-based US Central Command.

But preparations under TIRANNT began in earnest in May 2003 and never
stopped, he said. The plan has since been updated using information
collected in Iraq.

Air Force planners have modeled attacks against Iranian air defenses, while
Navy planners have evaluated coastal targets and drawn up scenarios for
keeping control of the Strait of Hormuz.

A follow-on TIRANNT analysis, which began in October 2003, calculated the
results of different scenarios to provide options to commanders, Arkin
wrote.

The Marines, meanwhile, have come up with their own document called "Concept
of Operations" that explores the possibility of moving forces from ship to
shore without establishing a beachhead first.

"Though the Marine Corps enemy is described only as a deeply religious
revolutionary country named Karona, it is -- with its Revolutionary Guards,
WMD and oil wealth -- unmistakably meant to be Iran," Arkin said.

Various scenarios involving Iran's missile force have also been examined in
another study, initiated in 2004 and known as BMD-I, which is short for
"Ballistic Missile Defense -- Iran", Arkin said.

In June 2004, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alerted the US Strategic
Command in Omaha, Nebraska, to be prepared to implement CONPLAN 8022, a
global strike plan that includes Iran, according to the scholar.

"The new task force, sources have told me, mostly worries that if it were
called upon to deliver 'prompt' global strikes against certain targets in
Iran under some emergency circumstances, the president might have to be told
that the only option is a nuclear one," Arkin said.

The US military has been involved in contingency planning against Iran since
at least the presidency of Jimmy Carter, who undertook a failed commando
operation to rescue US hostages in Tehran in 1980.

Following the 1996 bombing of an apartment building used by the US Air Force
in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, which was reportedly traced to Iranian agents, the
administration of then-president Bill Clinton considered a bombing campaign,
according to Richard Clarke and Steven Simon, who held at the time
high-level counterterrorism positions at the National Security Council.

"But after long debate, the highest levels of the military could not
forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States,"
the two experts wrote in Sunday's New York Times.

They warned Iran could retaliate against the United States by using its
terrorist networks "that are far superior to anything Al-Qaeda was ever able
to field."

President George W. Bush last week dismissed talk of war planning against
Iran as "wild speculation."

But Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned
this weekend that "there are some in this administration who have been
pushing to make nuclear weapons more 'usable.'

"This is pure folly," the Democratic senator commented in The Los Angeles
Times. "First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be
unthinkable."

Copyright ) 2006 Agence France Presse.

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 5 [NYTr] Moscow to Host Meeting on Iran Nuclear Crisis
 
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 18:37:20 -0500 (CDT)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

Moscow to Host Meeting on Iran Nuclear Crisis

New York, Apr 16 (Prensa Latina) Representatives from six of the
world4s most powerful countries world will meet in Moscow on Tuesday
to discuss Iran4s atomic energy program after Tehran announced its
scientists had enriched uranium to 3.5 percent to make nuclear fuel.

The Moscow meeting is expected to be attended by virtually the same
officials who met in New York in March 20 and failed to agree on a
long-term strategy to deal with Iran.

The officials include US Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs Nicholas Burns, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak
and foreign ministry political directors John Sawers of Britain,
Stanislas de Laboulaye of France, and Michael Schaefer of Germany.

China however said it would be represented by Assistant Foreign
Minister Cui Tiankai, instead of ministry political director Zhang
Yan, who attended the New York meeting last month.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again insisted that
his country's nuclear work was peaceful.

Western diplomats cautioned not to expect a call for immediate
sanctions let alone military action.

Russia and China keep opposing such drastic measures and instead urge
patient diplomacy spearheaded by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed that he was convinced
that there can be no resolution of the problem through use of force.

mh/ajs
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 6 UN Atomic Agency Chief Calls For Iran To Suspend Uranium Enrichment Activities
 
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:00:49 -0400

X-Online-Freedom: http://www.eff.org, http://www.dearaol.com
 

UN ATOMIC AGENCY CHIEF CALLS FOR IRAN TO SUSPEND URANIUM ENRICHMENT 
ACTIVITIES
New York, Apr 15 2006  6:00PM
Following meetings in Tehran with senior officials, the Director-General 
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has called 
on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities. 

Speaking to the press in Teheran on Thursday, Mohamed ElBaradei emphasized 
that Iran needs to take confidence-building measures, including 
suspension of uranium enrichment activities and the clarification 
of all outstanding issues related to the verification of 
its nuclear programme.

He also noted that IAEA safeguards inspectors are continuing verification 
activities in Iran.

Mr. ElBaradei met with Gholamreza Aghazadeh, Vice-President of Iran 
and Chairman of the country's Atomic Energy Organization and with 
Ali Larijani, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. 


The Director-General is scheduled to report to the Security Council 
at the end of April on the Iranian nuclear issue.

An IAEA report was requested by the Security Council on 29 March. 
On that occasion, in its first official action after the matter 
was referred to it by the Agency, the Council called on Iran to re-establish 
full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related 
and reprocessing activities, including research and development.

This action followed Iran's decision to resume its efforts to produce 
enriched uranium, a substance that can be used for peaceful 
purposes, such as generating energy, or for making nuclear weapons. 
The Tehran Government denies claims by the United States and other 
countries that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.



 2006-04-15 00:00:00.000 


________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
 7 IRNA: US policy on Iran nuclear program untrustworthy

, April 15, IRNA                                                                                                                 

- 
The United States has escalated its political hue and cry and
psychological war against Iran's peaceful nuclear activities.

 To Western pundits and reputable foreign media, Washington is
just craving to confront Iran.

 Of the world countries, the US and its nuclear ally Israel
claim that Iran's nuclear activities are not trustworthy and
that Tehran is moving in the wrong direction. They have waged a
psychological war to improve their international status.

 However Iran's transparent cooperation with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has caused the world to become
suspicious of the US and Israeli behavior. Even their
traditional allies are now suspicious about these political
moves.

 The psychological war against development of weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) in Iraq was a ploy Washington resorted to and
Israel fully backed. Now the US by making false claims is trying
the same method to confront Iran.

 Today the public opinion in different countries particularly in
the US's traditional allies rarely agree with Washington's
policies and the White House performance. The world now knows
very well that the US is not honest about its words and policies
and is just striving to colonize other states and establish its
own version of democracy.

 Ted Galen Carpenter, the US vice president for defense and
foreign policy studies at Cato Institute, says Washington is
willing to lead an anti-Iran move but that other countries have
no desire to help it.

 He argues that the row between the US and Europe on the
behavior toward Iran is among reasons behind this opposition.

 Capenter says the US Administration has little confidence in
its traditional allies and international bodies.

 Sam Brown Back, a US Republican Senator, believes military
action against Iran due to the current US position in the "war
against terrorism" is not politically possible.

 Under the current circumstances, the US prefers to support a
diplomatic solution, he opines.

 In its anti-Iran move, the US has a tough task for finding
allies and stepping up diplomatic pressure on Iran, noted the
Senator justifying that China, Russia, and France have made huge
investments in that country.

 Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, has called on all parties
to refuse to make statements that would mount tensions. He has
also called for a diplomatic solution.

 He expressed hope that Iran will return to the negotiating
table and settle the case through talks.

 The British news agency Reuters Friday quoted the US State
Department as reporting that the two veto-wielding member states
of the UN Security Council, China and Russia, have strongly
opposed the use of force against Iran.

 Other UNSC member states, including Britain, do not agree with
military option, either.

 According to the BBC, new diplomatic efforts to settle Iran's
nuclear case have started.

 China and Russia with strong trade ties with Iran, are against
the expanded influence of the West, in particular the US, in the
region, said the BBC.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Leaders call for calm over Iran's nuclear ambitions
 
Brian Whitaker and agencies

Monday April 17, 2006
 
World leaders, as well as Americans close to the Bush 
administration, called for calm over Iran's nuclear programme 
yesterday amid persistent reports that the US is considering a 
military attack.

In his Easter message from the Vatican, Pope Benedict spoke of 
"international crises linked to nuclear power" and urged: "May an 
honourable solution be found for all parties, through serious and 
honest negotiations." UN secretary general Kofi Annan also 
cautioned against a rush towards confrontation, saying that 
military action against Iran would only worsen an already tense 
situation.

"I think the issue is being handled properly by the International 
Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Annan said in an interview with Spanish 
newspaper ABC. "I still believe that the best solution is a 
negotiated one, and I don't see what a military operation would 
resolve. I hope that a negotiating spirit prevails and that the 
military option is just fruit of speculation."

Perhaps more significantly for the Bush administration, there
were also warnings from several prominent figures in the US.

Republican senator Richard Lugar urged less haste in taking
action against Iran and suggested direct talks between
Washington and Tehran "would be useful". Mr Lugar, who is
chairman of the influential senate foreign relations committee,
told ABC TV there was a need "to make more headway
diplomatically".

Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke also
joined the fray, arguing armed conflict with Iran could backfire
and prove even more damaging to US interests than the war with
Iraq.

Iran would probably respond with terrorist attacks against the
US and could also hamper American efforts in Iraq, he wrote in
an article for the New York Times, co-authored with Steven
Simon, a former state department official. Far from toppling the
government in Tehran, bombing would also be likely to guarantee
the regime's survival for "decades more".

Although Mr Bush has dismissed reports of war planning as wild
speculation, the article warned: "The parallels to the run-up to
war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002
President Bush declared that there was 'no war plan on my desk',
despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans
for the Iraq invasion.

"Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not
permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome
cannot be known, or worse, known all too well."

Speculation about a US attack intensified last week when Iran
announced that it had successfully enriched uranium for the
first time using 164 centrifuges, a small but significant step
towards production of material that can be used either for
weapons or generating electricity in a nuclear reactor.

Iran, which insists that its activities are for civilian
purposes only, has rejected a call from the UN security council
to stop enriching uranium by April 28.

Officials from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the US and
China will be meeting in Moscow tomorrow to review the
situation. "It is part of a regular series of meetings to
discuss the next steps," said a Foreign Office spokeswoman who
declined to elaborate. "These meetings happen all the time and
we can't really give a commentary on each one."

In Tehran talk of strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities has
prompted a rush to volunteer for "martyrdom missions",
particularly against the US and Britain.

"Because of the recent threats we have started to register more
volunteers since Friday," Mohammad Ali Samadi, spokesman for the
Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic
Campaign, told Reuters.
 
Q
13.04.2006: Iran's nuclear programme

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian: U.S. Waging 'Psychological War'
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Monday April 17, 2006 12:46 AM

AP Photo KUW102 

By SAMAR KASSABLI 

Associated Press Writer 

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) - Iran's former president accused the
United States Sunday of waging ``a psychological war'' against
Tehran and said an American strike against the Islamic republic
would not be in Washington's interests. 

Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who heads the
Expediency Council, a powerful body that mediates between Iran's
parliament and clerical hierarchy, said Western nations'
attempts to block Iran's nuclear program were ``unjust.'' 

``Iran's success in uranium enrichment is for the interest of
the region's countries and all Islamic countries,'' Rafsanjani
said. He reiterated the government position that Iran's nuclear
program was not intended to harm any country in the region. 

``If the United States launched a military strike against Iran,
that would be neither in its interests nor in the interests of
the entire region,'' Rafsanjani told a joint news conference in
Damascus with Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa. 

He said he believed that the United States was ``incapable of
taking a risk or engaging in a new war in the region without
discussing the subject seriously.'' 

U.S. media reports have said the Bush administration was
considering a military attack on Iran over its nuclear program,
which Washington claims is designed to produce nuclear weapons.
Iran says it is purely for generating energy. 

President Bush has dismissed reports on attack plans as ``wild
speculation.'' 

On Tuesday, Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium, which can
be used to fuel nuclear reactors or build atomic bombs. Iran has
rejected a U.N. Security Council demand for it to stop enriching
uranium by April 28. 

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan wants a negotiated solution to
the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions, he said in an
interview published Sunday in the ABC newspaper. 

Annan told the conservative Madrid daily during a visit last
week to Spain that any military operation against Iran would
worsen a tense international situation. 

``I think the issue is being handled properly by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. I still believe that the
best solution is a negotiated one, and I don't see what a
military operation would resolve,'' ABC quoted Annan as saying. 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 10 Observer: Drumbeat of war is drowning out wiser counsels
 
[UP] 

Comment 

Hugh Barnes

Sunday April 16, 2006

The neo-con regimes in Washington and Tehran are on collision
course after last week's announcement by Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that his country has 'joined the nuclear
club'.

Being able to enrich uranium to a low level of 3.5 per cent is a
significant breakthrough for the Islamic Republic, but it still
leaves the mullahs a long way from the 93 per cent-plus needed
to make a bomb. In the United States, however, the doom-sayers
and war-mongers - who often overlap - reacted with a hardening
of rhetoric. The fundamentalists on both sides are in danger of
talking themselves into a war.

The rising drumbeat of warrior journalism has almost created the
illusion that a US military attack on Iran is inevitable.
Writing in the New Yorker last week, Seymour Hersh even quoted a
former Pentagon official as saying that defence chiefs have
considered targeting Iran with nuclear weapons to destroy
underground research sites. Few believe the US would be reckless
enough to use such weapons. Not only would it produce large
amounts of radiation, killing thousands of civilians, but after
Iraq the political implications of launching a nuclear attack on
a Muslim country are unthinkable.

Some kind of attack is possible, but it is neither imminent nor
inevitable. In the meantime, the US administration should
reflect on the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov,
who warned that any military strike on Iran would spark a
'dangerous explosive blaze' in the Middle East.

US military action would have two aims: first, to damage Iran's
nuclear-related sites and, second, to send a message that
America is willing to take pre-emptive action not only to
prevent WMD proliferation but also to stop Iran supporting
terrorism.

This strategy could well backfire - and not simply because the
UN will almost certainly decline to give it political or moral
legitimacy. Even with conventional weapons, any attack on the
reactor at Bushehr would be catastrophic.

Iran might respond to 'unjustified' US aggression in a number of
other ways that would harm regional peace and security. It
could, for example, seek to prevent the supply of oil through
the Strait of Hormuz, but most worrying of all, Ahmadinejad
could further destabilise the south of Iraq by inciting Shia
militias against coalition troops and the Sunni insurgency. The
likely outcome would be civil war.

Moreover, even a successful US military campaign would set back
Iran's research programme only by five years or so. In the
meantime, the logical step for Iran would be to withdraw from
the Non-Proliferation Treaty and expel UN inspectors altogether.

Some neo-cons in the US believe that a military air assault
would cause the people of Iran to rise up against their leaders.
In fact, every analysis suggests that a threat of military
action would only rally Iranians behind their undemocratic
government.

The strategic thinking of the regime has been quite simple: the
US invaded Iraq because Iraq did not have nuclear weapons; the
US has not invaded North Korea because North Korea has nuclear
weapons.

Instead of launching a premature military adventure, the US
could simply acknowledge that Iran has security concerns -
Pakistan, India and Israel all are nuclear-armed. As a first
step, President Bush should endorse the idea of creating a
regional security organisation in the Middle East, which would
include Iran. It is likely that a more secure Iran would create
better conditions for a pro-Western, peaceful, democratic
movement inside the country. And then the neo-cons in Washington
might even see their dream of regime change in Tehran become a
reality.

· Hugh Barnes is the director of the Foreign Policy Centre's
democracy and conflict programme.
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 11 UK: Observer: So how close is a showdown over Iran?
 
[UP] 

News of British involvement in a mock invasion of Iran is just
the latest step in what seems a slow slide to war. Paul Harris
in Washington, Gaby Hinsliff in London and Robert Tait in Tehran
report 

Sunday April 16, 2006
 
It would seem, to Middle Eastern eyes scanning the latest
headlines online yesterday, yet further evidence of secret plans
for the conflict that everyone is now dreading. Britain, it was
suggested, had taken part in an American war game that simulated
an invasion of Iran, in an apparent mockery of both countries'
insistence that they want a diplomatic - not a military -
solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

But in the overheated atmosphere of current debate over Iran,
nothing is quite what it seems. The simulated battle, fought in
2004 and codenamed Hotspur, was in fact one of a series of
'paper exercises' that have been conducted every few weeks by
senior military planners on both sides of the Atlantic since the
Sixties to test strategic readiness. Each time, a different
country is invaded.

To save inventing new topography every time, maps of real
countries around the world are used in strict rotation. In July
2004 - before the current president came to power in Tehran - it
happened to be Iran. A few weeks ago, it was Scotland. If Tehran
is panicking as a result of the story, so too should Edinburgh.

For all that, the story on the front page of yesterday's
Guardian is an indication, if not of imminent invasion, of an
intense period of smoke and mirrors both in Washington and
Tehran: of posturing, lobbying and hyperbole that is as much to
do with the domestic politics of the US and Iran, as with the
threat posed by either country.

The war talk comes as a new report will argue this week that
George Bush's war on terror is itself to blame for the nuclear
stand-off over Iran.

The regime in Tehran has concluded, says the Foreign Policy
Centre think-tank, that the US is too bogged down fighting the
insurgency in Iraq to try to stop the Iranians getting the bomb,
making their defiance of the United Nations 'one of the
little-noticed consequences of America's failure in Iraq'.

Controversially, it also argues that Iran 'cannot be entirely
faulted' for seeking nuclear capability when it feels threatened
by US troops in neighbouring countries and saw North Korea, a
nuclear power, left untouched while the relatively undefended
Iraq was invaded.

Which leaves a fundamental question to be answered. Amid the
fanning of the flames by both sides, how real is the prospect of
war?

Reading recent headlines, it would seem very real indeed, as
they have warned of potential nuclear strikes by the US against
Iran's nuclear facilities, floated by the veteran US
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and described by the
Foreign Office as 'completely nuts'. The reality, however, is
far more complex.

In truth the anonymous and warlike noises emanating from
Washington reflect a debate about possible military action
against Iran that has pitted hawks in the Bush administration -
including such senior neo-conservatives as Vice- President Dick
Cheney and the US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton - against
large segments of the military, intelligence and political
establishment.

In fact the debate in America is not over whether the US can or
should stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but on how best
to stop them.

At the moment the overwhelming consensus centres on a diplomatic
strategy. Yet it is also certain that military options are being
studied, if only theoretically.

While insisting that the military option will still be
considered, the White House itself has moved sharply to distance
itself from reporting on the issue.

There is no doubt, however, that signs emerging from the
administration are familiar to any of those following events in
the run-up to the invasion of Iraq - not least the building up
of the threat posed by Iran by senior administration officials.

To some, the parallels are convincing enough. 'I would expect an
attack in the next six months,' says Larry Johnson, a former
deputy director in the State Department's counter-terrorism
office. 'This is not just planning for possible military
contingencies. There is real planning under way for carrying out
a military strike against Iran.'

But many point to the huge problems of carrying out any form of
attack - not least that it would fail to destroy much of an
Iranian nuclear research programme buried deep underground. Then
there is the risk to the US military in Iraq after any attack on
Iran. Iran's close links to the majority Shias would likely see
a widespread uprising against the US forces.

Finally, such a move would be unlikely to have any international
support, except possibly from Israel, which is nervous of the
potential consequences from Iran's Hizbollah allies on its
northern border.

Such enormous difficulties - and the belief that the US joint
chiefs of staff are against an attack - could mean that the
public pronouncement and behind-the-scenes leaks and hints are
just part of a complex game designed to convince Iran that the
threat is real enough to dissuade its nuclear ambitions.

Johnson believes that the key task for US intelligence is to
understand the threat of a nuclear Iran. Does Tehran want the
bomb to attack US interests and Israel, or is it for
self-preservation? 'They have learned the lesson of North Korea.
Once you have nuclear weapons, the US sabre-rattling becomes
much less. After all, with North Korea you have a genuine madman
in control of a country with the bomb and yet we don't hear very
much about them at all,' Johnson said.

The real US policy, enunciated by a senior State Department
official close to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, revolves
around a belief that Iran's hardline President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad is weaker than his bellicose attitude might suggest
and is vulnerable to the pressure of international sanctions.

It is the figure of Ahmadinejad who is at the centre of the
conundrum of whether Iran and the US are slipping towards war.

On Friday Ahmadinejad was in Tehran at a conference on
Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Such, however, was the
international outcry surrounding his announcement three days
earlier in the city of Mashhad that Iran had mastered the basics
of uranium enrichment, that this subject seemed to be a mere
sideshow to Iran's intensifying confrontation with the West.

With the President bearing the triumphal tidings in the presence
of the country's atomic energy chief and an assortment of senior
mullahs and military top brass, the outward impression was of a
regime united in the face of intense pressure from the UN
Security Council, which set a 30-day deadline last month for
Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities.

Such unanimity, however, is by many accounts only superficial.
Behind the scenes, a bitter war of words has taken place over
Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric.

Hashemi Rafsanjani - the influential former president and a
strong advocate of holding official talks with America - is a
particular critic and is said to have denounced the President's
tactics to his face. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali
Larijani, has also warned about the international effects of the
often-febrile remarks made by Ahmadinejad, who on Friday called
yet again for Israel's destruction. Rafsanjani made his feelings
clear by trumping the President's announcement in an interview
with a Kuwaiti news agency, meaning the news was public hours in
advance.

'There are some Iranian leaders, not least Rafsanjani, who think
we should act more prudently and who don't approve of this
radical trend,' said Dr Sadegh Zibakalam, a politics lecturer at
Tehran University. 'They think we should buy friends in the
international community by saying, for example, that we
understand the anxiety about Iran's nuclear programme, but we
can assure the West that it would in no way be intended to move
towards an atomic weapon and that Iran is quite prepared to
compromise.'

The deep divisions over tone are matched by differences over
substance. Some analysts speculate that last week's announcement
- having been sold as a historic national achievement - could
presage a climbdown that would involve a return to negotiations.

'The main point for Iran throughout has been that voluntary
suspension of nuclear activities could deprive it of the
opportunity to complete the fuel cycle forever,' one analyst
said. 'The West, especially the US, is pressing for a revision
to the additional protocol of the NPT [nuclear non-proliferation
treaty] that would bar non-fuel-producing countries from
pursuing their own cycle. In that context, last week's move can
be interpreted as a sign of Iran's willingness to compromise.
Even those pushing for a tougher Iranian line agree that we
could take several steps ahead before retreating, because then
we would have something in our hands to bargain with.'

Zibakalam dismisses this as 'wishful thinking' and says Iran's
leaders are determined to push ahead. They may, he says,
eventually settle for a deal in which they agree to suspend
industrial enrichment of uranium for two to five years while
continuing laboratory work under international supervision.

If that is unacceptable to the West, then Iran is facing, at the
very least, economic sanctions. Whether ordinary Iranians will
take heed is far from certain.

'We have needs other than the nuclear programme from a President
who gave many promises to the young people,' said Ali Reza
Ghamsari, 36, an official in a shipbuilding company. 'They need
jobs and security. It's better for Iran to negotiate and
co-ordinate its actions with the international community. I
think the majority of the nation asks for such a thing.
Otherwise, there is a high probability of sanctions and the
President won't be able to deliver his promises.'
 
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 12 IRNA: African states happy with Iran's joining nuclear world - FM 

Tehran, April 15, IRNA                                                                                                           

Africa-Iran-Nuclear 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Saturday that
African states were satisfied with Iran's joining the world
nuclear countries.

 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on April 11 said that Iran has
joined the world's nuclear countries, adding that Iran has
completed production of nuclear fuel at laboratory scale and
produced enriched uranium with the purity needed for a nuclear
power station on April 9, this year.

 Mottaki, who was on a tour to the eastern African countries,
made the remark while talking to reporters at Mehrabad
International Airport upon his return home.

 "Visits to Uganda, Zimbabwe and Brazzaville Congo were
successful.

 It was the first tour to the African states. It was a good
opportunity to discuss potentials of African countries," he said.

 "The sides have not used their utmost potentials yet," Mottaki
said expressing the hope the visit would bear fruits in this
regard.

 "We should reconsider our capacities and potentials in African
states since Iran enjoys a special position in the African
continent," the Iranian foreign minister noted.

 In Brazzaville Congo, which is a non-permanent member of the UN
Security Council and rotatory chairman of the African Union, the
sides stressed the importance of expanding bilateral cooperation
in all fields."
 He assessed as good his talks with Zimbabwean President Robert
Mugabe, saying implementation of joint projects were among
issues discussed in the meeting.

 There are good opportunities for Iranian companies and private
sector in Zimbabwe to implement certain agricultural projects,
Mottaki added.

 He further stated the two sides also exchanged views on Iraq,
Palestine and regional countries.



*****************************************************************
 13 USNews.com: Washington Whispers

By Kevin Whitelaw 

4/24/06 
 		
Iranian Nukes? Hey, What's the Rush? 

The main lesson that the Senate Intelligence Committee drew from
the run-up to the Iraq war was that Washington needs intense
scrutiny of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. So with
all the buzz about nukes in Iran, it would be safe to assume
that the committee is deep into an inquiry, right? Well, not
quite. Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, the committee chair,
warns that "we have not made the progress on our oversight of
Iran intelligence, which is critical." 

The panel has done only piecemeal scrutiny of the spy agencies' 
work on Iran. 

"There is no organized committee staff effort to look at Iran 
right now," says majority staff director Bill Duhnke. 

"It's all sort of on hold." 

Roberts blames it on Democrats who are "more focused on 
intelligence failures of the past." 

Committee staffers who would conduct the Iran inquiry are instead 
tied up with the long-awaited second phase of the panel's review 
of prewar intelligence on Iraq (which covers how the Bush 
administration used the intelligence). 

Democrats say Roberts is stalling on Phase 2. "If the committee 
has not conducted a review of Iran intelligence, it's not because 
of a lack of resources," says Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for Sen. 
Jay Rockefeller, the committee's ranking Democrat. 

Roberts says he is pushing hard to complete the Iraq inquiry, 
which could take several more months. Then, the committee can 
focus more on Iran. Perhaps Tehran will be kind enough to wait 
for them. 

Copyright © 2006 U.S.News & World Report, L.P. All
*****************************************************************
 14 BBC: Pope calls for end to Iran crisis
 
Last Updated: Sunday, 16 April 2006
 
[Pope Benedict XVI ]                            

The Pope marks Easter Sunday on his 79th birthday                                                             

Pope Benedict XVI has called for a negotiated solution to the 
Iran nuclear crisis, in his traditional Easter message in St 
Peter's Square in Rome. 

"May an honourable solution be found for all parties, through 
honest and serious negotiations," he said. 

He also affirmed Israel's "just right to exist in peace" while 
calling on the international community to help the Palestinians 
move towards statehood. 

It is Pope Benedict XVI's first Easter as pontiff. 

His Easter message - "Urbi et Orbi" - was broadcast live on 
television to more than 50 countries, while about 100,000 people 
gathered in the square. 

'Peaceful co-existence' 

Speaking on Iraq, the Pope called for peace to "finally prevail
over the tragic violence that continues mercilessly to claim
victims". 

[Way of Cross procession at the Coliseum i Rome] In pictures: 
Easter Sunday                              

He also prayed that those "caught up in the conflict in the Holy 
Land may find peace, and I invite all to patient and persevering 
dialogue, so as to remove both ancient and new obstacles". 

In an apparent allusion to Iranian President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad's recent threats against Israel, Pope Benedict 
defended Israel's right to exist. 

But he said it was also important for the Palestinian people to 
have a "state that is truly their own". 

The pontiff also prayed that leaders and international 
organisations would strengthen their will to "achieve peaceful 
co-existence among different races, cultures and religions". 

Addressing the humanitarian crisis in Sudan's Darfur region, the
Pope prayed for the spirit of Christ to bring relief to people
who were "living in a dramatic humanitarian situation that is no
longer sustainable". 

Better living conditions were also needed for millions of people
in Latin America, he said. 

Cheers went up among the crowd when the Pope prayed for
"harmony" in Italy, an allusion to disputes over the outcome of
the recent general election. 

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has refused to concede defeat
to opposition leader Romano Prodi, who was declared the
provisional winner on Tuesday. 

The pope prayed Italian leaders would be strengthened in a "keen
desire to reach the objectives of harmony and authentic
development, for the good of all". 		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 15 IRNA: Iran's uranium enrichment a great work: Pak cleric 

Islamabad, April 15, IRNA                                                                                                                

Pakistan-Iran-Uranium 

A Pakistani cleric on Saturday hailed the Iranian government for
enrichment of uranium and described it as a great work.

 In an interview with IRNA in Peshawar, Maulana Yaqub Al-Qasimi
appreciated Iran for achieving a breakthrough on the uranium
enrichment.

 The leader of United Movement said that while respecting the
international laws, Iran has enriched uranium for peaceful use
of nuclear technology.

 In this connection, Al-Qasmi, who is prayers leader at Jamaia
Mosque, Peshawar, said that Iran had made a commitment to the
world community that its nuclear program was for peaceful use of
nuclear energy.

 He stressed that according to the UN charter and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) laws, all countries
enjoy equal right for making peaceful use of nuclear technology.

 During their meetings with senior US officials, President
General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz called
for peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear case. Any other way to
address the issue would yield serious repercussions not only for
Pakistan but for all regional countries, they maintained.

*****************************************************************
 16 IRNA: FM says nuclear case a national 

Tehran, April 16, IRNA                                                                                                           

Palestine Conference-Meet 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Saturday the
nuclear energy issue has become a matter of national concern for
Iran.

 Mottaki made the remarks during a meeting with the president of
the Malaysian Senate, Abdul Hamid Pawanteh, on the sidelines of
the Third International Conference on Qods and Support for the
Rights of the Palestinian People which kicked off here Friday
afternoon.

 "Iran intends to resolve the nuclear standoff through diplomacy
and in line with its ongoing cooperation with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 "The United States should acknowledge the fact that it is no
longer in a position to cause a crisis in the region," the
minister said.

 He, moreover, said that pressures currently imposed on Iran
were meant to force it to abandon its rights.

 "But if we retreat from our rights today pressures will be
imposed on other countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
tomorrow," he pointed out.

 He said rights and obligations are the two important aspects of
international conventions and treaties, and argued that "just as
we have commitments we should also be able to enjoy our rights."
Some three years ago the US attacked Iraq and declared war over
after three months, he noted, but that the occupation continues
because "after three years, Washington is still unable to solve
the Iraqi problem and has even called for help."

 Likewise, he added, "it (US) attacked Afghanistan to establish
stability in the country but after four years even UN Secretary-
General Kofi Annan has acknowledged that insecurity is still the
main problem in Afghanistan."

 Moreover, Mottaki stressed the importance of promoting the
concept of an `Asian parliament' as distinguished from the
"European Parliament'.

 Pointing to what he described as the "very good relations"
between Tehran and Kuala Lumpur particularly in the
parliamentary field, the minister called on the two sides to
exploit their potentials to further expand their technological
and industrial cooperation.

 Pawanteh, who praised Iran's important position in the Islamic
world, said Iran and Asia have never enjoyed such influential
ties as they do now.

 Referring to Iran's nuclear case, he said technology and
knowhow are God-given assets for human beings and cannot be
monopolized by certain states or persons.

 The Malaysian speaker, who noted that oil resources were not
unlimited, called for the use of other sources of energy.

 He said nuclear energy was a matter of countries' survival, and
therefore technology should be availed of to ensure their
survival.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 17 IRNA: FM stresses diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear case 

Tehran, April 16, IRNA                                                                                                           

Palestine-Conference-Nuclear 

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki here Saturday said that
Iran's nuclear case ought to be settled through diplomatic
channels.

 Mottaki made the remarks while meeting with Parliament deputies
and members of the Foreign Policy Commission of Mexico on the
sidelines of the Third International Conference on Qods and
Support for the Rights of the Palestinian People, which is due
to conclude later today.

 "The language of threat is not appropriate for resolving
international issues. Access to peaceful nuclear energy is our
right.

 Through hard work, Iran has joined the world's nuclear club,"
he pointed out.

 He reiterated that Iran "has always been committed to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and should enjoy its rights"
under this document.

 On the other hand, "certain countries which have nuclear
weapons and which are not committed to the NPT are trying to
block Iran's access to peaceful nuclear energy," he added.

 Mottaki declared that nuclear energy is a national demand and
that no one can deprive Iran of this right.

 He expressed hope Iran and Mexico can use their potentials to
further boost their "good relations."
 Pointing to Iran's historical and geo-political importance in
the Middle East region, the minister said US policies on the
region have been faulty.

 "These policies have not led to establishment of peace and
security in the region but, on the other hand, increased war and
insecurity."
 On the Palestinian issue, he reminded the international
community and "peace and stability should be fair and
sustainable" in order to be enduring.

 "Europe and the US are faced with a political paradox since
they claim to be advocates of democracy but refuse to accept the
results of the recent parliamentary elections in Palestine,"
adding "this showed they are pursuing double-standard policies."
 The Mexican side expressed support for Iran's right to have
access to peaceful nuclear technology.

 The commission members pointed to Iran's important position in
the region and praised the country's vigorous support for the
Palestinian people.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 18 AFP: Iran issues stark military warning to United States 

 Sat Apr 15, 4:51 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iransaid it could defeat any American
military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of
the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United
States. 

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said
General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards
and among the regime's most powerful figures. 

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the
region and in Iraq" /> Iraqare vulnerable. I would advise them
not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the
sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran. 

The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive
as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports
said President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bush's
administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on
Iran's nuclear facilities. 

"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq
before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said
with a grin. 

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance.
For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario,
whether sanctions or an attack." 

Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to
make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the
sensitive work to be halted by April 28. 

The Islamic regime says it only wants to generate atomic energy,
but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a
nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that
"axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire. 

At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah
Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking
the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions. 

And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told AFP that a US
push for tough United Nations" /> United Nationssanctions was of
"no importance." 

"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied
when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricehighlighting part of the UN
charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of
military action. 

"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad
smile. 

On Thursday, Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the
United States "will look at the full range of options available
to the United Nations." 

"There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the
international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a
personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed
ElBaradei. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency(IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April
on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In
Tehran he said that after three years of investigations Iran's
activities were "still hazy and not very clear." 

Although the United States has been prodding the council to take
a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible
sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members
Russia and China. 

Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security
Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss
the crisis. 

In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing
up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters
and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon
and the Palestinian territories. 

At the Tehran conference, Iran continued to thumb its nose at
the United States and Israel" /> Israel. 

"The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a
permanent threat," Ahmadinejad told the gathering of regime
officials, visiting Palestinian militant leaders and foreign
sympathizers. 

"Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road
to being eliminated," said Ahmadinejad, whose regime does not
recognise Israel and who drew international condemnation last
year when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map." 

Unfazed by his critics, the hardliner went on to repeat his
controversial stance on the Holocaust. 

"If there is serious doubt over the Holocaust, there is no doubt
over the catastrophe and Holocaust being faced by the
Palestinians," said the president, who had previously dismissed
as a "myth" the killing of an estimated six million Jews by the
Nazis and their allies during World War II. 

"I tell the governments who support Zionism to ... let the
migrants (Jews) return to their countries of origin. If you
think you owe them something, give them some of your land," he
said. 

Iran's turbaned supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also
accused the United States of seeking to place the entire region
under Israeli control. 

"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria"
/> Syriaand Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the
control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Khamenei said. 

There was no immediate reaction from Washington, but French
Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy severely condemned
Ahmadinejad for his latest remarks on Israel. 

"As I have had occasion to do before, when the Iranian president
made similar statements, I condemn these inacceptable remarks in
the strongest possible terms," Douste-Blazy said in a statement. 

"Israel's right to exist and the reality of the Holocaust should
not be disputed," he added. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 19 AFP: Chinese official hold nuclear talks with Iran 

 Sun Apr 16, 5:29 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - A senior Chinese diplomat has held talks with
Iran" /> 's top national security official, Iranian television
has reported, amid mounting international tensions over the
Islamic republic's nuclear drive. 

The report said China's assistant foreign minister, Cui Tiankai,
met with Iran's Supreme National Security Council chief Ali
Larijani as well as nuclear negotiator Javad Vaidi. 

No further details on the talks were given. 

The visit comes in the wake of Iran's announcement that it had
successfully enriched uranium to the level needed to make
reactor fuel. 

Uranium enrichment can be extended to make weapons, and the UN
Security Council -- on which China has a permanent seat -- has
given Iran's hardline leadership until April 28 to freeze the
sensitive fuel cycle work. 

"We are concerned about the announcement and are also worried
about the possible development of the situation," Chinese
Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Beijing on
Thursday. 

China had also announced that the political directors of the
five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany
would meet Tuesday in Moscow to discuss the Iranian issue. 

	 		 			
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 20 IRNA: Pak, Saudi leaders express opposition to use of force against Iran - 

Islamabad, April 16, IRNA                                                                                                                

Pakistan-S Arabia-Iran 

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have come up with the unanimous view
that the Iran nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully, local
media reports said on Sunday.

 President Musharraf and visiting Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin
Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, in talks Sunday night, exchanged views on
regional and international issues of common concern, including
the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir dispute,
Iran nuclear issue and OIC reforms.

 The Saudi crown prince arrived in Islamabad on Saturday for a
two-day state visit.

 Prince Saud is scheduled to hold talks with Pakistani Prime
Minister Shaukat Aziz later today.

 In the meeting Saturday night, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
decided to give a new look to the 57-member Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) in a way that would encourage member
countries to work together for the socio-economic uplift of the
Muslim ummah.

 President Musharraf and Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdul
Aziz Al-Saud also stressed the need for enhancing intra-OIC
trade and cooperation in science and technology.

 Cooperation in the trade, economic and defence fields were the
main focus of attention between the two leaders.

 The leadership of both the countries also discussed anti-terror
measures and pledged to work with the international community to
put an end to the menace.

 They vowed to put in extra efforts to solve political disputes
affecting Muslims and promote inter-faith harmony in the
interest of establishing peace, development and security all
over the world.

 Regarding the situation in the Middle East, the two leaders
were of the view that it was incumbent on the international
community to accept Hamas as the democratically elected
government in the Occupied Territories.

 President Musharraf also apprised the visiting Saudi leader on
Pakistan-India relations and efforts to achieve an early
resolution of the Kashmir dispute including their
confidence-building measures, people-to-people contacts and
revival of transportation links.

 A large delegation comprising cabinet ministers and investors
are accompanying the Saudi crown prince, who is also the deputy
premier, minister for defence and aviation as well as
inspector-general of Saudi Arabia.

 Identifying energy, refinery and infrastructure and food
processing as some of the most potential areas for Saudi
investment in Pakistan, the president said Islamabad would
facilitate investment by Saudi entrepreneurs in Pakistan.

*****************************************************************
 21 AFP: Iran says US in no position to attack 

 Sun Apr 16, 6:47 AM ET 		 	 

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranappears convinced it can deter or
even win a military confrontation with the United States, with
the Islamic regime buoyed by high oil prices, support from
militants across the region and American woes in Iraq" /> Iraq. 

The regime gave fresh signals on Sunday that it was in no mood
for a compromise over its disputed nuclear programme, with
officials openly flouting a UN Security Council demand for a
freeze in uranium enrichment by April 28. 

"We are trying to find a diplomatic solution for our (nuclear)
problem, and the United States should be aware that it is not in
a position to create another crisis in the region," Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the official news agency IRNA. 

"More than three years have passed since the United States
invaded Iraq and after all these years they are now asking for
help," he said, referring to Washington's request for talks with
Tehran on the insurgency. 

The crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions has worsened over the
past week following the regime's announcement that its
scientists managed to enrich uranium to the level needed to make
reactor fuel. 

Iran insists its programme is strictly peaceful, but enrichment
technology can also be extended to make atomic weapons -- hence
the UN demand for a moratorium while an International Atomic
Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) probe
continues. 

The United States is now pushing for tough UN action against
Iran, with several US press reports also saying that military
options to deal with the oil-rich regime were being looked into. 

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it,"
General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards
and among the regime's most powerful figures, said on Friday in
one of Iran's boldest statements yet. 

In a direct threat, he also pointed out that US troops in Iraq
and the region were "vulnerable" -- while other regime figures
stepped up their vitriolic anti-Western rhetoric. 

"The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a
permanent threat," firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told
a pro-Palestinian conference on Friday, also voicing "serious
doubts" over the Holocaust and predicting the "elimination" of
the Jewish state. 

Palestinian militant leaders, in Tehran to attend the
conference, have also rallied behind Tehran -- strengthening
Iran's hand in the stand-off. 

Hamas supremo Khaled Meshaal vowed the new Palestinian
government will not recognise Israel" /> Israelregardless of
mounting international pressure on the militant group to do so
-- sticking with the tough position supported by Iran. 

Islamic Jihad chief Abdullah Ramadan Shala also joined Hamas by
vowing his Palestinian militant group would stand by Iran in the
event of any military action by the United States or Israel. 

"Any threat to the Islamic republic is a threat to the
Palestinians, and Iran will not be alone in facing these
threats. And any aggression against Iran is an aggression
against the Palestinians," he said. 

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei was in Tehran on Thursday to push
for a suspension -- but sent home empty-handed -- while a senior
Chinese diplomat has also held talks with top national security
officials in Tehran. 

State television reported Sunday that China's assistant foreign
minister, Cui Tiankai, met Iran's Supreme National Security
Council chief Ali Larijani as well as nuclear negotiator Javad
Vaidi. 

China had also announced that representatives of the five
permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany would
meet Tuesday in Moscow to discuss the Iranian issue. 

But Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltanieh,
signalled no concessions were on the horizon. 

"The IAEA secretary and inspectors get into too many details,"
he complained in an interview with state television. "The
information and the issues brought up during inspections make
trouble." 

"The agency has to be cautious now that such claims (of secret
nuclear weapons work) have proved unfounded," he said, telleing
the IAEA "not to request inspections" of sensitive military
sites. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 22 IRNA: Haddad-Adel condemns foreign intervention in regional states -
     
Tehran, April 15, IRNA                                                                                                           

Palestine-Conference-Syria 

Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel here Saturday condemned
any foreign intervention in domestic affairs of regional states
including Syria.

 Haddad-Adel made the remark in a meeting with the visiting
speaker of Syrian People's Assembly, Mahmoud al-Abrash, on the
second day of the Third International Conference on Qods and
Support for the Rights of Palestinian People.

 In the meeting, the Iranian speaker praised the growing trend
of bilateral relations between Tehran and Damascus and stressed
the importance of further promotion of ties.

 He called for boosting political, economic and cultural
exchanges between the two countries.

 He praised the initiative of Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih
Berri in bringing together Lebanese groups to forge
understanding.

 Haddad-Adel said Iran would continue its principled policies at
regional and international levels, adding, "Despite the existing
concerns over developments in Iraq and Palestine, we are
witnessing more stability and bigger role played by the people
in these two countries in determining their fate."
 He expressed satisfaction over the successful outcomes of
al-Aqsa Intifada and resistance of the Palestinian people in
forcing Zionist regime to withdraw.

 The speaker also welcomed Hamas victory in recent parliamentary
election in Palestine, saying, "The Islamic world will come
closer to its real status through continuation of the
Palestinians' resistance and more support by Islamic states."
 Briefing his Syrian counterpart on developments in Iran's
nuclear case, he said, "We expect our friends and neighbors not
to pay heed to the insinuations of the US and the West and
regard Iran's peaceful nuclear activities as a step towards
independence of the region from foreigners."
 Al-Abrash, for his part, welcomed holding Tehran conference on
Palestine and said speeches by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic
Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khomeini and President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad echoed the viewpoints of the world Muslims.

 Turning to the conspiracies hatched by certain Western
countries against Muslim states particularly Iran and Syria, he
quoted the statements of the late Founder of the Islamic
 Republic Imam Khomeini as saying the West cannot do a damn
thing.

 The Syrian speaker said Iran's nuclear success is an
 achievement for the entire region and felicitated the Iranian
government and nation.

 The international conference kicked off in Tehran Friday
afternoon with a key note speech by the Supreme Leader of the
Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 23 AFP: US analysts detail war plans against Iran 

 Sun Apr 16, 6:12 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States began planning a full-scale
military campaign against Iran" /> Iranthat involves missile
strikes, a land invasion and a naval operation to establish
control over the Strait of Hormuz even before the March 2003
invasion of Iraq" /> Iraq, a former US intelligence analyst
disclosed. 

William Arkin, who served as the US Army's top intelligence mind
on West Berlin in the 1970s and accurately predicted US military
operations against Iraq, said the plan is known in military
circles as TIRANNT, an acronym for "Theater Iran Near Term." 

It includes a scenario for a land invasion led by the US Marine
Corps, a detailed analysis of the Iranian missile force and a
global strike plan against any Iranian weapons of mass
destruction, Arkin wrote in The Washington Post. 

US and British planners have already conducted a Caspian Sea war
game as part of these preparations, the scholar said. 

"According to military sources close to the planning process,
this task was given to Army General John Abizaid, now commander
of CENTCOM, in 2002," Arkin wrote, referring to the
Florida-based US Central Command. 

But preparations under TIRANNT began in earnest in May 2003 and
never stopped, he said. The plan has since been updated using
information collected in Iraq. 

Air Force planners have modeled attacks against Iranian air
defenses, while Navy planners have evaluated coastal targets and
drawn up scenarios for keeping control of the Strait of Hormuz. 

A follow-on TIRANNT analysis, which began in October 2003,
calculated the results of different scenarios to provide options
to commanders, Arkin wrote. 

The Marines, meanwhile, have come up with their own document
called "Concept of Operations" that explores the possibility of
moving forces from ship to shore without establishing a
beachhead first. 

"Though the Marine Corps enemy is described only as a deeply
religious revolutionary country named Karona, it is -- with its
Revolutionary Guards, WMD and oil wealth -- unmistakably meant
to be Iran," Arkin said. 

Various scenarios involving Iran's missile force have also been
examined in another study, initiated in 2004 and known as BMD-I,
which is short for "Ballistic Missile Defense -- Iran", Arkin
said. 

In June 2004, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alerted the
US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska, to be prepared to
implement CONPLAN 8022, a global strike plan that includes Iran,
according to the scholar. 

"The new task force, sources have told me, mostly worries that
if it were called upon to deliver 'prompt' global strikes
against certain targets in Iran under some emergency
circumstances, the president might have to be told that the only
option is a nuclear one," Arkin said. 

The US military has been involved in contingency planning
against Iran since at least the presidency of Jimmy Carter, who
undertook a failed commando operation to rescue US hostages in
Tehran in 1980. 

Following the 1996 bombing of an apartment building used by the
US Air Force in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, which was reportedly
traced to Iranian agents, the administration of then-president
Bill Clinton" /> Bill Clintonconsidered a bombing campaign,
according to Richard Clarke and Steven Simon, who held at the
time high-level counterterrorism positions at the National
Security Council. 

"But after long debate, the highest levels of the military could
not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the
United States," the two experts wrote in Sunday's New York
Times. 

They warned Iran could retaliate against the United States by
using its terrorist networks "that are far superior to anything
Al-Qaeda was ever able to field." 

President George W. Bush" /> President George W. Bushlast week
dismissed talk of war planning against Iran as "wild
speculation." 

But Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, warned this weekend that "there are some in this
administration who have been pushing to make nuclear weapons
more 'usable.' 

"This is pure folly," the Democratic senator commented in The
Los Angeles Times. "First use of nuclear weapons by the United
States should be unthinkable." 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 24 AFP: Six major powers to meet in Moscow on Iran nuclear crisis -

 Sunday April 16, 12:41 PM 

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Six major powers will meet in Moscow on
Tuesday to take stock after Iran announced its scientists had
enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, in open defiance of a UN
demand for a freeze of such sensitive work. 

The United States says possible punitive measures such as the
freezing of assets and travel restrictions on Iranian
representatives will be on the agenda though China and Russia
have been reluctant to back sanctions against Tehran. 

The high-level gathering, on the sidelines of a meeting of
foreign ministry political directors of the Group of Eight (G8)
powers, was to bring together top officials from Britain, China,
France, Russia and the United States -- the five permanent
members of the UN Security Council -- plus Germany. 

It will come 10 days before the expiry of a 30-day deadline
unanimously set by the council for Iran to comply with
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands for a
enrichment freeze to allay suspicions it is seeking nuclear
weapons capability. 

But Tuesday, Iran revealed that its scientists had enriched
uranium to 3.5 percent, the purity required for civilian reactor
fuel, and vowed to move quickly to industrial-scale enrichment,
which could be used to make the fissile core of an atomic bomb. 

The news drew worldwide condemnation but Iranian leaders
defiantly told visiting IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei in Tehran
Wednesday that they would not back down. Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again insisted that his country's nuclear
work was peaceful. 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Thursday demanded tough
action by the 15-member Security Council, which is awaiting an
assessment report from ElBaradei, and said Washington "will look
at the full range of options available to the United Nations". 

Rice raised the prospect of invoking chapter seven of the UN
Charter which can authorize sanctions or even the use of force
in case of a threat to international peace and security or an
act of aggression. 

The State Department said there were several possible options to
punish Iran if it failed to heed the UN Security Council. 

"Those would include asset freezes...(and) would potentially
include restrictions on the ability of some members of that
regime to travel," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack
said. 

But Western diplomats here cautioned not to expect a call for
immediate sanctions let alone military action. 

Russia and China, which have significant economic interests in
Iran, oppose such drastic measures and instead urge patient
diplomacy spearheaded by the IAEA. 

Western countries, however, are hoping that Tehran's
intransigence will persuade Moscow and Beijing to back a chapter
seven resolution that would aim to make mandatory the demands
outlined in the March 29 non-binding council statement. 

"There would then be a legal obligation for Iran to comply (with
the IAEA demands)," said a diplomat, speaking on condition of
anonymity. 

US Ambassador John Bolton told reporters this week that he was
gratified by Russia's reaction to Tehran's enrichment
announcement. 

"We believe this is a step in the wrong direction," Russian
foreign ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said Wednesday. 

Diplomats said that sanctions envisaged would be calibrated so
as not to hurt the Iranian people, with the pressure on Tehran
ratcheted up gradually. 

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed that he was
convinced that "there can be no resolution of the problem
through use of force." 

In Tehran, recent US news reports that Washington was refining
plans for pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities
prompted a warning from the regime that military action would
represent "a strategic error." 

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the
region and in Iraq are vulnerable," said General Yahya Rahim
Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the
Iranian regime's most powerful figures. "I would advise them not
to commit such a strategic error." 

US President George W. Bush has dismissed reports of pre-emptive
strikes as "wild speculation" although US officials insist that
all options remain on the table to prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons. 

The Moscow meeting is expected to be attended by virtually the
same officials who met here March 20 and failed to agree on a
long-term strategy to deal with Iran. 

They include US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Nicholas Burns, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak
and foreign ministry political directors John Sawers of Britain,
Stanislas de Laboulaye of France, and Michael Schaefer of
Germany. 

China however said it would represented by Assistant Foreign
Minister Cui Tiankai, instead of ministry political director
Zhang Yan, who attended the New York meeting last month. 

Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 25 Xinhua: U.S. plans to design new nuclear warheads: report   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-04-15 22:46:09   

    WASHINGTON, April 15 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. government plans,
by the end of the year, to select the design of a new generation
of nuclear warheads that would be more dependable and possibly
able to be disarmed in the event they fell into terrorist hands,
The Washington Post reported Saturday.  

    The new warheads would be based on nuclear technology that
has already been tested, which means they could be produced more
than a decade from now to gradually replace at lower numbers the
existing U.S. stockpile of about 6,000 warheads without
additional underground testing, Linton F. Brooks, administrator
of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and
other government officials were quoted as saying. 

    The NNSA oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. 

    The warhead redesign is part of a larger, multibillion-U.S.
dollar program to refurbish the nation's nuclear-weapons
stockpile and to consolidate nuclear plants and facilities in
nearly a dozen states, the report said. 

    The next-generation warheads will be larger and more stable
than the existing ones but slightly less powerful, and might
contain "use controls" that would enable the military to disable
the weapons by remote control if they are stolen by terrorists,
according to the report. 

    The NNSA will choose between two competing designs submitted
by teams at the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national
laboratories by November, Brooks said in an interview with the
Post. 

    The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program was first proposed
two years ago, and has been adopted as part of a major
restructuring of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex being proposed
by the Bush administration in light of the findings of its 2002
Nuclear Posture Review. 

    But this is just the beginning of a decades-long process of
replacing the stockpile with smaller warheads. Even if the
government meets its year-end deadline for choosing a feasible
design for engineering development and production, Congress will
still have to debate and approve the choice. After that, it will
probably take almost 10 more years before the first new warheads
appear, the report said. Enditem   


      Editor: Luan Shanglin   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 26 Zee News: India-US deal will destroy nuclear research   

  Alternative & Independent Source of Indian Subcontinent News

  By P.K. Iyengar and M. Gupta 

The initial impression of the July 18 Joint Statement as an
outline of the nuclear deal Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed
with President George W. Bush was that it may herald a new
chapter in India-US scientific cooperation.   

  But the PM’s suo motu statement in Parliament of March 7, 2006
and the recent release of the “Separation Plan,” disabused the
scientific community of any such hope. 

Particularly surprising was the Indian government agreeing to
put research facilities like the Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research (TIFR); Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre (VECC), Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics (SINP), Institute for Plasma
Research, Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Institute of
Physics, Tata Memorial Centre, Board of Radiation and Isotope
Technology, and Harish Chandra Research Institute, which are
legitimately safeguards-irrelevant, under International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. 

This is especially disturbing since the Prime Minister owned up
to the fact that India had surrendered the right to decide for
itself which facilities will come under IAEA safeguards.
Moreover, since the Manmohan Singh government has virtually
accepted a non-nuclear weapons State status for the country in
the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime, negotiating India-specific
safeguards and Additional Protocol with the IAEA, will be
worrisome. It is well known that the Additional Protocol has
evolved in recent years specifically to deal with “rogue States”
attempting to acquire sensitive technology clandestinely. 

The problem has clearly arisen due to artificially imposed
requirements of categorising the various components of the
Department of Atomic Energy into “civil” or “military.” Thus the
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the Indira Gandhi Centre for
Atomic Research have been rendered strictly “military” to avoid
attracting safeguards, when more than 90 per cent of the work
carried out in these institutions is “civilian.”

It is well known that safeguard inspections by IAEA when applied
to non-nuclear States, are extremely intrusive, immensely
disruptive, and are often conducted in an atmosphere vitiated by
suspicion. Without any substantiated assurances to the contrary,
there is little reason to assume that such will not be the case
for India. That the “judicious” use of suspicion may serve to
irreversibly tilt the balance is best illustrated by the Iranian
affair where the right of an NPT signatory to develop technology
(in this case, the centrifuge to enrich uranium), is subject to
advance approval from the IAEA. 

The resulting inspection regime, if applied to fundamental
research facilities in India, would imply that any or all
research may come under scrutiny or have to be first vetted by
the large 65 member Board of Governors ruling the intricate IAEA
bureaucracy. With India not being a Non-Proliferation Treaty
signatory, would the topics “allowed” for scientific
investigation not be decided within the framework of rules
applicable to non-nuclear weapons countries or, worse, rogue
States? What would be the yardstick for deciding what research
is “sanctioned”? Would this mean that “civilian” scientists
cannot collaborate with their “military” counterparts since
separation must be maintained?

To extend the argument, since such constraints would necessarily
have to be focused on indigenous research, criteria could be
selective (foreign collaborations with “acceptable” countries
may not be scrutinised) and/or restrictive (it may become
increasingly difficult for India to choose its research
collaborators if they happen to belong to the “wrong” country).
In such an environment, there will be little scope for pursuing
India’s tried and proven self-reliance policy in the future
since all indigenous work would invite invasive scrutiny. 

It has been mentioned that in the event of a national crisis,
perhaps none of the trained workforce, equipment or any
technology fall-out from such research will be available for
military work since India has accepted “in perpetuity”
safeguards on all civilian facilities and purportedly given up
its sovereign right to cite national security reasons for
withdrawal — a privilege enjoyed by all technologically advanced
nations.

Such an artificial “segregation” would create multiple problems
of its own. There is adequate proof that the DAE’s applied
programmes have drawn heavily from human resources developed in
these institutions. In the absence of sensible and responsible
negotiations, if inspections include “pursuit” in principle as
they may in the case of nuclear fuel, associated universities,
grant funding institutions such as the Department of Science and
Technology and other organisations like the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research, etc., will be forced to
submit to humiliating and intrusive supervision. 

Gone will be the days of unfettered technology development via
collaborative research with, say, a private biotechnology
company. An international “licence-permit raj” on Indian
scientific creativity will be here to stay and the army of IAEA
inspectors will invade all related public and private sector
entities, sometimes even without prior intimation. At the very
least it would guarantee that scientists and engineers would be
endlessly tied up in bureaucratic red-tape so as to satisfy an
infinite number of queries so that very little constructive work
is actually achieved.

It is far from true that the entities on the list are “merely”
academic institutions when one realises that BARC in its
entirety was born from TIFR which was the first institute of its
kind in the nation devoted to the physical sciences and
mathematics. Recall that Homi Bhabha’s vision was to build up
indigenous capability through promoting manpower generation in
the basic sciences. He wrote in 1944 to J.R.D. Tata that the
Tata Institute should be created in order to produce the experts
for nuclear energy in India when it becomes feasible. With the
firm grounding that such training inculcates, professionals can
adapt themselves with alacrity to the requirements of creating
technology and its spin-offs. 

Indeed, this has been the way all technological innovations have
happened throughout the world. To enable this in India the DAE
created autonomous institutions like SINP, VECC and others to
create and sustain a strong and wide base of specialisations
providing an unshakeable foundation for a healthy technological
future. Such institutions have also enabled us to initiate new
research, such as in the fusion programme. It helped India gain
entrance to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
project, and register successes in computing technologies, and
space and nano-particle research and a whole gamut of laser
based scientific research to name a few areas. 

Regardless of the exact nature of the safeguards, the scientific
community in India is extremely upset and alarmed that the
autonomy of these institutions may now be severely eroded and
their research programmes subjected to the worst external
interference. Having been put to great inconvenience of the kind
related here. NPT signatory Brazil, for example, has finally
been forced to object to IAEA inspections on projects funded by
the Brazilian atomic energy agency in the university sector. 

But as a non-NPT state, the Indian government may not have
retained an escape route in its haste to please Washington. In
advanced nuclear countries such as the United States, premier
institutions and universities funded by its atomic energy
commission would consider it inconceivable to give up their
autonomy, which is jealously preserved to enable new and
innovative research in the frontiers of science to take seed,
grow and flourish.

There can be no artificial constraints on the dissemination of
scientific thought and the world has reaped the benefits of a
free system, as has India. To put centres of excellence under
safeguards of whatever type, would be to serve a body blow to
the future of indigenous Indian science. Since scientific and
technological strength has brought us to where we are today,
this is obviously too high a price to pay. The negative
ramifications of such a drastic step would be hard to envisage
in their entirety.

On the whole, it is clear that inserting these facilities into
the already complex problem of separating the DAE’s civilian and
military programmes as required by the nuclear deal is a fatal
mistake. If it has happened as a result of bureaucratic
oversight, this must be corrected. Scientists must come forward
with their concerns and initiate a constructive dialogue with
the Prime Minister’s Office and the ministry of external affairs
to prevent such an outcome. The government of India needs to be
far more transparent and to consult with a range of retired and
serving scientists from the science establishment before
actively assisting in the demise of basic research in this
country.

Dr P.K. Iyengar retired as Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.
Dr M. Gupta is a physicist at the Manipal Academy of Higher
Education, Manipal, Karnataka   

  (Source : Zee News)   

            
  © 2003-Copyrights World News Exchange. Site maintained and
*****************************************************************
 27 CAQ: HIROSHIMA: NEEDLESS SLAUGHTER, USEFUL TERROR
 
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:00:21 -0500 (CDT)


HIROSHIMA: NEEDLESS SLAUGHTER, USEFUL TERROR
by William Blum
Covert Action Quarterly #53

While Japan was desperately trying to surrender, the U.S. knowing
that the war could be ended without a land invasion dropped two
A-bombs: The opening shot of cold war.

Does winning World War II and the Cold War mean never having to say
you're sorry? The Germans apologized to the Jews and the Poles. The
Japanese apologized to the Chinese and the Koreans, and to the
United States for failing to break off diplomatic relations before
attacking Pearl Harbor. The Russians apologized to the Poles for
atrocities committed against civilians, and to the Japanese for
abuse of prisoners. The Soviet Communist Party even apologized for
foreign policy errors that heightened tension with the West.

Is there any reason for the U.S. to apologize to Japan for atomizing
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those on opposing sides of this question
are lining up in battle formation for the 50th anniversary of the
dropping of the atom bombs on August 6 and 9. During last year's
raw-meat controversy surrounding the Smithsonian Institution's Enola
Gay exhibit, U.S. veterans went ballistic. They condemned the
emphasis on the ghastly deaths caused by the bomb and the lingering
aftereffects of radiation, and took offense at the portrayal of
Japanese civilians as blameless victims. An Air Force group said
vets were feeling nuked.

In Japan, too, the anniversary has rekindled controversy. The mayors
of the two Japanese cities in question spoke out about a wide
perception gap between the two countries. Nagasaki Mayor Hitoshi
Motoshima, surmounting a cultural distaste for offending, called
the bombings one of the two great crimes against humanity in the
20th Century, along with the Holocaust.

Defenders of the U.S. action counter that the bomb actually saved
lives: It ended the war sooner and obviated the need for a land
invasion. Estimates of the hypothetical body count, however, which
ranged from 20,000 to 1.2 million, owe more to political agendas
than to objective projections.

But in any event, defining the issue as a choice between the A-bomb
and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false dichotomy.
By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial machine was grinding
to a halt as the resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated.
The navy and air force had been destroyed ship by ship, plane by
plane, with no possibility of replacement. When, in the spring of
1945, the island nation's lifeline to oil was severed, the war was
over except for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge
of the air attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible
firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his
bombers but garbage can targets. By July, U.S. planes could fly
over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they
pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.

REJECTED OVERTURES

After the war, the world learned what U.S. leaders had known by
early 1945: Japan was militarily defeated long before Hiroshima;
it had been trying for months, if not for years, to surrender; and
the U.S. had consistently rebuffed these overtures. A May 5 cable,
intercepted and decoded by the U.S., dispelled any possible doubt
that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace. Sent to Berlin by
the German ambassador in Tokyo, after he talked to a ranking Japanese
naval officer, it read: Since the situation is clearly recognized
to be hopeless, large sections of the Japanese armed forces would
not regard with disfavor an American request for capitulation even
if the terms were hard.

As far as is known, Washington did nothing to pursue this opening.
Later that month, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson almost capriciously
dismissed three separate high-level recommendations from within the
administration to activate peace negotiations. The proposals advocated
signaling Japan that the U.S. was willing to consider the all-important
retention of the emperor system; i.e., the U.S. would not insist
upon unconditional surrender.

Stimson, like other high U.S. officials, did not really care in
principle whether or not the emperor was retained. The term
unconditional surrender was always a propaganda measure; wars are
always ended with some kind of conditions. To some extent the
insistence was a domestic consideration not wanting to appear to
appease the Japanese. More important, however, it reflected a desire
that the Japanese not surrender before the bomb could be used. One
of the few people who had been aware of the Manhattan Project from
the beginning, Stimson had come to think of it as his bomb, my
secret, as he called it in his diary. On June 6, he told President
Truman he was fearful that before the A-bombs were ready to be
delivered, the Air Force would have Japan so bombed out that the
new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength.
In his later memoirs, Stimson admitted that no effort was made, and
none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order
not to have to use the bomb.

And that effort could have been minimal. In July, before the leaders
of the U.S., Great Britain, and the Soviet Union met at Potsdam,
the Japanese government sent several radio messages to its ambassador,
Naotake Sato, in Moscow, asking him to request Soviet help in
mediating a peace settlement. His Majesty is extremely anxious to
terminate the war as soon as possible ..., said one communication.
Should, however, the United States and Great Britain insist on
unconditional surrender, Japan would be forced to fight to the
bitter end.

On July 25, while the Potsdam meeting was taking place, Japan
instructed Sato to keep meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Molotov
to impress the Russians with the sincerity of our desire to end the
war [and] have them understand that we are trying to end hostilities
by asking for very reasonable terms in order to secure and maintain
our national existence and honor (a reference to retention of the
emperor).

Having broken the Japanese code years earlier, Washington did not
have to wait to be informed by the Soviets of these peace overtures;
it knew immediately, and did nothing. Indeed, the National Archives
in Washington contains U.S. government documents reporting similarly
ill-fated Japanese peace overtures as far back as 1943.

Thus, it was with full knowledge that Japan was frantically trying
to end the war, that President Truman and his hardline secretary
of state, James Byrnes, included the term unconditional surrender
in the July 26 Potsdam Declaration. This final warning and expression
of surrender terms to Japan was in any case a charade. The day
before it was issued, Harry Truman had al- ready approved the order
to release a 15 kiloton atomic bomb over the city of Hiroshima.

POLITICAL BOMBSHELL

Many U.S. military officials were less than enthusiastic about the
demand for unconditional surrender or use of the atomic bomb. At
the time of Potsdam, Gen. Hap Arnold asserted that conventional
bombing could end the war. Adm. Ernest King believed a naval blockade
alone would starve the Japanese into submission. Gen. Douglas
MacArthur, convinced that retaining the emperor was vital to an
orderly transition to peace, was appalled at the demand for
unconditional surrender. Adm. William Leahy concurred. Refusal to
keep the emperor would result only in making the Japanese desperate
and thereby increase our casualty lists, he argued, adding that a
nearly defeated Japan might stop fighting if unconditional surrender
were dropped as a demand. At a loss for a military explanation for
use of the bomb, Leahy believed that the decision was clearly a
political one, reached perhaps because of the vast sums that had
been spent on the project. Finally, we have Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's
account of a conversation with Stimson in which he told the secretary
of war that:

"Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely
unnecessary. ... I thought our country should avoid shocking world
opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no
longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my
belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to
surrender with a minimum loss of face. The secretary was deeply
perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I
gave for my quick conclusions."

BOMB-SLINGING DIPLOMATS

If, as appears to be the case, U.S. policy in 1945 was based on
neither the pursuit of the earliest possible peace nor the desire
to avoid a land invasion, we must look elsewhere to explain the
dropping of the A-bombs.

It has been asserted that dropping of the atomic bombs was not so
much the last military act of the Second World War as the first act
of the Cold War. Although Japan was targeted, the weapons were aimed
straight to the red heart of the USSR. For three-quarters of a
century, the determining element of U.S. foreign policy, virtually
its sine qua non, has been the communist factor. World War II and
a battlefield alliance with the USSR did not bring about an ideological
change in the anti-communists who owned and ran America. It merely
provided a partial breather in a struggle that had begun with the
U.S. invasion of the Soviet Union in 1918. It is hardly surprising
then, that 25 years later, as the Soviets were sustaining the highest
casualties of any nation in WW II, the U.S. systematically kept
them in the dark about the A-bomb project while sharing information
with the British.

According to Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, Secretary of
State Byrnes had said that the bomb's biggest benefit was not its
effect on Japan but its power to make Russia more manageable in
Europe.

The U.S. was planning ahead. A Venezuelan diplomat reported to his
government after a May 1945 meeting that Assistant Secretary of
State Nelson Rockefeller communicated to us the anxiety of the
United States Government about the Russian attitude. U.S. officials,
he said, were beginning to speak of Communism as they once spoke
of Nazism and are invoking continental solidarity and hemispheric
defense against it.

Churchill, who had known about the weapon before Truman, applauded
and understood its use: Here then was a speedy end to the Second
World War, he said about the bomb, and added, thinking of Russian
advances into Europe, and perhaps to much else besides. ... We now
had something in our hands which would redress the balance with the
Russians.

Referring to the immediate aftermath of Nagasaki, Stimson wrote:

"In the State Department there developed a tendency to think of the
bomb as a diplomatic weapon. Outraged by constant evidence of Russian
perfidy, some of the men in charge of foreign policy were eager to
carry the bomb for a while as their ace-in-the-hole. ... American
statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians
with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip."

This policy, which came to be known as atomic diplomacy did not,
of course, spring forth full-grown on the day after Nagasaki. The
psychological effect on Stalin [of the bombs] was twofold, noted
historian Charles L. Mee, Jr. The Americans had not only used a
doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not
militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless
made the greatest impression on the Russians.

KILLING NAGASAKI

After the Enola Gay released its cargo on Hiroshima, common sense
common decency wouldn't apply here would have dictated a pause long
enough to allow Japanese officials to travel to the city, confirm
the extent of the destruction, and respond before the U.S. dropped
a second bomb. At 11 o'clock in the morning of August 9, Prime
Minister Kintaro Suzuki addressed the Japanese Cabinet: Under the
present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative
is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war.

Moments later, the second bomb fell on Nagasaki. Some hundreds of
thousands of Japanese civilians died in the two attacks; many more
suffered terrible injury and permanent genetic damage. After the
war, His Majesty the Emperor still sat on his throne, and the
gentlemen who ran the United States had absolutely no problem with
this. They never had.
*****************************************************************
 28 London Times: Nuclear break-up on cards - 

Sunday Times - Times Online

Sunday Times         April 16, 2006

Tracey Boles

THE government is thought to be considering splitting up British 
Nuclear Group and selling its stake in the Atomic Weapons 
Establishment (AWE)separately from the rest of the organisation.

BNG, best known for its nuclear clean-up work around Britain, was 
put up for sale by the government at the beginning of the month.

The AWE site at Aldermaston in Berkshire is where Britain's 
nuclear warheads are designed, manufactured and decommissioned. 
It is run on behalf of the Ministry of Defence by a management 
company that is a consortium divided equally between BNG, Serco 
and Lockheed Martin. Under the terms of the consortium, if one 
company sells, the others have the right to buy its stake.

The contract makes a big contribution to BNG's business, insiders 
say, although not many of its staff work at the AWE, whose other 
sites include Burghfield, also in Berkshire.

BNG could still be sold as an integrated whole. The Department of 
Trade and Industry said: "BNG's sale is in the early days." The 
MoD said it would be "inappropriate" for it to comment on a 
commercial process. BNG said: "We are continuing to keep both the 
MoD and AWE Management Limited's other shareholders fully 
informed on the sale of BNG."

Britain has been secretly designing a new nuclear warhead at 
Aldermaston, which was once omitted from Ordnance Survey maps for 
security reasons.

BNG will compete for new clean-up contracts worth tens of 
billions of pounds for 20 nuclear sites around Britain from later 
this year.        
 	   	 	
The Times and The Sunday Times. 

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 29 IRNA: Algerian official denounces US double-standard -

April 15, IRNA                                                                                                                 

Algerian Minister of State without Portfolio Boudjerra Soltani
denounced the double-standard policy the US has adopted
vis-a-vis the world issues.

 The US and the west should not overlook the Israeli nuclear
policy while they impose pressure on Iran for its peaceful
nuclear program, he told reporters on the sidelines of the
international Palestine conference.

 Iran has opened the doors of its nuclear facilities to the
inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) many
times which indicated civilian nature of Iran's nuclear
programs, he stated.

 Shifting to the mutual relations between Iran and Algeria, he
noted the cooperation is expanding in all areas.

 The three-day conference kicked off here Friday afternoon with
a keynote speech by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution
Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei.



*****************************************************************
 30 WorldNetDaily: Busting empty bunkers

Founded 1997    Sunday, April 16, 2006    Today's Edition  
 
 [Supercritical Thoughts] [Gordon Prather] 
 
Posted: April 15, 2006

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com 

On April 12, Bloomberg News "reported"that: 

Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt
its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb
within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said. 

Iran will move to "industrial scale'' uranium enrichment
involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated
Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling
state-run television today. 

"Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly
enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen
Rademaker, U.S. assistant secretary of state for international
security and nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow. 

Well, the Security Council made no such demand, and the "sense"
of what neo-crazy Rademaker said has deliberately been
misrepresented to you. 

Rademaker did not say that Iran would be "capable" of "making" a
nuclear bomb within 16 days after installing and getting to
operate satisfactorily uranium-enrichment cascades, involving
more than 50,000 gas-centrifuges. 

The "sense" of what Rademaker said is that when and if the
Iranians have manufactured an additional 50,000 or so
gas-centrifuges, installed them in cascades in the underground
"bunker" at Natanz, and gotten the cascades to operate
satisfactorily – all done under the watchful sensors of
inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Safeguards and
Physical Security regime – they could then withdraw from the
Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, could then throw
out the IAEA, could then perhaps reconfigure their
gas-centrifuge cascades so as to produce several hundred pounds
of bomb-grade [almost pure U-235] enriched uranium, rather than
the tons of reactor-grade enriched-uranium the cascades were
designed, built and operated to produce. 

It takes about 120 pounds to make a simple gun-type nuke like
the one we dropped on Hiroshima. It takes maybe 40 or 50 pounds
of bomb-grade enriched uranium to make an implosion-type nuke. 

Of course, virtually every implosion-type nuke that has ever
been made – including the one we dropped on Nagasaki – used
almost pure Pu-239, not almost pure U-235. (It is not possible
to make a simple gun-type nuke with Plutonium." 

Furthermore, making an implosion nuke is not easy. If it were,
then there would be no doubt whatsoever that North Korea, or
DPRK, now has a dozen or so Pu-239 implosion-type nukes. And if
they do, it is President Bush's fault. 

When Bush became president, all DPRK nuclear materials, reactors
and associated facilities were "frozen" under IAEA lock and key,
subject to the US-IAEA-DPRK Agreed Framework of 1994. But,
shortly after the White House Iraq Group was set up to manage
the Operation Iraqi Freedom pre-war propaganda campaign, Bush
unilaterally abrogated the Agreed Framework. 

The Koreans responded by withdrawing from the NPT – which made
the DPRK-IAEA Safeguards Agreement null and void – restarting
their weapons-grade plutonium-producing reactor and chemically
separating out the weapons-grade plutonium they had already
produced. 

By neo-crazy logic, the North Koreans now have at least a dozen
plutonium implosion-type nukes. And if they do, it is without
any question Bush's "bad." 

Bush claimed he abrogated the Agreed Framework because he had
"intelligence" that the Koreans has a secret nuke-oriented
uranium-enrichment program, unknown and undetected by the IAEA. 

No evidence has ever been found for such a program. 

You may recall that the principal rationale Bush gave for
launching a pre-emptive war – neither authorized by Congress or
sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council – against Iraq in 2003
was that he had "intelligence" that the Iraqis had a secret
nuke-oriented uranium-enrichment program, unknown and undetected
by the IAEA. 

No evidence has ever been found for such a program. 

Now comes Seymour Hersh's stunning article, "The Iran Plans"in
the New Yorker magazine – plus interviews of Hersh on Wolf
Blitzer&#39;s Showand by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now– about
Bush plans to pre-emptively "take out" the Iranian secret
nuke-oriented uranium-enrichment program, unknown and undetected
by the IAEA. 

According to Hersh, one of the options that the White House
adamantly refuses to take "off the table" – despite the pleading
of Pentagon military planners and our allies – is the use of
bunker-busting nukes. 

It seems military planners told the White House that if they
wanted to be sure to destroy the underground uranium-enrichment
bunker at Natanz – which is to eventually hold those 50,000
gas-centrifuges, but is now empty – they'd have to nuke it. 

According to Hersh, plans to destroy all Iranian nuclear
facilities, combat aircraft, anti-aircraft batteries and
command-control centers are in the early stages of
implementation. 

No one in the Bush-Cheney administration is denying that. 

Even the option to nuke an empty bunker.
 
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. 

Copyright 1997-2006
All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.                  
*****************************************************************
 31 UK: Independent: What happened to wind power? 

Beset by high costs, the Government's great hope for clean,
sustainable electricity is drifting out to sea 

By Tim Webb 

Published: 16 April 2006 

Earlier this month, over 300 company executives, consultants and 
advisers gathered at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in 
Westminster for the annual offshore conference of the British 
Wind Energy Association (BWEA). Delegates say the mood was not as 
upbeat as in previous years. During coffee breaks, wind farm 
developers cornered turbine manufacturers to ask them when supply 
problems would be eased and the promised, more powerful models 
introduced. Talking among themselves, the developers agreed that 
many of the larger projects were no longer viable without more 
government support. 

Offshore wind, like much of the policy on renewables trumpeted in 
the Energy White Paper three years ago, is floundering. Onshore 
wind isn't doing much better. Both are central to the Government 
meeting its targets for renewables. 

The current energy minister, Malcolm Wicks (who writes below), is 
the third since the last review. He is preparing to start 
drafting the latest Energy White Paper after submissions to the 
consultation closed on Friday. Before he decides whether to 
sanction the building of more nuclear reactors, the Government is 
being warned that its last favoured technology, wind power, is in 
trouble. 

At the end of 2005, according to the European Wind Energy 
Association (EWEA), the farms installed in the UK generated just 
over 1,300 megawatts (MW) of electricity, the vast majority 
produced onshore. That's enough to power a city slightly larger 
than Birmingham and amounts to around 1.6 per cent of the UK's 
total generating capacity. The total contribution from renewable 
sources is just under 4 per cent, the rest mostly made up from 
old hydro projects in Scotland. 

To get anywhere near the Government's target of generating a
10th of the UK's electricity from renewable sources like wind by
2010, rising to a fifth by 2020, hundreds of wind farms need to
be built. With many of the most practical onshore sites already
taken, much of the new capacity will have to come from offshore
farms. 

Under current conditions, this is unlikely to happen, say
developers surveyed by The Independent on Sunday. Rather than
becoming cheaper with experience and economies of scale, as the
industry and Government had hoped, building offshore wind farms
has got more expensive, says Dave Farrier, head of development
for UK renewables at the German-owned energy giant E.ON. 

In the past two years, the cost of building offshore farms has
increased from around £1.2m per MW to £1.6m - almost twice as
expensive as onshore projects. The soaring cost of steel, and
the demand from Asia and the US for wind farms, have pushed up
the price of turbines and limited the availability of the
equipment needed to install them. Turbine makers like General
Electric and Danish firm Vestas are concentrating on the much
larger, and more proven, global market for onshore farms.
Indeed, while the UK is planning to build at least half its wind
farms offshore, the EWEA reports that only 2 per cent of
wind-generating capacity in Europe is offshore and this is
unlikely to rise significantly. 

Gearoid Lane, director of gas and power procurement at Centrica,
the UK's largest offshore wind developer, says that for each MW
of capacity built in the UK, the company loses £300,000. So with
a 300MW plant, for example, the developer faces a £90m funding
shortfall. "This makes the economics quite challenging for
companies like ours." 

In 2001, in the first phase of the Government's planned
development of offshore wind power, it released licences for 13
sites to generate a total of 1,500MW. Of these projects, three
are in operation, one is being built and two have been put on
hold indefinitely because they are no longer economically
viable. Of the seven projects remaining, all three developers
that returned calls to the IoS last week said they would not be
in operation until 2008 at the earliest - two years later than
originally envisaged. 

The prospects for the much larger second round of projects,
slated to deliver between 5,400MW and 7,200MW, are worse still,
although they are at a much earlier stage. Once all the planning
consents have been received, over the next 12 months, developers
will have to decide whether to go ahead, and the signs do not
look encouraging. 

Alastair Gill, development manager for "npower renewables", part
of Germany's RWE, says: "We are seeing other companies put
projects on hold because they can't make the economics work. I
cannot say we would definitely go ahead with round two without
more government support." 

Mr Farrier at E.ON adds: "The hope was that two or three of the
first-round projects would be constructed every year. But we are
only managing one per year. It's difficult to see how round two
can happen under current market conditions." 

Most of the wind farm developers are global players and so can
choose where to invest, and Mr Gill at npower says it is getting
harder to secure backing for UK renewable projects. In Germany
and Portugal, for example, there is more certainty because
projects can sell their electricity on long-term contracts
guaranteed by the government. In the UK, developers must rely on
renewable obligation certificates (ROCs), which electricity
suppliers have to buy on the market if they miss their renewable
targets. The proceeds from the sale of ROCs are distributed
among the developers. 

Simon Currie, energy finance specialist at law firm Norton Rose,
says: "Has this market-based incentive delivered the hoped-for
rapid utilisation of abundant offshore wind resources? The
answer is clearly no." His view is shared by most developers. 

Progress has been made. The capacity of installed wind farms in
the UK doubled in the two years to the end of 2005, and other
technologies like clean coal are being developed (npower
announced last week that it plans to build a plant in Tilbury).
But the experiences of wind farms do not inspire confidence in
the next set of promises that the Government will make in its
Energy Review. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 32 Japan Times: A-bomb legacy fading: filmmaker 

American seeks hibakusha stories for future generations By MANDY

WILLINGHAM 

LOS ANGELES (Kyodo) After the 60th anniversary of the atomic 
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki passed last August, filmmaker 
Steven Okazaki began worrying that the attacks and their 
cautionary lessons are being forgotten. 

  [News photo]   
  Filmmaker Steven Okazaki and his wife, Peggy Orenstein, pose
at the U.S. Academy Awards in Hollywood in March.   


"If you really ask young people, they know very little about
Hiroshima and Nagasaki," the 54-year-old Japanese-American said.

"I think that's very disturbing." 

While doing research recently for his upcoming film, the
Oscar-winning filmmaker asked young people in Tokyo's trendy
Harajuku district about the significance of Aug. 6, 1945. 
He expected at least half of them would recognize it as the day
Hiroshima was bombed. 

"We asked and all of them said 'I don't know,' " said Okazaki.

"It was not a big survey, but not one of them knew the
significance (of the date). And these people will grow up to be
the voters of Japan." 

Okazaki is also concerned that Americans have little knowledge
about their country's nuclear legacy. 

"In American schools we learn very little," he said. "I think 90
to 95 percent of Americans know almost nothing about Hiroshima
and Nagasaki." 

Hoping to increase awareness of the 1945 attacks, particularly
the stories of the hibakusha, the filmmaker, who hails from
Berkeley, has spent the past year developing a comprehensive
documentary for U.S. cable network HBO. 

"I feel like I'm going to contribute something and that when the
hibakusha are gone (there will) be some record," Okazaki said. 

The documentary, set to air in 2007, will feature interviews
with 30 hibakusha as well as scientists and plane navigators who
were involved in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The
filmmaker said he wants to tell the stories of survivors and
participants without academic or political analysis. 

"(There will) be an American point of view and a Japanese point
of view, but no historians and no politicians," Okazaki said. 

Okazaki's interest in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began more than 25
years ago when his friends translated "Barefoot Gen," Keiji
Nakazawa's classic autobiographical comic of the Hiroshima
bombing, into English. 

Impressed by Nakazawa's work, he later met a group of hibakusha
living in San Francisco who inspired him to make his first
feature documentary, "Survivors." 

Okazaki followed the 1982 film with other projects documenting
the complexities of racism, drug addiction and cultural
identity. 

His 1991 film, "Days of Waiting," which tells the story of
Estelle Ishigo, an American married to a Japanese, put in a
Japanese-American internment camp during World War II, earned
Okazaki an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short. 

His film,"The Mushroom Club," was nominated for an Oscar in 2005
for best documentary short subject. It is a personal look at how
hibakusha live with the emotional and often physical scars of
the bombing while the significance of the devastating attack has
faded in the minds of Hiroshima's younger generations. 

Okazaki said it is a challenge for the atomic bomb victims to
share their experiences and speak out against nuclear warfare. 

"I think the hibakusha feel like they've been telling their
stories for so many years and not getting any response," he
said. "Many go to different places around the world to speak out
against nuclear arms, but it's to the same groups of people, and
they don't seem to be getting any bigger." 

It is important for Americans to hear the stories of the
hibakusha and understand their continued relevance, the
filmmaker said. 

"Americans like to argue about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they
don't know anything about the hibakusha," he said. "I feel like
before you say 'Bombs are bad,' you should show what happened to
these people." 

Okazaki attributed the American public's lack of knowledge about
the nuclear attacks and the aftermath to a failure by
politicians, educators and other individuals to address the
difficult subject. 

"It's a remarkable thing, how much misunderstanding and
mythology there is," he said. 

Despite the lack of attention given to Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Okazaki is hopeful about what he says is a renewed motivation of
hibakusha speak about their experiences. 

"I think now there's a surge of energy because the hibakusha
have realized that this could be their last time to speak out,"
the filmmaker said. "I feel like right now there's more energy
in the hibakusha movement than there's been in many, many
years." 

The Japan Times: Saturday, April 15, 2006 (C) All rights
reserved     

*****************************************************************
 33 Guardian Unlimited: More nuclear power will not avert energy crisis, say MPs
 
John Vidal, environment editor

Monday April 17, 2006

The Guardian 

A new generation of nuclear power stations will be unable to 
avert a serious energy crisis within 10 years, a committee of MPs 
said yesterday. In a scathing analysis of how Britain intends to 
generate power in future and of the way decisions are being made 
today, the environment audit committee urged the government to 
start investing heavily in alternative power sources to meet 
increasing demand and global warming objectives.

The committee's report said the government had become "too 
focused" on nuclear, and now risked the lights going out by not 
investing heavily in energy efficiency and more wind and gas 
stations. It called for a significant growth in renewables as 
well as political leadership.

The 16-member cross-party group with a majority of Labour MPs 
said that by 2016, 25% of Britain's electricity generating 
capacity will have to be replaced. Even if a new generation of 
nuclear reactors were agreed tomorrow, this would be too late to 
fill the "power gap" between supply and demand forecast for the 
UK by 2016. The proposed new nuclear network would not be 
generating at full capacity until as late as 2030 because nuclear 
power takes so long to plan and build.

The report is the second from a government committee in three
months to reject nuclear power, and will be a major setback to
the industry which is pressing hard to build 10 new stations. It
will also disappoint Mr Blair, who is committed to nuclear on
the recommendtion of the chief scientist, Sir David King, and
other advisers.

The MPs said any decision to opt for nuclear must not be rushed.
"There are also serious concerns relating to safety, the threat
of terrorism, and the proliferation of nuclear power across the
world. Moreover ... it is by no means clear whether investors
will wish to commit themselves to 70 years of nuclear
generation."

The committee noticed striking similarities to 1980 "when a
similar large scale nuclear programme eventually resulted in the
construction of only one new reactor - Sizewell B". But the MPs
said opting for nuclear power could stymie the advance of
renewable technologies like solar and tidal. The committee
accused the Treasury of discouraging energy efficiency and said
that it had no confidence in government modelling of Britain's
future needs for power. It said renewable energy sources could
provide 20% the UK's electricity by the year 2020 but the
government did not appear to be committed to developing them.
The Treasury was making it as difficult as possible for some
technologies to be adopted.
 
Useful link
Green party of England and Wales

Email us
Email your comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 34 Guardian Unlimited: Blair hints at go-ahead for new nuclear power plants
 
Patrick Wintour, political editor

Monday April 17, 2006
 
Tony Blair has given his strongest indication yet that he will 
press ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations 
despite a highly critical report from MPs yesterday claiming that 
Britain's coming energy gap can best be filled by new carbon 
efficient gas stations.

Mr Blair, speaking ahead of the government's energy review in 
June, said Britain will need both new nuclear and renewable 
energy to fill the energy gap. Asked in a video interview, before 
the parliamentary recess, if Britain should rely on nuclear or on 
renewables, Mr Blair replied: "I have a feeling it is possible we 
may need both."

He added: "We are investing a lot in renewable energy, it is 
very, very important, but we are going to lose 20% of our power 
from nuclear, which is what we get at the moment. Looking 
forward, for reasons of energy security as much as for reasons of 
climate change, I think there is going to be a huge need to 
develop all of this."

Britain is set to lose 20GW of electricity generating capacity
by the end of 2015, largely due to the decommissioning of old
nuclear stations. The environmental audit select committee,
which issued its report yesterday, claims new nuclear stations
could not come on line until 2019 at the earliest.

But ministers hope to overcome this by problem by speeding up
the planning process, and have formally requested that the
health and safety executive consider whether it could give
licence consents to prospective designs for reactors before
assessing specific projects, thereby foreshortening the
construction process.

The HSE has acknowledged that "potential private licensees may
wish to reduce project and commercial risk, by seeking
preliminary, or pre-licensing regulatory assessments of
prospective reactor designs, before large-scale financial
commitments are made". Since the reactors are likely to be of
foreign design, the HSE may also rely more than in the past on
the safety assessment of foreign regulators.
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 35 London Times: More nuclear power ‘likely’ - 

Britain - Times Online

By David Charter

THE prospect of new nuclear power stations appeared to come 
closer yesterday when a minister said that a mix of energy supply 
sources would fuel Britain in the future.

Malcolm Wicks, the Energy Minister, also emphasised the need to 
cut greenhouse gases, one of the key arguments used by the 
pro-nuclear lobby, despite a sceptical report from MPs on nuclear 
power benefits.

The cross-party Commons Environmental Audit Committee  said that 
a new generation of gas-fired power stations would be needed to 
prevent energy shortages over the next decade. It was 
"scandalous" that more research into alternative technologies was 
not being funded, the committee said, adding that nuclear was 
expensive and vulnerable to terrorism. Mr Wicks said that the 
government review would propose a "mix" of solutions, interpreted 
as a sign that nuclear stations will be commissioned.


 The Times and The Sunday Times. 
Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 36 UK: Observer: MPs warn of electricity crisis in UK
 
[UP] 

Ned Temko, chief political correspondent

Sunday April 16, 2006
 
British consumers will have to pay more for their electricity
and use less of it as part of any workable future energy
strategy, a group of MPs warns in a report published today.

The report, by the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, says
Britain will have to find a way to replace about a quarter of
its existing electricity provision over the next decade, as old
nuclear stations and other facilities are decommissioned. It
will also have to meet the government's targets for reducing
environmentally harmful emissions.

As reported in The Observer last week, the committee strongly
warns Tony Blair against opting for a new generation of nuclear
power stations. The report says these would not come on stream
quickly enough to have any effect on supply.

The report says that while cleaner gas-powered stations will
fill the electricity 'generation gap' in the short term, the
government will inevitably also have to make stronger efforts to
promote other 'lower-carbon sources'.

If, as the committee hopes, this does not mean new nuclear
stations, it says other options could include 'renewables' such
as wind farms or new 'carbon capture' technologies.

But the report says 'all lower-carbon-generating technologies
are more expensive than coal' and all 'will require financial
support'. It adds: 'The government should accept that the shift
to a sustainable energy strategy cannot be based ... on
maintaining low energy prices.'

Consumers would also have to use less electricity. 'We cannot
emphasise enough that reducing demand is also a vital component
on the path to a sustainable energy strategy,' the report says.
'We urge the government to consider setting absolute targets for
reductions in demand as a way of stimulating the growth of
energy efficiency and guaranteeing the level of carbon savings
achieved.'
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 37 Guardian Unlimited: MPs warn of electricity crisis in UK
 
Ned Temko, chief political correspondent

Sunday April 16, 2006
The Observer 

British consumers will have to pay more for their electricity and 
use less of it as part of any workable future energy strategy, a 
group of MPs warns in a report published today.

The report, by the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, says 
Britain will have to find a way to replace about a quarter of its 
existing electricity provision over the next decade, as old 
nuclear stations and other facilities are decommissioned. It will 
also have to meet the government's targets for reducing 
environmentally harmful emissions.

As reported in The Observer last week, the committee strongly 
warns Tony Blair against opting for a new generation of nuclear 
power stations. The report says these would not come on stream 
quickly enough to have any effect on supply.

The report says that while cleaner gas-powered stations will
fill the electricity 'generation gap' in the short term, the
government will inevitably also have to make stronger efforts to
promote other 'lower-carbon sources'.

If, as the committee hopes, this does not mean new nuclear
stations, it says other options could include 'renewables' such
as wind farms or new 'carbon capture' technologies.

But the report says 'all lower-carbon-generating technologies
are more expensive than coal' and all 'will require financial
support'. It adds: 'The government should accept that the shift
to a sustainable energy strategy cannot be based ... on
maintaining low energy prices.'

Consumers would also have to use less electricity. 'We cannot
emphasise enough that reducing demand is also a vital component
on the path to a sustainable energy strategy,' the report says.
'We urge the government to consider setting absolute targets for
reductions in demand as a way of stimulating the growth of
energy efficiency and guaranteeing the level of carbon savings
achieved.'
 
	
Green party of England and Wales

Email us
Email your comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 38 AU: The Age: Nuclear power's sick legacy - 

Opinion - theage.com.au

'The Government is embarked on another mendacious, ill-advised,
and downright dangerous enterprise.'

Illustration: Dyson      By Helen Caldicott

April 17, 2006

The noted American writer Mary McCarthy once famously observed of 
the equally noted but politically discredited playwright Lillian 
Hellman: "every word she utters is a lie, including 'and' and 
'but' ". As we have seen over the past 10 years, the same can be 
said of the Howard Government from the children-overboard scandal 
to "there will never be a GST" to "yes, there are weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq". Now - joined by misguided and misinformed 
members of the ALP and a few scientists who should know better - 
the Government is embarked on another mendacious, ill-advised, 
and downright dangerous enterprise: transforming Australia into a 
nuclear-powered, uranium-exporting nation, deploying as a 
rhetorical fig leaf the spurious message that nuclear power is 
emissions-free, green, and safe and will save Australia - and 
indeed the world - from the effects of global warming. Let's pull 
away that tattered fig leaf and look at the facts. 

The global warming carbon dioxide (CO2) gas is released at every
stage of the nuclear fuel cycle - from uranium mining and
milling, from uranium enrichment, from construction of huge
concrete reactors, and from the transport and long-term storage
of intensely radioactive waste. Nuclear power plants generate
only one-third as much CO2 as a similar-sized gas-fired plant.
But because the supply of highly concentrated uranium ore, which
is relatively easy to mine and enrich, is limited, the energy
eventually required to mine and enrich uranium will greatly
increase. If today's global electricity production was converted
to nuclear power, there would only be three years' supply of
accessible uranium to fuel the reactors. Uranium is therefore a
finite commodity. 

CO2 is not the only global warming gas emitted by nuclear power.
The Pacudah enrichment plant in Kentucky, which processes
uranium from many countries, including Australia, annually leaks
93 per cent of the CFC-114 gas released by the US. Banned under
the Montreal protocol, CFC is a prodigious destroyer of the
ozone layer and it also is a potent global warming agent. 

Furthermore, nuclear reactors routinely emit large amounts of
radioactive materials, including the fat-soluble noble gases
xenon, krypton and argon. Deemed "inert" by the nuclear
industry, they are readily inhaled by populations near reactors
and absorbed into the bloodstream where they concentrate in the
fat pads of the abdomen and upper thighs, exposing ovaries and
testicles to mutagenic gamma radiation (like X-rays). 

Tritium, radioactive hydrogen, is also regularly discharged from
reactors. Combining with oxygen, it forms tritiated water, which
passes readily through skin, lungs and gut. Contrary to industry
propaganda, tritium is a dangerous carcinogenic element
producing cancers, congenital malformations and genetic
deformities in low doses in animals, and by extrapolation in
humans. 

In the age of terrorism, nuclear reactors are inviting targets.
It is relatively easy to induce a reactor meltdown by either
severing the external electricity supply, by disrupting the 3
million litres a minute intake of cooling water, by infiltrating
the control room, or by a well co-ordinated terrorist attack.
Surprisingly, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has failed to
upgrade security at the 103 nuclear reactors since the September
11 attack. A meltdown at the Indian Point nuclear power plant 56
kilometres from Manhattan could render that city uninhabitable
for thousands of years if prevailing winds blew in the right
direction. 

Above all, nuclear waste is the industry's Achilles heel. The US
has no viable solution for radioactive waste storage. A total of
60,000 tonnes are temporarily stored in so-called swimming pools
beside nuclear reactors, awaiting final disposal. Yucca Mountain
in Nevada, transected by 32 earthquake faults, has been
identified as the final geological repository. Made of permeable
pumice, it is unsuitable as a radioactive geological waste
receptacle and recent fraudulent projections of the mountain's
ability to retard leakage by the United States Geological Survey
have rendered this project to be almost untenable. 

Already, radioactive elements in many nuclear-powered countries
are leaking into underground water systems, rivers, and oceans,
progressively concentrating at each level of the food chain.
Strontium 90, which causes bone cancer and leukaemia, and cesium
137, which induces rare muscle and brain cancers, are
radioactive for 600 years. Food and human breast milk will
become increasingly radioactive near numerous waste sites.
Cancers will inevitably increase in frequency in exposed
populations, as will genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis in
their descendants. 

Each typical 1000-megawatt reactor makes 200 kilograms of
plutonium a year. Less than one-millionth of a gram is
carcinogenic. Handled like iron by the body, it causes liver,
lung and bone cancer and leukaemia. Crossing the placenta to
induce congential deformities, it has a predilection for the
testicle, where inevitably it will cause genetic abnormalities.
With a radiological life of 240,000 years, released in the
ecosphere it will affect biological systems forever. 

Because only five kilograms of plutonium is critical mass,
countries importing our uranium to fuel their nuclear reactors
could, theoretically, manufacture plutonium for many nuclear
bombs each year. The under-resourced International Atomic Energy
Agency admits that it is physically impossible to prevent a
determined country, whether a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty or not, from using imported uranium or
its byproduct, plutonium, to make nuclear weapons. 

A truly informed national debate about the production, export,
and use of Australian uranium is imperative as China, Taiwan and
India line up to receive our yellowcake. 

Time is short. Once the waste is produced, its legacy will
affect all future generations. 

Helen Caldicott is president of the Nuclear Policy Research
Institute. 


 Copyright © 2006. The Age Company Ltd.

*****************************************************************
 39 TorontoSun.com: Hydro crisis worse than ever before

Commentary - EDITORIAL: 

editor@tor.sunpub.com
  
April 15, 2006

When Sir Adam Beck tabled Ontario Hydro's charter legislation in
1906, his dream was that it would always provide Ontarians with
reliable power at an affordable cost. 																			

Flash forward a century to Ontario's latest hydro rate hike --
amid threats of summer brownouts and blackouts -- and it's clear
Beck's dream has turned into a nightmare. Today, we have
unreliable power at an increasingly unaffordable cost.
																			

The latest increases will see the average Toronto homeowner's
annual utility bill rise by 5.8%, or $73, starting May 1. Many
Ontario communities will be hit much harder. 																			

Premier Dalton McGuinty, who promised in the 2003 election to
cap hydro rates until 2006, has thus broken his word -- again.
Or, more accurately, rebroken it. 																			

Conservative Leader John Tory charged hydro rates have gone up
55% since McGuinty came to power. NDP Leader Howard Hampton
accused him of failing to invest in conservation. But the fact
is, Ontario's power woes have been building for decades and
every major political party shares the blame. 																		
									
Under the Red Tories of Bill Davis starting in the 1970s, the
old, publicly owned Ontario Hydro was allowed to run amok. Over
the years it ran up huge debts, paid exorbitant salaries, made
inaccurate estimates of Ontario's power needs and overestimated
the durability of its nuclear plants. 																			

But no Ontario government was ever prepared to bite the bullet,
fix the problems and admit that so many costly errors had been
made, that Ontarians would be paying for them through higher
hydro rates for many years to come. 																			

And so, Hydro's problems and debt grew through the Liberal
government of David Peterson, the NDP era of Bob Rae and the
"Common Sense Revolution" of the Mike Harris/Ernie Eves Tories,
the latter of whom totally botched privatization. Thus, today's
crisis can't all be blamed on McGuinty. 																			

What McGuinty can be blamed for, however, is sticking to his
crazy election promise to close all of Ontario's coal-fired
energy plants by 2009 (originally 2007) and replace them with
more costly natural gas plants in the middle of a supply crisis.
All this while Ontario's conservation efforts are at the baby
stage. 																			

In other words, hold onto your wallets, because this sickening
rate-hike ride is about to get really rough. 																	
															 								 								 								 								
Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc.All rights reserved.        
 Proprietor and Publisher - Sun Media (Toronto) Corporation, 333
King St. E., Toronto, ON, M5A 3X5 Test--> 		   	 
*****************************************************************
 40 VOA News: Nuclear Power, The Scary IF
 
   By Zulima Palacio Washington, DC

13 April 2006
       
watch Nuclear Power report / Real broadband  [video clip] 


It is estimated that the world's consumption of energy will
increase by 60 percent over the next 20 years. And the United
States already has problems in the way it meets its current
energy needs. President Bush says the country is addicted to
oil, and is urging alternative fuels. And half of U.S.
electricity is generated by coal, which is responsible for over
80 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, a contributor to global
warming. 

There is an energy source that could help meet future needs, but
it is one that has been off-limits for years. 

This is uranium in its natural form.  And this is the sound of
radiation. 

This is a pellet of uranium like the ones used in nuclear
reactors.  Ray Golden is the Communications Manager at the San
Onofre Nuclear plant in California. "This one little pellet is
the energy equivalent of 150 gallons of gasoline, there is no
other technology in the world as concentrated as uranium," he
said. 

There are only 103 active plants in the U.S., yet they still
represent nearly 20 percent of the country's energy production. 
But nuclear power scares many people, thanks to the dramatic
nuclear accidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in March
of 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine in April of 1986.  

It has been almost 30 years since a permit was issued for a
nuclear plant in the United States. Now, things are changing,
according to Adrian Heymer, Director of New Plant Deployment at
the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

"I think it is going to grow tremendously. We believe we'll
start construction in 2010.  There are nine companies moving
forward, preparing licensing applications.  They will start to
be submitted in 2007 through 2009," Heymer said. 

The nine new nuclear plants will be built mostly in the
southeast of the U.S.  Another five companies are evaluating
their possibilities.  Each reactor will cost in the billions of
dollars. 

Mr. Heymer says it will be costly. "In simple terms it comes
down to a little over $2.5 billion," he said. 

The high price of generating nuclear energy at plants such as
San Onofre, half way between Los Angeles and San Diego in
California, could be higher still, if we consider the risk and
potential dangers that surround nuclear plants.  There are three
main safety issues: the potential for a radiation accident, the
production of nuclear waste, and the plants' vulnerability as
terrorist targets.  

Ray Golden works for the San Onofre plant.  "I cannot stand here
and say on any given day that this plant will never have an
accident and if it has an accident it will release radiation and
if it releases radiation it may increase the incidence of cancer
of people living near by, I can't say no to that," he said. 

During the last 20 years no serious accidents have been reported
around any reactor in the U.S.  Safety measures have been a very
expensive priority.  

However, it is the production of nuclear waste in the form of
millions of used, highly radioactive, uranium pellets that
continues to be a major concern.  Paul Gunter is the Director of
the Reactor Watchdog Project for Nuclear Information in
Washington. 

"We are constantly playing a game of Russian roulette with
nuclear power, where risk and probability of an accident are
ever present,"  he said. 

The first cup full of nuclear waste generated 50 years ago is
still mismanaged.  We don't know what to do with it.  It will be
a problem passed from one generation to the next."  

 "This is a very serious technology and it has a legacy which is
the used nuclear fuel that is going to be radioactive for tens
of thousands of years.  But the benefit to me far out weighs the
risk, even if this means leaving this legacy to future
generations," Golden added. 

According to scientists, some nuclear waste can remain
radioactive for millions of years.  In the U.S., nuclear waste
has been stored near nuclear facilities, mostly in underground
steel-lined tanks and thick walls of concrete.  But some tanks
are getting old and now are leaking high-level nuclear
contamination into groundwater, like at Hanford in the State of
Washington. 

Over the last 20 years, the government has been talking about
Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a central repository for the growing
stockpile of nuclear waste.  But the expense required, local
opposition, and safety concerns have prevented the project from
starting.   

And then there is the vulnerability to terrorism.  Adrian
Heymer, from the Nuclear Energy Institute, says the industry has
spent billions of dollars on plant security. "Since September
11/01 we have spent $1.2 billion on improvements and
modifications to the plants to make them safer," he said. 

But Paul Gunter says nuclear plants are still vulnerable. "Radio
active waste, the risk of nuclear accidents, the vulnerability
to terrorism that uses these sites which are sitting ducks to
spread radiation across the land, all of these add up to what
the real cost of nuclear power is and is really a cost that is
not worth bearing," he said. 

Even though nuclear power is controversial, many countries have
concluded it is necessary.  Nearly 450 nuclear plants generate
some 16 percent of the world's electricity today.  Twenty-four
new plants are under construction in 10 countries, mostly in
India and China.  

*****************************************************************
 41 Korea Herald: The myths of Chernobyl   

By Kalman Mizsei and Louisa Vinton 

2006.04.17


Editorial   
    
The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident of April
26, 1986 is prompting a new wave of alarmist claims about its
impact on human health and the environment. As has become a
ritual on such commemorative occasions, the death toll is
tallied in the hundreds of thousands, and fresh reports are made
of elevated rates of cancer, birth defects, and overall
mortality. 

This picture is both badly distorted - and harmful to the
victims of the Chernobyl accident. All reputable scientific
studies conducted so far have concluded that the impact of
radiation has been less damaging than was feared. A few dozen
emergency workers who battled the fire at the reactor succumbed
to acute radiation sickness. Studies are still under way into
elevated rates of cancer and cardiovascular disease among the
"liquidators" who worked at the reactor site in the months
following the accident. And some 5,000 cases of thyroid cancer,
attributed to radioactive iodine absorbed through consumption of
milk in the weeks immediately following the accident, have been
detected among those who were children at the time.

 There has been real suffering, particularly among the 330,000
people who were relocated after the accident. About that there
is no doubt. But, for the five million people living in affected
regions who are designated as Chernobyl "victims," radiation has
had no discernable impact on physical health.

 This is because these people were exposed to low radiation
doses that in most cases were comparable to natural background
levels. Two decades of natural decay and remediation measures
mean that most territories originally deemed "contaminated" no
longer merit that label. Aside from thyroid cancer, which has
been successfully treated in 98.5 percent of cases, scientists
have not been able to document any connection between radiation
and any physical condition.

 Where a clear impact has been found is mental health. Fear of
radiation, it seems, poses a far more potent health threat than
does radiation itself. Symptoms of stress are rampant, and many
residents of affected areas firmly believe themselves to be
condemned by radiation to ill health and early death. 

In part, this is because the initial Soviet response was
secretive: Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time,
addressed the issue on television only weeks later, on May 14,
1986. Myths and misconceptions have taken root, and these have
outlasted subsequent efforts to provide reliable information.
Combined with sweeping government benefit policies that classify
millions of people living in Chernobyl-affected areas as
invalids, such myths encouraged fatalistic and passive behaviors
and created a "culture of dependency" among affected communities.

 The United Nations Chernobyl Forum, a consortium of eight U.N.
agencies and representatives of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine,
reinforced these findings. Chernobyl Forum was created to
address the prevailing confusion concerning the impact of the
accident, both among the public and government officials, by
declaring a clear verdict on issues where a scientific consensus
could be found. The Forum succeeded in this effort, and a fresh
and reassuring message on the impact of radiation was made
public in September. 

The Chernobyl Forum findings should have brought relief, for
they show that the specter haunting the region is not invincible
radiation, but conquerable poverty. What the region needs are
policies aimed at generating new livelihoods rather than
reinforcing dependency; public-health campaigns that address the
lifestyle issues (smoking and drinking) that undermine health
across the former Soviet Union; and community development
initiatives that promote self-reliance and a return to normalcy. 

But the reception given to the Chernobyl Forum's message has
been surprisingly mixed. Some officials have reverted to
alarmist language on the number of fatalities attributed to
Chernobyl. Some NGO's and Chernobyl charities have responded
with disbelief, citing as evidence the general population's
admittedly poor health. Opponents of nuclear power have
suggested that self-interest has compromised the Chernobyl
Forum's integrity.

 Set against the impressive body of science underpinning the
Chernobyl Forum, such responses reflect the tenacity not only of
myths and misconceptions, but also of vested interests. The new
view on Chernobyl threatens the existence of charities - such as
those offering health "respites" abroad for children - that
depend for their fund-raising on graphic footage of deformed
babies.

 The new understanding also deprives the region's officials of a
routine way to seek international sympathy, even if the
repetition of such appeals after two decades yields little
financial aid. By misstating the problems, these approaches
threaten to divert scarce resources into the wrong remedies.

 The twentieth anniversary of the Chernobyl accident is an ideal
occasion for all actors to do some honest soul-searching.
Governments are right to worry about the fate of
Chernobyl-affected territories, but the way forward will require
fresh thinking and bold decisions, particularly a shift in
priorities from paying paltry benefits to millions to targeted
spending that helps to promote jobs and economic growth.
Similarly, charities are right to worry about the population's
health, but they should focus on promoting healthy lifestyles in
affected communities rather than whisking children abroad as if
their homes were poisonous.

 All parties are right to worry about the affected populations,
but, more than any sophisticated diagnostic equipment, what is
needed is credible information, presented in a digestible
format, to counter Chernobyl's destructive legacy of fear. The
children of Chernobyl are all grown up; their interests, and
those of their own children, are best served not by continually
evoking the nightmare of radiation, but by giving them the tools
and authority they need to rebuild their own communities. 

Kalman Mizsei is the assistant administrator and regional
director of UNDP Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS. Louisa
Vinton is the UNDP senior program manager responsible for the
Western CIS and Caucasus countries, as well as Chernobyl. - Ed.

*****************************************************************
 42 Sunday Herald: Nuclear wont plug power gap - 

Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper     Est

  Environmental Audit Committee roasts reactors idea

By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor 
 
 Tony Blairs ambitions for nuclear power have been given another
roasting, this time by MPs from his own party.

A programme to build new reactors would be fraught with risks
and could not plug the electricity gap, concludes a report by
the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee.

The report savages the UK government for not doing enough to
boost energy efficiency, renewables and clean coal. And it is
scathing about the Prime Ministers energy review, suggesting
that it is unnecessary and doomed to failure.

In Scotland, the reports findings are reinforced by a new expert
study for local authorities which says that the nation could
meet its future energy needs by replacing nuclear power with
wind and other renewables.

The Environmental Audit Committee consists of 16 MPs, nine of
whom are Labour, including the environment minister Elliot
Morley. It was set up by Blair in 1997 to demonstrate Labours
green credentials. 

Its new report, out today, warns that the risk of terrorist
attacks on nuclear plants and the spread of nuclear weapons are
serious. It echoes the position adopted by the Scottish
Executive by suggesting that the problem of nuclear waste needs
to be resolved before a decision is taken on a new nuclear
programme.

 The report argues that nuclear power is incapable of filling
the 20 gigawatt power gap forecast for the UK in 2016. It is
simply not possible to build new reactors fast enough to replace
the stations that are scheduled to close, it says. If we want to
keep the lights on, the gap will have to be filled instead by a
major investment in gas-fired power stations, wind farms and
increasing energy efficiency. 

The Blair government is now certain to miss its target of
generating 10% of electricity from renewables by 2010, it
claims. Westminster departments, particularly the Treasury, have
failed to take decisive action to improve energy efficiency, the
report says. The lack of progress in developing clean coal
technologies to capture and store climate-wrecking carbon
emissions is condemned as scandalous.

The nature of the energy review itself is unclear and the case
for a wider ranging review of energy policy has not been made,
the report states. As a result it could fail to command the
support of the public and politicians.

We are concerned with the governments focus on nuclear power,
said the committees chairman, Tory MP Tim Yeo. We do not think
that is necessarily the answer. Progress on carbon capture and
offshore wind had been non-existent or faltering, he added. And
the three years since energy policy was last reviewed had been a
wasted opportunity. 

Environmentalists welcome the report, describing it as a body
blow to Blair. Nuclear power is simply an expensive and
polluting distraction to the sensible alternatives, said Duncan
McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. 

Blairs review is an exercise designed to try to find a way to
justify new nuclear power stations, according to Mark Ruskell
MSP, the Green Partys speaker on the environment. The Greens are
demanding a Scottish parliamentary review of how the countrys
energy needs can be met. The answer, according to a new study,
is without using nuclear power.

Glasgow consultants Garrad Hassan say that a combination of gas,
coal and renewables will be able to supply all the nations
electricity in 2023. 

Scotland doesnt need any more nuclear power stations and this
report shows that we can cope quite easily without them, said
Pete Roche, a consultant to the Scottish group of nuclear-free
local authorities. Blair should get the message that Scotland
doesnt want any. 

16 April 2006 
			 			 		 			 				 					
 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved 			 		
*****************************************************************
 43 FT.com: UK - Doubts raised over new nuclear plants

By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent 

Published: April 15 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 15 2006

Doubts have been raised over the government's ability to push
ahead with new nuclear power stations.

The Commons environmental audit committee is expected to say
tomorrow that the economic viability of new nuclear plants has
not been proved and that concerns over the safety of the
disposal of nuclear waste, and the possibility of terrorist
attack on nuclear facilities, have not been allayed.

The report by the committee chaired by Tim Yeo, the former
Conservative environment spokesman, comes as the government
begins the final stage of its energy review, which is due to be
completed this summer.

The deadline for submissions to the review passed yesterday, and
the government will now assess the responses. However, in its
final decision on energy policy, ministers may choose to ignore
the environmental audit committee in favour of other experts who
have been vociferous in their support for nuclear power.

Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has
spoken out strongly for nuclear power. He has said nuclear power
should make up 40 per cent of the country's energy mix.

This would require a massive investment in new reactors, as at
present nuclear accounts for about a fifth of electricity
generation, but only one of the current fleet of nuclear plants
is scheduled to remain in operation after 2023.

Both sides in the debate are gearing up for several months of
intense lobbying. The prime minister, Tony Blair is thought to
be in favour of nuclear power, but public opinion is divided.

Surveys have found most people prefer renewable energy, but a
small majority would be prepared to accept nuclear power if it
were necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

Roger Higman, climate change campaigner at the pressure group
Friends of the Earth, said: "The nuclear industry has been
running a very big PR spin campaign, but it does not know what
the costs [of new-build] are going to be, and it doesn't have a
solution to the waste problem. Meanwhile, there are lots of
alternatives, like energy efficiency and renewables. People
think the nuclear spin has had its day."

David Howarth, energy spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said:
"Nuclear power is not renewable. The expense of any new
programme would risk crowding out all development of genuinely
renewable technologies."  
  
Â© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 44 Grist Magazine: Nuclear: no alternatives? 

| Gristmill: The environmental news

Posted by David Roberts at 12:52 AM on 16 Apr 2006 
		
Kevin Drum, whose judgment and writing I very much admire, has
made a rare lapse. 

He points to this <em>Washington Post</em> editorial from
Patrick Moore-- deceptively described only as a "co-founder of
Greenpeace" -- and sighs that although he struggled with the
decision, he's come to the conclusion that aside from nuclear
power, "there aren't any other realistic alternatives for
replacing coal-fired facilities." 

Rather than repeat myself, I'll just reprint two comments I left
on Kevin's site (slightly edited), in reverse order. 

On Patrick Moore: Patrick Moore did not just now "change his
mind" about nuclear. He's been advocating for it for years.
 
And describing him only as "one of the founders of Greenpeace"
is extraordinarily misleading. He's a notorious crank and
industry shill. 

And on nuclear power: 

How disappointing to see everyone here parroting this tired
conventional wisdom. Nuclear seems to have become some kind of
totem by which progressives prove themselves "reasonable."
Aren't we sick of getting duped that way yet?
 
The idea that wind, solar, geothermal, and hydrokinetic should,
individually or collectively, "replace" coal is a straw man.
What greens are proposing is a new paradigm, pairing aggressive
energy efficiency and conservation (easily the cheapest "source"
of energy) with distributed small-scale sources appropriate to
regional context, and smart grids.
 
People say it will take too long to scale this up and implement
appropriate policy. But a new generation of nuclear plants will
take a minimum of 10 years to get going. What could efficiency +
renewables do in 10 years, with comparable public subsidies and
aggressive political support? We know they couldn't address the
energy shortfall? How?
 
Let's ask the market. Investment money is streaming into
small-scale, distributed power, but the nuclear industry is
utterly moribund. If it were revived, it would be a
Frankenstein, entirely sustained by government largess. Mining
uranium is an environmental nightmare; building the plants is
prohibitively costly; the risks are all but uninsurable. What
we're talking about is creating a(nother) huge, centralized,
politically connected energy cartel forever seeking to increase
its take from the public teat. We need more of those?
 
Do not accept the oft-repeated canard that we cannot
fundamentally change our energy situation, that we must simply
plug one massive, unsavory power cartel in to replace another.
We can build better vehicles, better cities, better
infrastructure. We can drive less, consume less, and change our
food system to reduce freight distances. We can shift policy to
internalize industry externalities. We can tax carbon. And we
can lavish the same attention, subsidies, and tax breaks on
renewables that we do now on oil, coal, and agribusiness.
 
Can clean energy fill the coal gap? It's got momentum,
investment enthusiasm, and the arc of history on its side.
Nuclear is the "least worst" option that everyone holds their
nose to support. It feels wrong, because it is wrong, and a
culture that remembered back when it used to have some fucking
balls and ambition would throw itself behind what it knows is
right. 

I share a doubtful view of Moore ...

 As I said about four years ago, Greenpeace's position on
nuclear energy has always seemed entirely commercial to me. De
jure opposition to hydrocarbons, de facto opposition to the only
thing that has yet made a dent in them, so as to bring in those
donations from public servants (so to speak).

 So I expect their leading lights to be as ecological as is
consistent with being on the take. Moore is a former leading
light. Has he therefore suddenly become trustworthy?

 "We can tax carbon", you say. Indeed we can, and we do, with a
vengeance. All that fossil money to our decision-making class
means they see the fossil fuel industry's continued security and
privilege as inextricably tied to their own. 

That is to say, the "public teat" is fed by fossil fuel
consumers about ten times what the producers take; and they
could never take what they do if everyone in government weren't
aware that the dollar they give to the oil patch enables them to
take ten from you and me. If you continue on the track of
ignoring that tenfold return, every station you come to is going
to be the wrong station.

 Nuclear is clean, and the seventh generation of our descendants
will be using much more of it than we are today.

 --- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
 B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet

  
  by GRLCowan at 7:34 AM on 16 Apr 2006 

  There are alternatives

 Good non-fossil alternatives to nuclear energy can be
envisioned, let me hasten to add, but I think the token by which
we shall know them, when they become a threat to the public
purse's petrodollars, is -- they'll attract the same sort of
hydra-headed opposition as nuclear does.

   
  by GRLCowan at 7:44 AM on 16 Apr 2006 

  unfortunate

 I think it's unfortunate that efficiency and conservation are
being grouped with "alternatives" to nuclear.  I've seen that
elsewhere.

 Speaking as someone in California, getting electric power from
everything (nuclear and coal, out through natural gas,
geothermal, wind, solar biomass, ....), I see efficiency as
orthogonal to all that.

 Efficiency takes the pressure off while all these other battles
are being fought.

   
  by odograph at 8:44 AM on 16 Apr 2006 

  
  Well said Dave!!

 Excellent response all around.  That is the way to put some
guts into our seemingly hopeless fight for global survival.

 Now if someone could get Feingold to start talking this way? 
Who knows?  We might win even against hopeless odds.

 http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog   
  by amazingdrx at 8:50 AM on 16 Apr 2006 
*****************************************************************
 45 Independent: Blair warned of 'energy gap' 

www.independent.co.uk

By Thair Shaikh 

Published: 17 April 2006 

Tony Blair was warned about a possible energy "gap" by senior
MPs last night, and urged to rethink his plans for a new
generation of nuclear power stations to tackle the country's
predicted energy crisis. 

With almost a quarter of the country's current
electricity-generating capacity to be decommissioned by 2016,
the Commons Environmental Audit Committee said that there was
not time to wait for a new generation of nuclear reactors,
which, if built, may not be generating at full capacity until
2030. The committee said that Britain could face the prospect of
electricity black-outs within a decade unless there was urgent
investment in new gas-fired power stations. 

The committee chairman Tim Yeo urged ministers to return to the
strategy laid out in the Energy White Paper of 2003 which
focused on energy efficiency and renewables as the cornerstones
of a sustainable energy policy. "The Government must be far more
imaginative and radical in pursuing the twin goals of the Energy
White Paper - energy efficiency and renewables," he said. 

Greenpeace welcomed the committee's report as "significant and
timely". 

"Building more nuclear reactors and creating more nuclear waste
is not only unsafe but also is no solution to climate change or
energy security," said campaigner Sarah North. 

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited 
*****************************************************************
 46 APP.COM: Cracks in Oyster Creek wall questioned 

| Asbury Park Press Online

Back Issues:Sunday, April 16, 2006
  	 	 
BY STAFF WRITER

Regulators concerned about aging parts at the Oyster Creek 
nuclear power plant say they want to know more about hairline 
cracks in a wall meant to contain radiation.

But three independent experts who reviewed a public document
about the damage said the flaws are normal and not much to fuss
over — at least not yet.

The cracks, which appear in a reinforced concrete shield around
the Lacey reactor, are similar to those in weather-worn
sidewalks: Small stress marks don't necessarily foreshadow a
collapse.

To make sure changes in cracks don't go unnoticed at the Lacey
plant, federal regulators are reviewing the operator's
inspection plans before deciding whether to allow Oyster Creek
to run for an additional 20 years under a renewed license.

Some trust the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and plant
operator AmerGen Energy Co. to make sure Oyster Creek grows old
gracefully. Others do not.

"If they get their license for another 20 years, it's going to
be a very harrowing time, knowing what we know," said Brick
Mayor Joseph Scarpelli, who wants Oyster Creek closed when its
initial 40-year license expires less than three years from now.

Close calls at other plants and AmerGen's reluctance to inspect
a metal vessel that surrounds the reactor are some reasons
renewal opponents are skeptical.

Those who back the renewal say Oyster Creek has operated without
a major accident since it started up in 1969. Lacey Mayor Mark
Dykoff said he has never heard from a disgruntled plant
employee. Workers he has met say the plant is safe, he said.

"Where there is smoke, there is fire, and I don't see no smoke,"
Dykoff said.

The public will have an opportunity to decide whether to trust
AmerGen and the commission by attending a meeting between the
two sides Thursday afternoon.

At issue will be AmerGen's plans for monitoring the aging of
certain safety components, including radiation barriers, during
an extended operating period.

The discussion is expected to be technical, but it could provide
insight into what regulators are thinking part way through their
review.

A decision on the license isn't expected until May 2007.

Since AmerGen applied for a renewal in July, regulators have
been reviewing the company's 2,400-page renewal application,
asking AmerGen for additional information and touring the plant
to verify aspects of the application.

In one document pertaining to the commission's review,
regulators say they have "a concern that several potential aging
issues may not have been adequately addressed."

Regulators then go on to ask questions about cracks in the
concrete wall, which is meant to stop some of the radiation and
heat generated by the reactor from entering parts of the
containment building on the other side.

Also mentioned in the document, dated March 9, were questions
about cracks around a water-filled pool that holds highly
radioactive spent fuel.

In both areas, the cracks appeared normal to three independent
experts.

"I don't see anything unusual about this one," said Ted Quinn,
past president of the American Nuclear Society, an educational
organization for professionals.

Samin Anghaie, a professor in the nuclear engineering department
at the University of Florida, also reviewed the document and
reached the same conclusion.

In the document, a representative for AmerGen went over the
company's plans for monitoring the cracks.

Cracks in concrete structures at nuclear power plants are just
as common as cracks found in buildings, bridges and roads.

They sometimes form when concrete settles, said David Lochbaum,
director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of
Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit alliance of citizens and
scientists.

It might not even make sense for a plant operator to fix a crack
unless it's getting worse, even in vital structures, Lochbaum
said. Spending money to fix harmless cracks would mean less
funding for needed repairs, he said.

But cracks can become a big deal when large, unexpected, ones
are spotted for the first time. That could mean a plant operator
is not conducting inspections often enough or in the right
places, he said.

Using the wrong criteria to measure a crack's significance — its
width, for instance — could lead to catastrophe, Lochbaum said.

"If you're inspecting cracks and then all of the sudden your
structure collapses, then the criteria you're using isn't doing
what it is supposed to do," he said.

Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or                                                [E-mail] E-mail

  Copyright © 2006 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 47 AFP: Nuclear not only energy solution: British lawmakers 

 Sun Apr 16, 5:31 PM ET 		 	 

LONDON (AFP) - Nuclear power is not the only solution to
Britain's energy needs, and cash must be invested in new
gas-fired power stations, lawmakers warned in a report. 

 The country could face electricity black-outs unless an
"extensive programme" of new gas power stations is launched,
alongside moves towards renewable energy sources such as wind
power, the Commons Environmental Audit Committee said. 

The government's review into Britain's future energy supplies --
due for publication later this year -- is widely expected to
recommend reviving Britain's nuclear power program. 

With the first of any new nuclear plants not coming on stream
until 2017 at the earliest, it could take until 2030 for full
generating capacity of such a programme to become available. 

And with almost one quarter of Britain's current energy
generating capacity due to be decommissioned by 2016, the
committee said that the country would face a "generating gap"
which could be filled by new gas-fired power stations. 

"Over the next nine years, therefore, very substantial
investment in new generating capacity and energy efficiency will
be required if the lights are to stay on -- even in the absence
of demand growth," the report said. 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> , who is widely believed
to be in favour of a revival of nuclear power, ordered a review
into the country's future energy supplies late last year. 

He said at the time that urgent action was needed because of
rising energy prices, dwindling North Sea gas and oil supplies
and to counter the effects of climate change. 

Britain currently has around a dozen nuclear power stations,
most of them built in the 1960s and 1970s, providing around 25
percent of the country's electricity. Natural gas provides about
40 percent. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 48 CNIC: Chernobyl 20th Anniversary in Tokyo

(Citizens' Nuclear Information Center)

(Sunday, April 16, 2006) 													 													
														
Symposium and exhibition: 20 years after the Chernobyl
Catastrophe - What happened and what continues now?

NGOs will hold a symposium to commemorate the 20th anniversary
of the Chernobyl tragedy. The symposium will be an opportunity
to reconsider our dependence on nuclear energy. 														

Hoping to promote a nuclear revival, historical revisionists
have sought to downplay the consequences of the Chernobyl
accident(1). In doing so, they insult the memory of those who
died and the suffering of those who survived. This symposium
will set the record straight. 														

Dr. Yuri Scherbak, former Ukrainian Ambassador to the US, will
speak about his experiences of Chernobyl. Various themes related
to Chernobyl will be discussed during a panel discussion after
the lecture. Three panelists - a nuclear scientist, a photo
journalist and a medical doctor - will present their views about
Chernobyl. 														

See program below for details, including other events to be held
at the same venue. 														

The conference will be in Japanese. The keynote speaker, Yuri
Shcherbak, will give his presentation in Russian. 														

Date: 16 April 2006
 															Venue: National Olympic Memorial Youth Center,
3-1 Yoyogi Kamizono-cho, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo (81-3-3467-7201)
<http://nyc.niye.go.jp/e/> 														

Program
 															Speakers: Dr. Yuri Shcherbak (doctor and author,
former Ukrainian Ambassador to the US)
 															Ryuichi Hirokawa (photojournalist)
radiation researcher)
 															Music (during symposium): Oksana Stepanyuk
(singer and Ukrainian harp player)
 															Video: "The Sacrifice" (25 minute video to be
played from 10am to 1pm)
 															Exhibition of children's pictures and
photographs (1pm-6pm) 														

Contact: Philip White, CNIC International Liaison Officer
81-3-5330-9520 														

1. See, for example, the September 2005 report of The Chernobyl
Forum (an initiative of the International Atomic Energy Agency)
														
Citizens' Nuclear Information Center                                            
TEL.03-5330-9520
FAX.03-5330-9530
*****************************************************************
 49 AFP: Twenty years on, effects from Chernobyl disaster linger 

 Sun Apr 16, 1:07 AM ET 		 	 

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine (AFP) - Twenty years ago, explosions at the
Chernobyl power plant sent a huge radioactive cloud into the air
in the world's worst civilian nuclear accident that still
affects millions of people today. 

 At 1:23 am on April 26, 1986, a series of explosions ripped
through reactor four at the plant in the north of what is today
Ukraine, near its border with Belarus. Radiation fell across
much of Europe. 

For days, the Soviet leadership refused to admit -- either to
its own people or to the world -- what had happened less than
100 kilometers (62 miles) north of a major city, Kiev, and near
the huge Dniepr River that criss-crossed Ukraine and provided
much of its water supply. 

Only after the news blackout ended were 135,000 people evacuated
from the most affected areas around the plant. 

To this day, Chernobyl fuels controversies over the use of
nuclear power, attracts tourists and researchers, feeds fears of
another release, continues to claim victims, and gobbles huge
amounts of international funds. 

An army of some 600,000 "liquidators" -- firemen, soldiers and
civilians -- helped to construct a concrete sarcophagus meant to
contain the reactor for 20 to 30 years before a more permanent
structure could be built. 

The fate awaiting these people and others exposed to radiation
from the blast is one of the main controversies still
surrounding the plant. 

In its latest report on the disaster released in September, the
United Nations" /> United Nationsestimated that fewer people
will eventually perish than was initially predicted. 

The report, the work of some 100 scientists from eight UN
agencies, said up to 4,000 would eventually die as a result of
the accident, in addition to the nearly 60 people who have
already died. 

Environmental groups like Greenpeace rejected the findings as
"whitewash," collusion "with the nuclear lobby" and "insulting
for the victims." They estimate that the death toll will be in
the tens of thousands. 

In addition to health effects like thyroid cancer, survivors
also deal with psychological problems. 

A study of more than 2,000 "liquidators" by the Serbsky
Psychiatric Institute in Moscow found that two thirds of them
suffered from psychological illnesses. 

"Considering their young age at the time of the accident, all of
the negative effects have not appeared yet," said Galina
Rumyantseva, who led the study. 

Regions affected by the accident remain today both socially and
economically devastated. Some 350,000 people have been evacuated
from the surrounding areas in all. Some 784,320 hectares of
prime agricultural land remain ruined, as do 700,000 hectares of
forest. 

The United Nations estimates that the eventual price tag of the
disaster will run to hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Today, the sarcophagus over reactor four is cracked and
crumbling, raising fears that more radiation can be released. 

Some 28 countries have pledged to chip in more than 750 million
dollars toward the construction of a new 20,000-tonne steel
case. The cover is expected to cost between one and two billion
dollars and is hoped to be finished by 2012. 

But it will take at least a hundred years to safely get rid of
dangerous fuel and debris inside the plant, said spokeswoman
Yulia Marusich. 

The plant, whose last reactor was shut down for good only in
2000, continues to attract attention -- tourists come to gawk,
while researchers come to observe the remarkable flourishing of
flora and fauna. 

Hundreds of mostly elderly people who lived in villages around
the plant have ignored government restrictions and warnings of
radiation to resettle in the 30-kilometre (18.6-mile) exclusion
zone around the plant, raising animals and eating fruits and
berries from the radiation-soaked land. 

The final effects from the series of explosions that occurred in
the early hours at a Soviet nuclear power plant in 1986 may not
be known for years, scientists say. 

"We may not see anything today, but genetic modifications can
appear in 20, 50 years," says Rudolf Alexakhin, director of the
Agricultural Radiology Institute in Moscow. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 50 Brattleboro Reformer: VY passes safety review

By KRISTI CECCAROSSI, Reformer Staff  

 Saturday, April 15 BRATTLEBORO -- Last year Vermont Yankee
operated safely, so says a recent report from its federal
regulators. 

Inspectors found no extraordinary problems at the plant, which
means the nuclear power plant requires no additional oversight
right now from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory inspects and issues reports on the
plant quarterly, but just released a letter assessing Vermont
Yankee's operation for all of 2005. 

"Overall Vermont Yankee operated in a manner that preserve
public health and safety and fully met all cornerstone
objectives," wrote Brian Holian, director of NRC Region 1,
division of reactor projects. 

NRC will be in town next Thursday to discuss the plant's annual
review. Entergy Nuclear, plant owners, will be represented. The
public is welcome to ask questions. The meeting starts at 2 p.m.
at the Quality Inn on Putney Road. 

The NRC uses color codes to grade findings at the plant, and if
the plant is sited a certain number of high-alert colors, it
affects the annual review. 

Last year, the plant received a number of "green findings," said
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, which indicates a "very low safety
issue." The findings were attached to things like maintenance
procedure and monitoring systems. 

A green finding doesn't mean there's not any safety issue there,
he said, but one with such a "low significance" that the NRC
doesn't determine the plant needs extra oversight. 

In 2004, Vermont Yankee didn't get the same high marks from the
NRC. The commission cited plant owners with a "white finding"
for failure to provide tone-alert radios to the full population
of the emergency evacuation zone around the plant. 

Sheehan said Entergy corrected that since, but local emergency
planners insist that there is still a shortage of alert radios,
and still too many residents without them. 

Of course the NRC's annual review doesn't include recent
activities at Vermont Yankee, including an effort to increase
the plant's power output by 20 percent. 

Nearly two months ago, plant engineers began boosting the
reactor's output, in 5 percent increments. Engineers halted the
process twice because excess acoustic vibrations were detected
in the plant's steam line. Similar problems in other plants that
have been power "uprated" have led to instrument failures. 

Right now, Vermont Yankee is operating at 112.5 percent of its
original power capacity. Plant spokesman Rob Williams says the
possible impact of the acoustic vibrations is being analyzed and
more information should be known next week. 

Sheehan, of the NRC, said he couldn't speculate as to whether in
next year's annual review of the plant, the uprate procedure
would be recognized as a safety concern. 

"We have to see how this plays out," he said. "If we find out
any shortcomings on the company's part as a result of (the
uprate), but it would be premature to say there would be any
enforcement action ... as a result of power ascension." 

New England Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 51 THERECORD.COM: Nuclear costs unknown
               
PETER BLACK

(Apr 15, 2006) 

I am responding to the April 10 letter of the day, The Real Cost
Of Coal-Fired Plants Is $4.4 Billion, from Dr. Patrick Moore.

Moore states that coal-fired plant costs are far in excess of
nuclear energy costs. Moore should realize that the "real costs"
of nuclear are not known. No government, agency or consultant
has been able to make a convincing calculation. Ontario has set
aside a mere $700 million to cover future disposal costs. The
Canadian Nuclear Association is running TV ads stating that
nuclear is dependable, safe and inexpensive. This is misleading
and wrong. The real cost of nuclear is not known.

Experts such as Moore would be more productive if they invested
their talents in finding alternate energy sources instead of
debating two unacceptable energy sources.

Peter Black, C.A.

Truly Independent Energy Advisor

S. Leslie Enterprises

Kitchener

160 King St. East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 
519-894-2231
 
*****************************************************************
 52 Burlington Free Press: Let's focus on clean, local energy

 Opinion 

burlingtonfreepress.com  |  Burlington, Vermont 

Published: Saturday, April 15, 2006

 By James Moore
 
Iwas pleased to see the recent Free Press editorial and the
opinion piece by John DiToro of IBM (March 31) addressing our
looming energy crisis. Vermont is indeed at an energy
crossroads, but both of these commentaries left out or
undervalued the essential role that clean, local energy sources
can play in Vermont's future. This is a fundamental oversight in
a conversation where the wrong decision could leave future
generations of Vermonters with higher electric bills, more
pollution and the ongoing threat of a nuclear disaster. 

Let's start with the facts:

Right now, Vermont is too dependent on dirty and dangerous
sources of power. Thirty-five percent of our electricity comes
from Vermont Yankee, one of the oldest nuclear plants in the
country. The plant has already generated more than one million
pounds of toxic nuclear waste, and despite the fact that it is
cranking out more radioactive waste than ever, it still has no
permanent and safe way to store the deadly material. 

Another 15 percent of our electricity comes from natural gas,
coal, and oil-fired power plants scattered about New England.
Together that means that roughly half of Vermont's electricity
is coming from a source that creates acid rain, global warming,
smog, and/or toxic nuclear waste. 

Vermont is also heavily dependent on out-of-state power
generators. More than one third of our electricity comes from
Hydro Quebec. The massive transmission lines that carry that
electricity could leave Vermont more vulnerable to power
shortages in the event of an accident or inclement weather. And
when you combine Hydro Quebec with the aforementioned polluting
power we import from power plants across New England, this means
we ship over half of our electricity dollars to out of state
generators. 

The final critical fact is that Vermont's energy future is about
to change, one way or another. In the next six to 10 years,
Vermont Yankee is scheduled to shut down and our long-term
contracts with Hydro Quebec's will expire. Even if one of those
contracts were to be renewed, it would be at market rates that
are already causing rate increases of up to 80 percent for some
of our New England neighbors. 

Armed with these facts, it is time for Vermonters to consider
our choices. Some are favoring the Bush administration's plan
emphasizing more coal plants, oil drilling and a whole new
generation of nuclear power while giving a nod to renewable
energy. We can do better than that. 

VPIRG supports a more secure energy future relying on
conservation, efficiency and clean, renewable power sources.
Last December, Gov. Douglas took a big step in the right
direction by joining six other regional governors in a
commitment to reduce our overdependence on dirty energy.
However, the governor's agreement could become an empty promise
unless we begin a serious investment in renewable energy and
efficiency. 

The Free Press has recognized that we must begin with
investments efficiency. Studies have shown that if we invest in
efficiency now we could lower our state's electricity demand by
20 to 30 percent within 10 years, saving Vermonters millions of
dollars. But efficiency alone will not meet the demand for
electricity in Vermont in 2016 and beyond. 

Wind power is the most plentiful untapped energy source in
Vermont. Wind farms provide price stability and the electricity
they produce is less expensive than the price we're already
paying on the open market. If we invest in efficiency first,
along with renewable energy sources including wind, biomass,
hydro, and net-metering generation like small wind turbines and
solar panels, we can meet Vermont's energy needs. 

When asked what kind of energy future they want, Vermonters
overwhelmingly support safe, clean and affordable power that is
locally generated. It's often said that when the people lead,
our leaders will follow. It's time for our elected leaders to
start listening to what the people want.

James Moore is clean-energy advocate for the Vermont Public
Interest Research Group (VPIRG) in Montpelier. 

Copyright ©2006 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 53 Daily Times: VIEW: Turning point at Chernobyl 

Monday, April 17, 2006           

— Mikhail S Gorbachev 

Chernobyl opened my eyes like nothing else: it showed the 
horrible consequences of nuclear power, even when it is used for 
non-military purposes. One could now imagine much more clearly 
what might happen if a nuclear bomb exploded. According to 
scientific experts, one SS-18 rocket could contain 100 Chernobyls

The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl this month 20 years ago, even
more than my launch of perestroika, was perhaps the real cause
of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later. Indeed,
the Chernobyl catastrophe was an historic turning point: there
was the era before the disaster, and there is the very different
era that has followed.

The very morning of the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear
station on April 26, 1986, the Politburo met to discuss the
situation, and then organised a government commission to deal
with the consequences. The commission was to control the
situation, and to ensure that serious measures were taken,
particularly in regard to people’s health in the disaster zone.
Moreover, the Academy of Science established a group of leading
scientists, who were immediately dispatched to the Chernobyl
region. 

The Politburo did not immediately have appropriate and complete
information that would have reflected the situation after the
explosion. Nevertheless, it was the general consensus of the
Politburo that we should openly deliver the information upon
receiving it. This would be in the spirit of the glasnost policy
that was by then already established in the Soviet Union.

Thus, claims that the Politburo engaged in concealment of
information about the disaster is far from the truth. One reason
I believe that there was no deliberate deception is that, when
the governmental commission visited the scene right after the
disaster and stayed overnight in Polesie, near Chernobyl, its
members all had dinner with regular food and water, and they
moved about without respirators, like everybody else who worked
there. If the local administration or the scientists knew the
real impact of the disaster, they would not have risked doing
this.

In fact, nobody knew the truth, and that is why all our attempts
to receive full information about the extent of the catastrophe
were in vain. We initially believed that the main impact of the
explosion would be in Ukraine, but Belarus, to the northwest,
was hit even worse, and then Poland and Sweden suffered the
consequences.

Of course, the world first learnt of the Chernobyl disaster from
Swedish scientists, creating the impression that we were hiding
something. But in truth we had nothing to hide, as we simply had
no information for a day and a half. Only a few days later, we
learnt that what happened was not a simple accident, but a
genuine nuclear catastrophe — an explosion of Chernobyl’s fourth
reactor.

Although the first report on Chernobyl appeared in Pravda on
April 28, the situation was far from clear. For example, when
the reactor blew up, the fire was immediately put out with
water, which only worsened the situation as nuclear particles
began spreading through the atmosphere. Meanwhile we were still
able to take measures to help people in the disaster zone; they
were evacuated, and more than 200 medical organisations were
involved in testing the population for radiation poisoning.

There was a serious danger that the contents of the nuclear
reactor would seep into the soil, and then leak into the Dnepr
river, thus endangering the population of Kiev and other cities
along the riverbanks. Therefore, we started the job of
protecting the river banks, initiating a total deactivation of
the Chernobyl plant. The resources of a huge country were
mobilised to control the devastation, including work to prepare
the sarcophagus that would encase the fourth reactor.

The Chernobyl disaster, more than anything else, opened the
possibility of much greater freedom of expression, to the point
that the system as we knew it could no longer continue. It made
absolutely clear how important it was to continue the policy of
glasnost, and I must say that I started to think about time in
terms of pre-Chernobyl and post-Chernobyl. 

The price of the Chernobyl catastrophe was overwhelming, not
only in human terms, but also economically. Even today, the
legacy of Chernobyl affects the economies of Russia, Ukraine,
and Belarus. Some even suggest that the economic price for the
USSR was so high that it stopped the arms race, as I could not
keep building arms while paying to clean up Chernobyl.

This is wrong. My declaration of January 15, 1986, is well known
around the world. I addressed arms reduction, including nuclear
arms, and I proposed that by the year 2000 no country should
have atomic weapons. I personally felt a moral responsibility to
end the arms race. But Chernobyl opened my eyes like nothing
else: it showed the horrible consequences of nuclear power, even
when it is used for non-military purposes. One could now imagine
much more clearly what might happen if a nuclear bomb exploded.
According to scientific experts, one SS-18 rocket could contain
100 Chernobyls. 

Unfortunately, the problem of nuclear arms is still very serious
today. Countries that have them — the members of the so-called
“nuclear club” — are in no hurry to get rid of them. On the
contrary, they continue to refine their arsenals, while
countries without nuclear weapons want them, believing that the
nuclear club’s monopoly is a threat to the world peace.

The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe reminds us
that we should not forget the horrible lesson taught to the
world in 1986. We should do everything in our power to make all
nuclear facilities safe and secure. We should also start
seriously working on the production of the alternative sources
of energy.

The fact that world leaders now increasingly talk about this
imperative suggests that the lesson of Chernobyl is finally
being understood. —DT-PS

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the USSR, is chairman
of the Gorbachev Foundation in Moscow and the head of the
International Green Cross 

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 54 People's Daily Online: View of Chernobyl nuclear power plant
 
UPDATED: 10:21, April 16, 2006   

The photo taken on April 14, 2006 shows reactor No. 4 of the 
Chernobyl nuclear power plant, 130 kilometers north of Kiev, 
capital of Ukraine. Ukraine prepares to mark the 20th anniversary 
of the world's worst nuclear leakage triggered by an explosion 
happening at reactor No. 4 on April 26, 1986.
                                
[Photo:<!--###IMAGE_BRIEF###--] " border="0"> The photo taken on 
April 14, 2006 shows reactor No. 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power 
plant, 130 kilometers north of Kiev, capital of Ukraine. Ukraine 
prepares to mark the 20th anniversary of the world's worst 
nuclear leakage triggered by an explosion happening at reactor 
No. 4 on April 26, 1986.
                                
Photo:<!--###IMAGE_BRIEF###--] " border="0"> A journalist shows 
dosimeter data after checking up the radiation level at a 
checkpoint near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, 130 kilometers 
north of Kiev, capital of Ukraine, April 14, 2006. Ukraine 
prepares to mark the 20th anniversary of the world's worst 
nuclear leakage triggered by an explosion happening at the 
plant's reactor No. 4 on April 26, 1986.

  - Chernobyl blights UK sheep farms

 - Chernobyl blast may have killed over 1,000 British children

  Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved   
*****************************************************************
 55 Japan Times: Myths and misconceptions on Chernobyl 

By KALMAN MIZSEI and LOUISA VINTON 

LONDON -- The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident
of April 26, 1986, is prompting a new wave of alarmist claims
about its impact on human health and the environment. As has
become a ritual on such commemorative occasions, the death toll
is tallied in the hundreds of thousands, and fresh reports are
made of elevated rates of cancer, birth defects and overall
mortality. 

This picture is both badly distorted -- and harmful to the
victims of the Chernobyl accident. All reputable scientific
studies conducted so far have concluded that the impact of
radiation has been less damaging than was feared. A few dozen
emergency workers who battled the fire at the reactor succumbed
to acute radiation sickness. Studies are still under way into
elevated rates of cancer and cardiovascular disease among the
"liquidators" who worked at the reactor site in the months
following the accident. And some 5,000 cases of thyroid cancer,
attributed to radioactive iodine absorbed through consumption of
milk in the weeks immediately following the accident, have been
detected among those who were children at the time. 

There has been real suffering, particularly among the 330,000
people who were relocated after the accident. About that there
is no doubt. But for the five million people living in affected
regions who are designated as Chernobyl "victims," radiation has
had no discernible impact on physical health. 

This is because these people were exposed to low radiation doses
that in most cases were comparable to natural background levels.

Two decades of natural decay and remediation measures mean that
most territories originally deemed "contaminated" no longer
merit that label. Aside from thyroid cancer, which has been
successfully treated in 98.5 percent of cases, scientists have
not been able to document any connection between radiation and
any physical condition. 

Where a clear impact has been found is mental health. Fear of
radiation, it seems, poses a far more potent health threat than
does radiation itself. Symptoms of stress are rampant, and many
residents of affected areas firmly believe themselves to be
condemned by radiation to ill health and early death. 

In part, this is because the initial Soviet response was
secretive: Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time,
addressed the issue on television only weeks later, on May 14,
1986. Myths and misconceptions have taken root, and these have
outlasted subsequent efforts to provide reliable information.

Combined with sweeping government-benefit policies that classify
millions of people living in Chernobyl-affected areas as
invalids, such myths encouraged fatalistic and passive behaviors
and created a "culture of dependency" among affected
communities. 

The U.N. Chernobyl Forum, a consortium of eight United Nations
agencies and representatives of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine,
reinforced these findings. Chernobyl Forum was created to
address the prevailing confusion concerning the impact of the
accident, both among the public and government officials, by
declaring a clear verdict on issues where a scientific consensus
could be found. The forum succeeded in this effort, and a fresh
and reassuring message on the impact of radiation was made
public in September.* 

The Chernobyl Forum findings should have brought relief, for
they show that the specter haunting the region is not invincible
radiation, but conquerable poverty. What the region needs are
policies aimed at generating new livelihoods rather than
reinforcing dependency; public-health campaigns that address the
lifestyle issues (smoking and drinking) that undermine health
across the former Soviet Union; and community development
initiatives that promote self-reliance and a return to normalcy. 

But the reception given to the Chernobyl Forum's message has
been surprisingly mixed. Some officials have reverted to
alarmist language on the number of fatalities attributed to
Chernobyl. Some nongovernmental organizations and Chernobyl
charities have responded with disbelief, citing as evidence the
general population's admittedly poor health. Opponents of
nuclear power have suggested that self-interest has compromised
the Chernobyl Forum's integrity. 

Set against the impressive body of science underpinning the
Chernobyl Forum, such responses reflect the tenacity not only of
myths and misconceptions, but also of vested interests. The new
view on Chernobyl threatens the existence of charities -- such
as those offering health "respites" abroad for children -- that
depend for their fundraising on graphic footage of deformed
babies. 

The new understanding also deprives the region's officials of a
routine way to seek international sympathy, even if the
repetition of such appeals after two decades yields little
financial aid. By misstating the problems, these approaches
threaten to divert scarce resources into the wrong remedies. 

The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident is an ideal
occasion for all actors to do some honest soul-searching.

Governments are right to worry about the fate of
Chernobyl-affected territories, but the way forward will require
fresh thinking and bold decisions, particularly a shift in
priorities from paying paltry benefits to millions to targeted
spending that helps to promote jobs and economic growth.

Similarly, charities are right to worry about the population's
health, but they should focus on promoting healthy lifestyles in
affected communities rather than whisking children abroad as if
their homes were poisonous. 

All parties are right to worry about the affected populations,
but -- more than any sophisticated diagnostic equipment -- what
is needed is credible information, presented in a digestible
format, to counter Chernobyl's destructive legacy of fear. The
children of Chernobyl are all grown up; their interests, and
those of their own children, are best served not by continually
evoking the nightmare of radiation, but by giving them the tools
and authority they need to rebuild their own communities. Kalman
Mizsei is assistant administrator and regional director, UNDP
Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS; Louisa Vinton is UNDP senior
program manager responsible for the Western CIS and Caucasus
countries, as well as Chernobyl. * An easily digestible summary
is available at:

www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf.


 Copyright Project Syndicate 2006. www.project-syndicate.orgThe
*****************************************************************
 56 AFP: Anti-nuclear activists rally against new reactor for France -
     
 Sat Apr 15, 12:47 PM ET 		 	 

CHERBOURG (AFP) - Thousands of activists have gathered to join
an anti-nuclear protest against the building of a new nuclear
reactor in the French region bordering the English Channel. 

 The organisers said 30,000 people turned out while police put
the number at 12,500. 

According to Stephane Lhomme, spokesman for the organisers,
'Sortir du Nucleaire', an alliance of some 718 groups seeking to
phase out nuclear power, "this is a very strong mobilisation in
this neck of the woods which is hard to reach and marks a
turning point in France's energy policy". 

The French parliament has already endorsed the project "but a
public inquiry must still take place, followed by an eventual
decree," Didier Anger, regional coordinator of the anti-nuclear
opposition told a press conference, stressing that the nuclear
plant was not yet a done deal. 

The proposed project would involve the construction of a new
generation European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) in Flamanville,
situated in the French department of Manche in northwest
Normandy. 

The opponents claim that France already over-produces
electricity with nuclear energy, according to the STOP EPR
website. 

The web site also says that nuclear power cannot provide the
solution for easing dependence on oil for transportation. New
renewable sources are needed, such as wind power. 

"Nuclear power is not an alternative to the energy problem,
neither at the European level nor at the international level,"
said Jose Bove, speaking for a rural confederation. 

The gathering this weekend in Cherbourg also comes just ahead of
the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl, the worst civilian nuclear
accident, which took place in Ukraine. On April 26, 1986, a
reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant north of Kiev
exploded and sent a radioactive cloud across Europe. 

"We must especially make sure that there is no second
Chernobyl," said Viatcheslav Kitayev, 43, who was an emergency
worker for three months in 1987 cleaning up the site of the
Ukrainian nuclear accident. 

Besides safety concerns, the anti-nuclear groups presented an
economic case against a new nuclear plant. 

'Sortir du Nucleaire' argues that the estimated cost of three
billion euros (3.6 billion dollars) to build the EPR reactor
could be directed towards the development of other energy
sources, which would in 15 years create 15 times more jobs and
produce double the energy compared to a nuclear reactor. 

The EPR, a joint Franco-German project developed since 1992 by
Siemens and Framatome-ANP, part of the Areva group, could have
its first prototype connected to a network by 2010-2012. 

A model of the water-pressurized reactor is to be built in
Finland and is expected to enter service in 2009. According to
the developers, the reactor uses fuel more efficiently, has more
safety controls and produces less nuclear waste. 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 57 Boston Globe: Decision looms over Pilgrim - 

As relicensing begins, NRC will focus on safety issues
and environmental impact
 
By Carolyn Y. Johnson, Globe Staff  |  April 16, 2006 

PLYMOUTH -- Pass through the explosives detector, the metal
detector, the handprint scan, and a couple of ID card swipes.
Clip on a beeper-sized radiation detector, log in to the
computer system, and get eyeballed by a group of armed guards.
One final turnstile, another swipe. Push through two sets of
heavy tornado doors -- and you're in.

Here, inside concrete containment walls 2 feet thick, is the
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Reactor, the 688-megawatt seaside power
plant that will be at the center of federal and local attention
for the next 2 1/2 years as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
considers Entergy Corp's application to renew its operating
license, which expires in 2012.

To get to the heart of anxiety over the plant, step into an
elevator and watch as the lights blink: ''23," ''51," ''74,"
''91" -- and finally ''117" feet above sea level. Take a few
steps and you're standing right on top of the reactor.

The fission underfoot produces enough energy to power 600,000
homes, but is also the villain in any number of local doomsday
scenarios.

Local activists worry about the spent fuel pool that is nearly
full, with more than three decades' worth of radioactive waste.
They are concerned about the potential for a terrorist attack on
the plant. They say the emergency evacuation plan is outdated,
and unlikely to work because of the growth in the region. To
people who live near the plant, these issues are at the crux of
the question over Pilgrim's future.

But those fears won't factor in the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's decision on a 20-year-extension. The commission
will restrict its safety review to the aging and maintenance of
the plant. Its environmental impact review will gauge the
plant's effects on endangered species, fish, shellfish, and
ground-water quality.

''Our view is issues like spent fuel storage, emergency
planning, security issues -- these are issues that need to be
dealt with in the here and now," said Neil Sheehan, an NRC
spokesman.

As 103 nuclear plants scattered across the country inch toward
the expiration dates on their original 40-year permits, the
Plymouth area is the latest to grapple with the regulatory
process. In 2009, the oldest plants' licenses will begin to
expire. But already 39 plants have received a 20-year extension
from the NRC, and 12 others have begun the lengthy,
multimillion-dollar renewal process. To date, the commission has
never rejected a license extension.

At an informational meeting last month that kicked off the
30-month-long labyrinth of inspections, evaluations, and
hearings, dozens of area residents met with NRC officials with
pointed questions about whether Pilgrim should continue to
operate.

The town has exploded from 18,600 people in 1970 to more than
55,000 today, leaving many worried that the evacuation plan is
impractical and could end in a disastrous traffic snarl.
Although the plant is constantly being updated and monitored,
similar plants have sometimes encountered unanticipated
problems. With each passing year, there is more radioactive
waste, yet no federal depository to store it -- turning the town
into a ''defacto nuclear waste dump," critics said. 

But perhaps the biggest change since Pilgrim began operating is
the level of public fear, with the incident at Three Mile Island
in 1979, the 1986 Chernobyl accident, and the terrorist attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, changing public perceptions.

Tim Devik, a member of the town's Nuclear Matters Committee who
worked in the plant for 16 years, said the question on most
people's minds is simple: Is it safe to live near the plant?

''For the most part, [nuclear plants] are designed very safely,"
the former senior reactor operator said. ''People have to
override procedures and do something bad for something bad to
happen. . . . Even if they sit on their hands and do nothing,
the plant will shut itself down and keep itself safe."

But not all problems are anticipated.

After radioactive water leaked into the ground at the Braidwood
Nuclear Plant in Illinois and the Indian Point Plant in New
York, the NRC last month formed a task force to study the issue.
David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear safety project at the
Union of Concerned Scientists, a Cambridge-based environmental
group, said the NRC is likely to scrutinize Pilgrim's pipes and
tanks looking for similar problems.

Another lesson comes from Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant in New
Jersey, the oldest operating plant in the country. The NRC
discovered that the steel liner within the outer containment
wall had rusted at the bottom, leaving the safety barrier to the
public weakened, Lochbaum said.

''It's possible to have water drainage collect there, causing
the steel to rust at a higher rate than higher-up portions, and
now there are meetings to figure out, first of all, is that
real? Is that scenario real, and what do we do about it?" he
said, adding those concerns would probably be considered at
Pilgrim as well.

Many of Pilgrim's critics have vowed to fight the plant through
the relicensing process.

''It's an old reactor, a reactor that could not be licensed
today," said Mary Lampert, head of the watchdog group, Pilgrim
Watch, who has been fighting the plant since 1987 and believes
that under no circumstances will it be safe.

Jeffrey Berger, chairman of the Nuclear Matters Committee, said
he joined the panel after Sept. 11. His daughter-in-law was in
the north tower of the World Trade Center when it was attacked.
She survived, but, said Berger, ''I've been extremely concerned
about plant security ever since." He said security at the plant
should be handled by the US Department of Defense, not a private
security contractor.

Kenneth Tavares, chairman of the selectmen, said that spent-fuel
storage, the evacuation plan, and the financial impact the plant
will have on the community will be key issues in the coming
months, even though these are not key factors in the NRC's
decision. The town has formed a committee to negotiate a tax
rate for the plant, and to determine what compensation the town
should receive if Pilgrim continues to operate and if it is
decommissioned.

Set on the edge of the ocean, with a wide sandy beach where
people from the town once hung out, Pilgrim looks like any
industrial building -- drab, plastered with safety propaganda,
filled with the deafening sound of machinery. It allows
visitors, with restrictions.

For the 560 Entergy employees at the plant, the daily commute to
work is 10 or 15 minutes longer each way, with a gauntlet of
contamination checks and security gateways to pass through.

After the first set of gates and detectors, one enters an inner
courtyard surrounded by multiple barbed-wire fences, cameras,
and bulletproof lookout posts. Within the outer containment
wall, there are no windows. Even through earplugs, the rotating
turbines that produce the plant's power are loud.

On the top floor of the reactor one recent afternoon,
yellow-suited workers milled about and drove a massive yellow
crane across the room.

David Tarantino, Pilgrim's spokesman, acknowledged that there is
inherent risk in having a nuclear facility nearby. But he said
it is easy to get carried away by envisioning frightening
disaster scenarios that are possible, even if extremely unlikely.

The spent-fuel issue does concern the plant operator. ''We will
run out of space in 2012," Tarantino said. ''This was never
intended to be a repository for any length of time."

But with New England being told to brace for rolling electricity
blackouts by 2008, he said there's also a simple reality: ''No
one wants LNG. No one wants windmills. No one wants nuclear
power plants. But everyone wants electricity."

*****************************************************************
 58 Japan Times: Specter of Chernobyl lingers, 20 years on 

U.N. report claims disaster impact not as great as feared;
others disagree 

KIEV (AP) With every cough and sore throat, every ache and pain,
Valentyna Stanyuk feels Chernobyl stalking her. 

  [News photo]   
  The "sarcophagus" covering the destroyed Reactor No.4 of the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant is seen in this photo last month. 


"It's only a matter of time," Stanyuk said as she waited for a
thyroid test at a mobile Red Cross clinic in her village of
Bystrichy, 240 km west of Chernobyl. 

The tests came back clean, but that's little reassurance to this
54-year-old woman or to the millions of others who live in parts
of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia that were heavily irradiated when
the nuclear reactor exploded 20 years ago, spewing radioactive
clouds over Ukraine and much of Europe for 10 days. 

The April 26, 1986, disaster forced the evacuation of large
swaths of some of the Soviet Union's best farmland and forests.

The radiation spread far enough to be detected in reindeer meat
in Norway and rainfall in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. 

It shocked most European countries into a generation-long freeze
on building nuclear plants. In so starkly exposing the failings
of the communist system, the world's worst nuclear accident may
even have sped the collapse of the Soviet Union five years
later. 

And the effect on the health of the people exposed to its
invisible poisons? That is the most heatedly debated legacy of
Chernobyl. 

"There is so much that we still don't know," said Volodymyr
Sert, head of a team of Red Cross doctors who canvass Ukraine's
rural Zhytomyr region in search of thyroid abnormalities -- one
of the few health problems that all scientists agree is linked
to Chernobyl's fallout. 

  [News photo]   

  Olena, 7, has her thyroid tested last month at a Red Cross
unit that travels through areas of western Ukraine contaminated
by the Chernobyl explosion.   


"The most important thing we can do is reassure people that they
aren't being forgotten," Sert said. 

After the explosion about 116,000 residents were evacuated from
a 32-km zone around the plant. Some 5 million others in areas
that got significant fallout were not evacuated. 

Over the years, reports and rumors have spoken of thousands of
these especially vulnerable people dying from radiation. 

But a September report by a group of United Nations agencies
concluded that the accident was not nearly as deadly as feared. 

Fewer than 50 deaths have been directly linked to radiation
exposure as of mid-2005, the report said. A total of 4,000 of
the 600,000 "liquidators" -- workers who were hastily mobilized
to clean up the accident site -- are likely to die from
radiation-related cancers and leukemia, it predicted. That's far
below the tens of thousands many claimed were fatally stricken. 

The researchers found that thyroid-cancer rates have skyrocketed
among people who were under 18 years old at the time of the
accident, but noted more than 99 percent survive after
treatment. 

It said there was no convincing evidence of birth defects or
reduced fertility, and most of the general population suffered
such low radiation doses that the scientists decided not to make
predictions about deaths, except to say that some increase --
less than 1 percent or about 5,000 -- might be expected. 

Venyamin Khudolei, director of the Center for Independent
Ecological Expertise at the government-founded Russian Academy
of Science, disagrees with the findings. 

In the part of Russia most heavily hit by the fallout, mortality
rates have risen nearly 4 percent since the explosion,
indicating the Chernobyl toll in Russia alone could be
calculated at 67,000 people, Khudolei said. 

His findings are cited by Greenpeace, which on Tuesday plans to
issue a report on Chernobyl's consequences. 

Other experts point to studies which show increases in
everything from schizophrenia among the traumatized liquidators
to breast cancer. 

The U.N. report suggests people in heavily affected areas were
gripped by "paralyzing fatalism" that induced them to see
themselves as victims and blame Chernobyl for every ailment,
even those from smoking or drinking. 

Researchers trying to determine death tolls -- and predict
deaths still to come -- do not have an easy task. 

Soviet-era attempts to cover up the chaotic and often inhumane
response made it difficult to track down victims. Lists were
incomplete, and Soviet authorities later forbade doctors to cite
radiation on death certificates. 

The rural regions affected are impoverished and unemployment is
high. Alcohol abuse is rampant, diets poor. It is hard to
distinguish Chernobyl-related health problems from a more
general post-Soviet malaise, scientists said. 

"I'm sure we'll see claims of thousands, tens of thousands,
hundreds of thousands, millions of deaths, but again we checked,
we checked all the research, all the files," Didier Louvat, a
radiation waste expert with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, said by telephone from Vienna. 

"The explosion was very concentrated around the facility and the
fallout was spread in great plumes that went high into the
atmosphere and crossed Europe, diffusing the concentration. . .
. It could have been much worse." 

About 1,000 people -- plant personnel, military conscripts,
firefighters from the Kiev region, and emergency workers -- bore
the brunt of the inferno, and 134 were officially confirmed as
having acute radiation syndrome. 

One person died in the explosion and his body has never been
recovered. The U.N. report says 28 more died from radiation
sickness in 1986, and 19 of those suffering from radiation
syndrome died between 1987-2004 but not all the deaths were
necessarily caused by radiation. The rest are alive. 

Wearing no masks or protective suits, dozens of firefighters
were deployed. While the bosses were sheltered underground,
plant workers recalled, people stood around awaiting
instructions, breathing poisoned air as they watched smoke burst
from the reactor's exposed core. 

The disregard for human life persisted. Natalya Lopatyuk, the
widow of a plant worker, said that as she was being evacuated,
she saw groups of young conscripts sunbathing while waiting for
orders. 

Radiation burns "tear at the skin and look something like a
volcano erupting on the body," said Oleksandr Zelentsov, head of
the Kiev-based International Organization for People with
Radiation Disease. 

The victims' bodies were considered so radioactive that family
members were told not to touch them and they were buried in
double-layered lead coffins. 

Such high radiation doses, however, were short-lived. 
The last people diagnosed with acute radiation syndrome -- three
firefighters extinguishing a cable fire -- fell ill at the end
of May 1986, Zelentsov said. One is dead, one suffered a heart
attack and is in serious condition, and the third is healthy,
Zelentsov said. 

The Chernobyl plant now is a cracked hulk in the eerie "dead
zone." The last of its four reactors was taken out of service in
2000 and the main activity is to shore up the concrete-and-steel
"sarcophagus" that covers the destroyed reactor. 

But radiation infects a vast stretch of Ukraine, Belarus and
Russia -- in the soil, the berries and mushrooms, and the
firewood needed to heat homes. 

Accounts vary, but experts agree that between 4,000 and 5,000
people, children when the explosion happened, have been
diagnosed with thyroid cancer in Ukraine and Belarus -- making
it the single biggest Chernobyl-related medical problem. 

The Japan Times: Sunday, April 16, 2006 (C) All rights reserved 

*****************************************************************
 59 Odessa American Online: God, country and nuclear energy

Serving the Permian Basin of West Texas
 
Saturday, April 15, 2006

Why the West Texas hamlet of Andrews wants a nuclear plant in its 
own backyard

EDITOR'S NOTE: Last October, officials met to debate the 
possibility of locating a next-generation nuclear power plant in 
Andrews County. That plant would be the first constructed on U.S. 
soil in 30 years. This is the first of four articles exploring 
the impact its construction would have on the UT System, the 
Permian Basin and, later on, the globe.

By Jennifer Edwards
Photo by Mark Sterkel
Odessa American

ANDREWS COUNTY Oilfield equipment inhabits the 30-mile stretch of 
scrub-covered desert between the little oil town of Andrews and 
its neighbor Eunice, N.M.

Along two-lane State Highway 176, the drinking-bird motions of 
active pumps outnumber many that are, for the moment, motionless. 
Holding tanks age in rivulets of rust.

The new-looking objects in this seeming waste are a few 
shiny-blue signs that intermittently dot the landscape.

They say: Poison gas may be present.

That gas could be carbon dioxide or worse - deadly hydrogen 
sulfide (H2S), which kills with only a whiff.

"If you read what happens in our oilfield on an almost daily 
basis - you have injuries going on," Andrews Mayor Bob Zap said.

"Frankly, I'm older and I don't know if I'm going to see 
personally the great effects (of nuclear development)," Zap, 77, 
said. "But I feel we have an obligation toward our future 
generations to leave this place here for them."

Zap, who's lived in Andrews for nearly 40 years, was speaking 
about the possibility - a cherished possibility for many in 
Andrews - of situating a cutting-edge nuclear reactor within 
Andrews County's 1,504 square miles. It would be called the 
VHT3R.

That reactor, should it be constructed, would be the first built 
on U.S. soil in more than three decades.

Andrews is an approximately 10,000-soul town in the West Texas 
desert. It's neither in New Mexico, nor the agriculture-rich area 
of the Texas Panhandle.

The rain here, when it comes, sparsely waters hundreds of miles 
populated mainly by jackrabbits, horned toads, rattlesnakes and 
mesquite.

Andrews is built on the back of oilfields that were discovered in 
1937. During World War II, the county's oilfields made up the 
bulk of the United States' consistent oil supply, University of 
Texas of the Permian Basin president David Watts said.

Now many of those fields have been plumbed, replumbed and then 
plumbed again through chemical assistance.

One day, they'll run out.

Like the available crude, the human population is declining as 
well - it has dipped 10 percent since 1990.

Andrews is seeking something new to keep it from the possibility 
of extinction so many little West Texas towns have faced.

Ghost towns are sad, but nothing new. Many towns in America were 
built on, and marooned by, industries that disappeared.

But this little town, many of its leaders think, could not only 
absolve itself of extinction. It could lead the way toward 
America's developing future.

Just like it did with the oilfield breakthroughs of the 1930s, 
this little town thinks it could latch on to the next energy 
industry breakthrough - nuclear power.

NOT IN MY BACKYARD CONCERNS

For 30 years, every community in the United States tapped for a 
nuclear power plant has resisted the idea, sometimes explosively.
Community bigwigs not only have balked, but they also have become 
bureaucratically militant.

In the 1970s and 1980s, large-scale protests over the 
construction of a nuclear plant in Seabrook, N.H., nabbed 
headlines and resulted in more than 1,400 arrests. It also 
spawned an anti-nuclear organization: The Clamshell Alliance.

As recently as last December, a small group of women protested a 
move by the Entergy Nuclear Power Plant in Brattleboro, Vt., to 
boost production and extend its license by 20 years, the Rutland 
(Vt.) Herald reported.

On March 29, another group protested the operation of the 
Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford, Conn., according to 
protest Web site Mothballmillstone .org.

But Andrews, an almost invisible dot on the national map, where 
neighbors fiercely protect their land, their family and their 
neighbors, prays for the pariah industry.

"I'm so excited, I can't sleep at night," said DeeDee Wallace, 
executive director of the Andrews Economic Board.

HOW THEY LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE NUKE

It could be said that a step in 1994 set Andrews on the path to 
hosting a nuclear reactor.

In 1994, Waste Control Specialists took advantage of the area's 
impermeable red clay to bury medical waste and other refuse 
contaminated with a low level of radiation.

Since that time, the company has become a welcome addition to 
Andrews, say Andrews leaders.

"(It) has 125 employees, half of whom live in Andrews," Hackler 
said. "They are well-paying jobs."

Wallace said she often sees members of the company on community 
service boards and in nonprofit organizations, which impressed 
her.

"They have donated to important causes and volunteered," Hackler 
added. "Waste Control Specialists has been a good corporate 
citizen."

Perhaps that's why the community didn't balk when Eunice, just 30 
miles or so away, moved forward on hosting a $1.2 billion uranium 
enrichment facility. Instead, they embraced the possibilities for 
its 2,500-population neighbor.

"They were really on the decline," Wallace said. "Now, with the 
uranium enrichment facility ... you will see that little town be 
transformed."

And perhaps that's why, now, Andrews residents are not taking to 
the streets to stage protests.

They want their little community to be transformed, too. And 
they'd like to take the nation with them, Hackler said.

"As hokey as it may sound," he said. "Andrews loves God and 
country and supports enterprise."

It says so on a sign on the way that guards the city limits, he 
noted.

"There is a sincere belief that this is addressing a statewide 
and national problem."

THE LITTLE TOWN THAT COULD, AND WOULD

It's been more than 30 years since the last nuclear reactor was 
erected on U.S. soil, and it's been the same amount of time since 
the nuclear-power industry, in full force in the 1970s, had a 
moratorium imposed on its ideas.

It's been 30 years of protest, bureaucratic entanglement and 
high-profile protests.

Yet during that time, Andrews has been weaning itself from its 
oil-industry bedrock and instead has moved toward the economic 
diversification it knows will be necessary eventually.

"Twenty years from now, we won't be talking oil, we'll be talking 
nuclear," Zap said.

And maybe, then, those little blue signs can be retired. 

  American Online: c /o Odessa American 222 E. 4th Street P.O. 
Box 2952 Odessa, TX 79760 Copyright © 1999-2006 Odessa American. 
All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 60 Radio New Zealand: Bikini Islanders file lawsuit against US govt
 
Radio New Zealand - Te Reo Irirangi o Aoteoroa
 
Posted at 4:41pm on 15 Apr 2006                                                                      

Bikini Islanders have filed a lawsuit against the US government
seeking almost $US800 million in compensation after they were
forced from their homes 60 years ago to make way for nuclear
tests. 

Bikini, which is part of the Marshall Islands, is asking the US
Court of Federal Claims to order the American government to pay
a nuclear test compensation award approved in 2001, but so far
unpaid by a Nuclear Claims Tribunal. 

The tribunal was created by Washington to handle compensation
claims arising from the 67 American nuclear tests in the
Marshall Islands. 

Altogether, 23 nuclear tests were held on Bikini between 1946
and 1958. 

After more than seven years of legal wrangling, the Majuro-based
tribunal awarded the Bikini Islanders $US563.3 million in 2001. 
'Woeful' funding
 

"Due to woefully inadequate funding provided by the United
States - only $US45.75 million - the tribunal was able to pay
the Bikinians only $US2.3m, or less than one-half of one per
cent of their award," the lawsuit said. 

The latest suit was filed by Bikini Senator Tomaki Juda, Mayor
Eldon Note and members of the Bikini council. 

Senator Juda said recently the suit is aimed at forcing the US
government to deliver on promises that it made to the Bikinians
but has not kept. 

The US Navy evacuated the Bikini Islanders in March 1946. At the
time US Navy Commodore Ben Wyatt told the islanders that the US
was trying to learn how to use (nuclear weapons) for the good of
mankind and to "end all world wars". 

Atoll 'sacrificed'
 
According to official navy records, he then asked the Bikini
people to "sacrifice their islands for the welfare of all men".
The Bikini islanders did not wish to leave but believed they
were powerless to resist the US decision, the suit said. 

The people were moved by the Navy three times. After nearly
starving to death on the first island they were sent to, the
population ended up on Kili Island in 1948, where they have
lived since. 

In the late 1960s, based on the findings of an Atomic Energy
Commission's scientific panel, President Lyndon Johnson
announced that Bikini was safe and the people could return home. 

About 100 people were resettled on Bikini only to be
re-evacuated in 1978 when it was discovered they were absorbing
a huge amount of radioactive cesium from contaminated foods
grown on the atoll. 

Later investigations showed the tests relied on by Mr Johnson in
1968 contained an error which assumed people living on Bikini
would consume just one spoonful of liquid a day. 

Following the second evacuation in 1978, numerous surveys of
Bikini have concluded that the atoll is "still is not safe for
human habitation", the suit said. 			 						

Copyright © 2006 Radio New Zealand                                                                               
 
*****************************************************************
 61 Deseret News: Matheson objects to plans for blast in Nevada
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Monday, April 17, 2006                           

He fears 700-ton test may assist in making new N-arm                                                    

By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News                                          

Rep. Jim Matheson is raising his voice against a planned huge 
conventional explosion at the Nevada Test Site, saying it may be 
intended to assist in developing a new low-yield nuclear weapon.

       Earlier this month, the Utah Democrat wrote to James
Tegnelia, director of the test's sponsor, the Defense Treat
Reduction Agency. The test, named "Divine Strake," would be
carried out June 2.

       Congress in 2003 repealed a ban on research and
development of low-yield nuclear devices, Matheson wrote. Some
members of Congress, including Matheson, thought the repeal
amounted to "yielding to those who actively support the
development of new nuclear weapons."

       After the repeal, the Defense Department and the National
nuclear Security Administration assured Congress that the ban
should be lifted because it hindered research and that no actual
weapon was being stealthily developed, Matheson wrote.

       However, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency recently
indicated 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."

       Matheson commented, "That sounds like preparation for a
low-yield nuclear weapon to me."

       Matheson said that the explosion of 700 tons won't
simulate an actual conventional bomb "because no bomber in the
U.S. fleet has the capacity to carry a weapon of that size."
However, based on unclassified information, the Divine Strake
explosion would be "much smaller than (the power of) any nuclear
weapon the U.S. currently possesses," he wrote.

       Matheson added he is worried that the explosion is being
billed as a conventional demonstration when its actual intent is
to further the pursuit of a new nuclear weapon.

E-mail: bau@desnews.com			  		 		   

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		
*****************************************************************
 62 Herald News: New group collecting cancer facts

[SuburbanChicagoNews.com]   

 Tritium concerns: Meeting in Custer Township on Monday 

By STAFF WRITER 

CUSTER TOWNSHIP  Shirley Cavanaugh has a map of a highway near
the local pipeline that once carried water laced with the
radioactive isotope tritium.

 The map reveals cancer cases in most households she sampled
along the highway  Illinois 113  and also West River Road.

 "My daughter, myself and a couple of neighbors have spoken to
more neighbors, and probably 70 percent or more of the people in
the area have had one cancer or more in each household,"
Cavanaugh said.

 This Monday in Custer Park, Cavanaugh and a newly formed group
are inviting the public to a meeting, so people can contribute
information on the matter.

 Cavanaugh said she has found instances of brain cancer,
prostrate cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer,
cervical cancer and more  within a stretch of a few miles.

 The pipeline once carried tritiated water from Exelon's
Braidwood nuclear power plant to the Kankakee River. 

Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that emits
a low level of radiation and is a natural part of water. It is
found in more concentrated levels in water used in nuclear
reactors.

 High exposure to tritium increases the risk of developing
cancer.

 However, no cancer cases in the area surrounding the Braidwood
facility have been officially linked to the plant.

 Numerous tritium leaks reported by Exelon Corp. have prompted
fears in the rural areas surrounding the power plant.

 Those leaks were first reported in November. Shortly afterward,
Exelon stopped using the pipeline to carry the tritiated water
to the Kankakee River.

 Residents in Godley and rural Reed Township remain concerned
about their water supply. Most rely on shallow, sand point wells.

 Water customers from Braidwood get their water from municipal
wells. Wilmington processes water taken from the Kankakee River.
Both towns said their water testing shows no problems.

 Recently, Will County and Exelon conducted well tests, sampling
at homes surrounding the power plant. The testing has revealed
no tritium levels greater than 20,000 picocuries per liter of
drinking water  the level deemed safe by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency. 

Recently, Cavanaugh and her neighbor, Irene Clark, got together
with their neighbors and found out there were numerous cases of
people in the area who have either conquered, died from or are
living with cancer.

 Cavanaugh and the others decided to host an informal meeting in
an attempt to put together a list of cancer cases present and
past.

 The group has taken the name Citizens for Safety Awareness.

 The informal meeting will be at 7 p.m. Monday at the Custer
Park Town Hall on Grant Street off Illinois 113.

 
- Reporter Kim Smith can be reached at (815) 729-6067 or via
e-mail at .

 04/15/06 
          
SuburbanChicagoNews.com — ©  Digital Chicago & Sun-Times
News Group       
*****************************************************************
 63 Pahrump Valley Times: Bomb test will 'meet air quality regulations' 

April 14, 2006

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS - A huge non-nuclear explosion expected to generate a
mushroom cloud in the Nevada desert will meet state air quality
regulations, officials said Wednesday. 

State regulators have raised questions about pollution and
hazardous materials from the planned June 2 detonation of 700
tons of an ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, an official with the
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection said. 

But the Nevada Test Site has a blasting permit, and state
officials said they had no plan to try to block the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency's experiment, dubbed ``Divine Strake.'' 

``If they are going to comply with all the state air quality
regulations within their permit, they will be allowed to go
ahead,'' said Dante Pistone, spokesman for the state air quality
regulatory agency in Carson City. ``We are awaiting information
on the air quality parameters of the test.'' 

Darwin Morgan, spokesman for the National Nuclear Security
Administration, said the federal agency intends within the next
two weeks to provide proof to the state Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources that the massive blast 90
miles northwest of Las Vegas won't violate pollution emissions
standards set by a June 2004 air quality permit. 

``They have asked us to assure that we will be able to remain
within the boundaries of our permit,'' Morgan said. ``We fully
intend to comply.'' 

Computer models show that detonating a 900-ton ammonium nitrate
and fuel oil bomb would not violate state regulations, Morgan
said. By comparison, the ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb that
destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
in 1995 weighed 5,000 pounds, or 21/2 tons. 

A Defense Threat Reduction Agency spokeswoman said detonating a
700-ton bomb will help scientists chart ground motion and shock
waves in an underground limestone tunnel built in 1998 but never
used for nuclear testing. 

The closest underground nuclear test was conducted 11/2 miles
from the Divine Strake site, said Irene Smith, spokeswoman for
the agency in Fort Belvoir, Va. She said the test is expected to
help design a weapon to penetrate hardened and deeply buried
targets. 

The explosion should not disturb surface contamination left from
100 aboveground and 828 underground nuclear weapons tests
conducted at the vast test site from 1951 to 1992, Morgan said. 

He said the nearest ground-zero areas of known contamination
from aboveground tests are at least three miles from the Divine
Strake location, in the center of the 1,375-square-mile federal
reservation.

Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 64 London Times: Watchdog hits at Dounreay’s false reporting - 

The Sunday Times        April 16, 2006

Mark Macaskill

SCOTLAND'S nuclear watchdog has accused the owners of Dounreay of 
misleading the public over the threat posed to public health by 
radioactive leaks from the plant.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) said the UK 
Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) was guilty of publishing false 
and conflicting information regarding thousands of plutonium and 
uranium particles washed up on beaches close to the Caithness 
plant.

Campbell Gemmell, chief executive of SEPA, said the UKAEA had 
offered assurances regarding the safety of the area before a 
proper risk assessment had been done.

Last year a stone contaminated with caesium-137 was recovered 
from a beach 20 miles from Dounreay. The authority admitted that 
"at least several hundreds of thousands" of plutonium and uranium 
particles, each the size of a grain of sand, have been released 
from Dounreay over the past 30 years.

A former safety officer at the plant claimed, in a Sunday Times 
article, that safety breaches had resulted in the radioactive 
particles escaping into the environment.

Highly radioactive waste was pumped into the sea and evidence of 
the pollution was covered up by managers who had a "reckless" 
disregard for public health, according to Herbie Lyall, who was a 
health physics surveyor at the plant from 1960 until 1989.

SEPA's concerns follow the publication of a report on the UKAEA 
website in December, which claimed certain radioactive particles 
posed a "low" risk to human health.

In a letter to Norman Harrison, the head of Dounreay, Gemmell 
wrote: "SEPA has commissioned a revised risk assessment of the 
health risks associated with the particles and, until this work 
is concluded, I consider that such a statement may be premature 
and is certainly oddly timed."

The letter also adds that the particles, which contain 
caesium-137, "do pose a potential hazard to human health and, if 
present in sufficient numbers, could pose a significant 
collective risk to health".

The letter goes on to state that assurances that particles of 
caesium-137 can be considered as not being a hazard is 
"inappropriate, misleading and would provide false assurances to 
any persons reading this document".

Gemmell also criticised the UKAEA for publishing conflicting 
figures on the number of particles that have polluted the sea 
bed. Independent tests have been carried out on the devices and 
results are expected next month.

Since November 1983, more than 900 particles - fragments of 
irradiated nuclear fuel - have been found on the sea bed and 
another 238 on the enclosed beach at Dounreay.

A further 59 have turned up on the public beach at Sandside and 
one on the public beach at Dunnet, which is close to the Castle 
of Mey, a former residence of the Queen Mother.

While the UKAEA insists the source for these particles is a 
deep-sea chamber 2,000 feet off the coast and 65 feet below the 
sea bed, it has been suggested that particles could be escaping 
from Dounreay's chimneys and from radioactive waste dumped in 
landfill sites.

Geoffrey Minter, a local estate-owner, said: "I have warned that 
the clean-up operation is a sham and this is a damning 
condemnation of the so-called clean-up operation being mounted at 
vast public expense by the UKAEA."

Colin Punler, a spokesman for Dounreay, said: "The documents 
published were about gathering people's views on the whole 
particles issue. We have written to SEPA apologising for a lack 
of communication before publication and we are correcting any 
errors."


sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. 

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 65 Belleville News-Democrat: Despite plant leaks, low tritium levels found in wells

04/15/2006 | 

Posted on Sat, Apr. 15, 2006
 
Officials say water remains healthy to drink

 Associated Press 

BRAIDWOOD - Slightly elevated levels of tritium have been found
in two drinking water wells near a nuclear power plant, but a
health official says the concentrations are well below what
state and federal limits allow. 

Will County officials drew samples from 99 drinking water wells
after they learned of four tritium leaks at Exelon's Braidwood
Generating Station dating back to 1996. Preliminary findings for
59 of those samples were announced Thursday by James Zelko,
executive director of the county's health department. 

Two of the 59 wells showed elevated levels of tritium but the
concentrations were less than 2 percent of what state and
federal limits allow, Zelko said. They also were below the
guidelines recently established in California, which has the
lowest groundwater tritium limits in the nation. 

Exelon officials have said the leaks posed no danger to public. 

"This is very similar to the data we got three, four years ago,"
Exelon Nuclear spokesman Craig Nesbit said Friday. 

The wells had detectable tritium levels of 230 and 264
picocuries per liter. The state's drinking water limit is 20,000
picocuries per liter. California's public health goal is 400
picocuries per liter. 

Tritium, a potential carcinogen, is a radioactive form of
hydrogen commonly found in groundwater but more concentrated in
water used in nuclear reactors. 

The wells that were tested were located in the nearby town of
Godley or within one-half-mile of the underground pipeline that
carries millions of gallons of wastewater from the plant into
the Kankakee River. The pipeline is where the leaks occurred. 

Several lawsuits have been filed against Exelon in connection
with the leaks. 

*****************************************************************
 66 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast might not have borders

04/16/2006 | 

Posted on Sun, Apr. 16, 2006

For years - no one is sure how many - residents and property
owners in the community of Tallevast have lived with potentlally
deadly pollutants contaminating the ground and water under their
homes and businesses. 

That toxic underground plume of chemical contamination is of
unknown proportions and concentration in south Manatee. In the
past two years, the known boundaries of the plume have changed
drastically as more testing has been done. In fact, exactly one
year ago today, Lockheed Martin announced that the plume of
groundwater contamination from the plant had spread over at
least 131 acres in this small residential community - more than
2 ½ times larger than the most recent estimate given two months
earlier. 

As Lockheed Martin, the company responsible for the cleanup, and
government officials continue their testing, Manatee County
government decided it needed to be proactive and draft an
overlay district to regulate future development in the Tallevast
area. A year after first discussed, the overlay was proposed and
notices went out to property owners. 

But county procedure dictates that a proposed overlay district
can be scaled back, but not broadened. And Lockheed kept pushing
back the date for its "final" report to define the nature and
extent of the plume. So the county drew the overlay map much
larger than the current plume map, pending Lockheed's report. It
extended from Whitfield Avenue all the way south to University
Parkway and from U.S. 41 all the way east to U.S. 301. 

Well, dozens of homes and some businesses suddenly found
themselves linked to the dire woes of Tallevast, even though
they are outside the boundaries of the community - and the
existing plume map. And they're fighting mad. Some are even
threatening a court fight already. Residents from the
neighboring community of Whitfield led the fight at the first
public hearing last week on the proposed overlay. Even officials
for Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, a key economic
engine for this region, are concerned that the proposed overlay
district will unfairly curtail their options and have a
significant negative impact. 

Their voices were heeded. The county is back to the drawing
board. 

It's difficult to fathom after all this time, especially if you
live in Tallevast and your future has been in limbo already for
years. But the county should have waited at least until April
27, when Lockheed is expected to produce its site assessment
report to state environmental regulators. 

But the overlay district is still needed - and it is urgent.
Look at what's happened to Florida property values after two of
the most active hurricane seasons in history. Prices and
development skyrocketed. If and when someone wants to build or
expand in the polluted area, a strict set of guidelines is
needed to protect public safety. It's also important to set
standards that protect current residents and businesses when and
if the contamination zone is accurately defined and cleanup
begins. 

The overlay district will subject plans of property owners and
developers to a more extensive review than standard building
plans to ensure they do not disturb the contamination plume.
That will apply to the depth of foundation footers, underground
utility lines, wells and land uses. 

That is expected to be a 20-year process, during which the world
in and around Tallevast will not stand still. Florida real
estate becomes dearer by the day; big tracts of undeveloped or
underdeveloped land, such as exist around Tallevast, will be
coveted by developers if they can get it at bargain prices,
especially if eventual cleanup is assured. 

Indeed, there already are two potential development proposals
for land not far from the known boundaries of the plume. One is
for a hotel at the corner of U.S. 301 and Tallevast Road, and
the other for a light industrial complex south of Whitfield
Avenue. Both are outside the current plume footprint. 

Wilma Subra, an independent expert who last year assessed
Lockheed's data for The Herald, believes the plume is far more
dangerous than either Lockheed or government regulators have
admitted. Subra, a chemist who advises the Louisiana
Environmental Action Network, said the health risks and property
damage could extend far beyond Tallevast. 

Subra also suspects that there are multiple sources of the
plume. That's one more reason for the county to draw its overlay
borders broadly and early, ahead of any building activity that
could disturb the plume. Indeed, trichloroethylene contamination
has been found at levels as shallow as 10 feet below the surface
in some areas of Tallevast, adding the possibility of vapor
contamination to potential health risks for anyone living or
working in certain areas. TCE is an industrial solvent that has
been linked to cancer, neurological problems and lower birth
weights in humans. 

Subra warned last fall that current and future exposure risks
must be taken into account when deciding future land-use in the
area, lest excavation allow the plume to spread farther or even
come to the surface. 

One unexpected impact of last week's public outcry: A lot more
people suddenly fear the impact of the contaminants left from
the former American Beryllium Plant in Tallevast. Everyone in
Manatee County should be concerned about the scope and potential
impact of the toxic plume under Tallevast and . . . 

That's the point. We don't know the boundaries or depth yet. And
we deserve to know. And remedies must begin immediately. 

*****************************************************************
 67 Deseret News: County aims to block nuclear waste
 
[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, April 15, 2006

S.L. Chamber urges leaders to speak out against PFS permit

By Leigh Dethman Deseret Morning News

Salt Lake County leaders want to keep trains carrying nuclear 
waste from ever crossing the county line.

       The County Council is expected to debate a resolution
Tuesday opposing the proposed transportation of spent nuclear
waste on local roads or rails to a proposed disposal site about
50 miles away in Tooele County.

       "A freight train full of spent nuclear fuel is about to
come into our jurisdiction," Councilman Randy Horiuchi said.
"We're just trying to figure out ways to slow it down."

       Private Fuel Storage officials plan on dumping some
44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods on land owned by the
Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians in Tooele County.

       The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce is urging government
and business leaders to inform the Bureau of Land Management
that they want the bureau to deny an application from PFS for a
right-of-way permit on public land that would be necessary to
bring the nuclear waste onto the reservation site.

       Chamber officials believe the PFS plan would "hurt the
economy," as the waste likely would travel through the heart of
the state's transportation system.

       The BLM is accepting comments through May 8.

       "This is our chance to be heard," said Natalie Gochnour,
chamber spokeswoman.

       The public comment a good idea, but everyone, including
those who support the plan, should be heard before a decision is
made, said Sue Martin, a public affairs consultant for PFS.

       Martin was surprised that the Salt Lake County Council is
considering a resolution opposing the PFS plan.

       "One would think that before a county would develop a
position, they would want to look at all sides of the issue,"
Martin said. "We were not invited by any of the counties to
comment prior to their taking a position."

       PFS officials are upset the Salt Lake Chamber is leading
the fight against their company, considering PFS has been a
member of the business group for seven years, Martin said.

       The chamber had to take a stand because of the potential
economic impacts of bringing spent nuclear waste through the
valley, Gochnour said.

       "This is something on which there is a broad consensus
that the business community needed to step up," Gochnour said.
"We're willing do that because of its impact on our economy.
We've stepped up for business reasons."

       Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon said he is opposed
to the PFS plan.

       "It should stay where it is," Corroon said. "It's safer
and simpler to keep it where it is."

E-mail: ldethman@desnews.com			  		 		   

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		
*****************************************************************
 68 Deseret News: Western governors assail nuclear waste bill 

[deseretnews.com] 

Saturday, April 15, 2006 

Western governors assail nuclear waste bill 

They fear it would weaken states' say in shipment safety 

By Suzanne Struglinski Deseret Morning News 

WASHINGTON — Pending nuclear-waste legislation in the U.S. Senate
has the Western Governors' Association concerned that it would 
weaken the states' role in regulating shipments of used 
commercial nuclear fuel or any radioactive material. 

The Energy Department has proposed a bill to Congress 
that addresses the government's plan to store nuclear waste at 
Nevada's Yucca Mountain. The measure contains provisions that 
would change federal rules on everything from the legal limit of 
waste the mountain can hold to how it gets there. 

If the nuclear Regulatory Commission allows the 
department to move forward with its plan to build a 
nuclear-waste storage site at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las 
Vegas, potential train or truck shipment routes could go through 
Salt Lake City. 

"We urge you not to enact any legislation that diminishes 
the states' role in ensuring safe transportation of these 
materials at the very time that the amount of shipments would 
dramatically increase," wrote WGA Chairman and Arizona Gov. 
Janet Napolitano. "It proposes, in fact, an unwarranted change 
from the way nearly two decades of non-classified DOE shipping 
campaigns have been planned for and conducted." 

Napolitano sent the letter to the bill's sponsor, Sen. 
Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who heads the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, and the committee's top Democrat, Jeff 
Bingaman, also of New Mexico, as well as all the committee 
members and all senators from Western states. 

"We are concerned that the portions of the bill related 
to transportation could seriously undermine shipment safety and 
public confidence, key to successful repository operation," 
Napolitano wrote. 

When it released the bill on April 5, the Energy 
Department highlighted that it would withdraw public lands from 
the area around the mountain, change how Congress can allocate 
money to it and eliminate the 77,000-ton cap on the waste to be 
stored there. 

But Napolitano wrote that the Western governors take 
issue with other provisions that would exempt Yucca Mountain 
shipments from the Hazardous Materials Transportation 
Authorization Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act, federal laws designed to protect public health and safety. 

"Bypassing these proven and widely accepted federal 
frameworks for transportation safety, particularly at the same 
time that significant shipment increases of these materials 
would heighten public concern, is inappropriate," she wrote. 

The bill, if approved, would also allow the Energy and 
Transportation secretaries to pre-empt any state, tribal or 
local law or regulation, even those permitted under the current 
regulatory framework for transporting the waste. 

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman toured the tunnel at Yucca 
Mountain for this first time Thursday and talked about the bill. 

"The legislation will allow us to provide stability, 
provide clarity, as well as predictability to the Yucca Mountain 
project," he said, "and will help lay a solid foundation for 
America's future energy security." 

Contributing: The Associated Press 
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		 
*****************************************************************
 69 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A messenger visits Yucca

Today: April 16, 2006 at 7:55:38 PDT 

The man in charge of U.S. energy policy brings the Bush/Cheney
message to Nevada

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman visited Southern Nevada for two
days late last week on a trip highlighted by a tour of Yucca
Mountain. Although his white hard hat was inscribed "Secretary
Bodman," it could just as easily have said "Vice President
Cheney," or "President Bush." Bodman is not an
independent-thinking policymaker who relies on facts and
science. Rather, he is an administrator who travels the country
parroting the White House. 

Speaking to reporters after emerging from Yucca Mountain's
five-mile tunnel that so far has cost $9 billion, Bodman spoke
as if he were reading verbatim from the collected talking points
of Bush/Cheney. It was a sad sight, considering how promising
his academic career had begun. In the late 1960s he was a
chemical engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. 

Although he went into the financial and political fields after
that, leading to deputy positions in the Bush administration's
Commerce and Treasury departments, we had dared hope after he
was nominated for his current job in December 2004 that he would
offer the president straight advice on Yucca Mountain based on
science. 

Such hope is quickly dashed by the Bush administration. Bodman's
remarks to reporters showed that he is fully on board with the
real energy secretaries, Bush and Cheney. He said the White
House's new legislation on Yucca Mountain is wise policy. 

"The legislation will allow us to provide stability, provide
clarity, as well as predictability to the Yucca Mountain
project," Bodman said. What the legislation actually portends is
a porous mountain overstuffed with nuclear waste, a Congress
taken out of the funding picture and a nightmarish
transportation scheme. 

Bodman said putting Yucca Mountain on a fast track will enable
more nuclear power plants to be built. In fact, if the federal
government is successful in opening Yucca, it would be filled
with existing and future waste from the current nuclear power
plants. Where would waste from new plants go? 

Bodman even reiterated the old Bush/Cheney saw that Yucca won't
open if it can't be made safe, proving that he believes Nevadans
are still gullible six years after Bush's infamous "sound
science" promise. 

Work on Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, should
be stopped cold. 

There are no scientists in the world, much less administrators
and politicians, who can truthfully say that more than 132,000
tons of nuclear waste can be buried there and pose no safety
risks for hundreds of thousands of years. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 70 reviewjournal.com: Nuclear project draws interest
 
Apr. 15, 2006

UNLV-linked scientists get in line for Energy Department program          

By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	
WASHINGTON -- Several scientists associated with the University 
of Nevada, Las Vegas have positioned Nevada researchers to 
compete for contracts from the Energy Department's new nuclear 
waste reprocessing program. 

The officials, affiliated with the Harry Reid Center for 
Environmental Studies at UNLV, established a research entity in 
February and have filed preliminary paperwork with the government 
to participate in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

Nuclear science division Director Anthony Hechanova and Donald
Baepler, a retired longtime university executive who founded and
directed the UNLV environmental research arm more than 20 years
ago, are among the principals of the newly formed Nevada
Environmental Research and Monitoring Institute. 

Organization papers for the institute were filed Feb. 23 in
Carson City. Also identified as principal managers were Bimal
Mukhopadyay of Las Vegas and Thomas Ward of Germantown, Md. 

The institute has expressed interest in working with the Energy
Department, which is expected to invite bids later this spring
to examine potential sites for a test-scale factory for
reprocessing used nuclear fuel. 

The study teams could be awarded at least $5 million apiece
through the so-called GNEP program. 

Energy officials have not identified which sites they want
explored. The Nevada Test Site has been among the rumored
locations, along with the Idaho National Laboratory, the
Savannah River Site in South Carolina and the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Tennessee. 

"All we did was put our name in to get an RFP whenever it is
ready to be distributed," Baepler said, referring to DOE's
formal Request for Proposals expected later this spring. "If the
test site is one of the several areas that they want
characterized, we would consider going for that." 

Baepler said the newly created entity is independent of UNLV and
the Harry Reid Center. 

But if the institute receives a federal grant to survey the test
site, it plans to assemble a research team. Baepler said it is
possible that scientists from UNLV, the University of Nevada,
Reno, and the Nevada-based Desert Research Institute could be
brought on board for their local expertise. 

Bob Loux, director of the state Agency for Nuclear Projects,
said Friday the contract bid calls new attention to the ties
between Nevada universities and DOE nuclear projects, including
Yucca Mountain. 

While the state is fighting the proposed Yucca Mountain
repository and likely would oppose nuclear waste reprocessing at
the test site, Nevada scholars have conducted DOE-funded
research for years. 

The Nevada university system has received more than $93 million
in research funding from the Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management since 1984, according to DOE figures compiled
by the Nuclear Energy Institute. 

"There is nothing wrong with it, other than you have education
institutions of Nevada looking to get in bed with DOE when the
state's policy and the governor and attorney general oppose this
thing," Loux said. 

Loux noted that the Nevada group's interest in GNEP has been
singled out by DOE officials in congressional testimony, which
is potentially damaging to those trying to keep nuclear waste
out of the state. Energy Department leaders have linked GNEP to
the Yucca Mountain effort as part of an overall nuclear waste
management strategy. 

But some Nevada leaders, notably Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., have
been supportive of UNLV building a research reputation and
nuclear expertise using federal government dollars. As senior
member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Reid has
earmarked millions for such research at state institutions. 

The Harry Reid Center, named after the senator in 1991,
administers a cooperative agreement for Yucca Mountain research
between DOE and the Nevada schools. Hechanova separately is
manager of two large university programs conducting work for the
government on nuclear hydrogen and nuclear waste transmutation. 

Baepler said participation by Nevadans ensures that nuclear
waste studies are conducted without bias. 

"For purposes of credibility it is good to have the local
universities involved in the scientific investigations of Yucca
Mountain," he said. "We will report the results quite
objectively." 

DOE officials said 40 entities filed GNEP paperwork by a March
31 deadline. Development agencies and officials representing
communities in Tennessee, Washington state, Kansas, Idaho and
New Mexico were among them, as were engineering companies. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 71 Salt Lake Tribune: Feds want states out of nuclear shipping 

Article Last Updated: 04/15/2006 01:16:08 AM MDT 

Bound for Yucca: Utah, other Western states want to have a chance
to inspect, reroute the cargo 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

WASHINGTON - Western governors say shipping nuclear waste 
could be riskier under a Bush administration proposal to keep 
states from inspecting or rerouting waste bound for Yucca 
Mountain, Nev. 

The Yucca Mountain bill, written by the Energy Department 
and introduced last week by Senate Energy Committee Chairman 
Pete Domenici, R-N.M., exempts Yucca shipments from federal 
hazardous materials regulations and any state regulation. 

The transportation provisions "could seriously undermine 
shipment safety and public confidence," Arizona Gov. Janet 
Napolitano wrote Thursday in a letter on behalf of the Western 
Governors Association. 

According to an Energy Department analysis, between 8 million 
and 11 million people nationwide live within a half-mile of the 
potential truck or rail routes to Yucca Mountain. The waste 
would travel through as many as 45 states and 700 counties. 
Yucca Mountain's capacity is now capped at 77,000 tons of spent 
fuel, although the new Bush administration proposal would raise 
the limit to 120,000 tons, potentially increasing the amount of 
traffic going through Utah on its way to the site. 

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has expressed concern about the 
waste shipments, most of which would cross Utah on their way to 
Nevada, and supports leaving the waste at the reactors that 
produced it. 

"It's important to take into account the viewpoints of 
affected states on issues involving nuclear waste because 
nuclear waste is an issue that affects people very locally," 
said Huntsman's spokesman, Mike Lee. "There is an understandable 
reluctance on the part of states like ours to have any [of the] 
limited authority we now have further eroded." 

Energy Department spokesman Craig Stevens said the goal of 
the provision is to ensure that there is "consistent treatment" 
for DOE shipments, so standards don't change when a shipment 
crosses from one jurisdiction to the next. 

"We believe what we're going to do will either meet or 
exceed the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] or Department of 
Transportation requirements. What we're going to do is better 
than the minimum and is a safe and responsible method of 
transportation," Stevens said. "In no way does it diminish our 
commitment to trying to work with states and tribes moving 
forward." 

Oregon Gov. Theodore Kulongoski wrote a separate letter to 
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman this week, opposing the 
pre-emption of state regulations, praising DOE's track record of 
cooperation with the states, and urging that the provisions be 
stripped from the bill. 

Although it is more than a decade behind schedule, the Energy 
Department hopes to open a permanent nuclear waste repository at 
Yucca Mountain by 2015. If it becomes a reality, Utah could see 
more than 10,000 rail shipments and nearly 2,400 truck shipments 
of spent nuclear fuel rolling through the state. 

Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant for Nevada's 
anti-Yucca campaign, said he expects the transit provisions in 
the Energy Department bill to be constroversial on two fronts. 

"First they exempt DOE from safety and counterterrorism 
regulations that most people both in the industry and the state 
government level think are working," he said. "Secondly they go 
so far in exempting DOE from these regulations that it raises 
doubts in my mind that the bill can be passed with those 
provisions in there." 

Specifically, Napolitano's letter expresses concern that the 
Bush administration's proposal would exempt shipments to Yucca 
Mountain from federal hazardous materials statutes, and would 
pre-empt state, tribal and local laws that allow state 
inspections of shipments or rerouting of shipments away from 
high-risk areas. 

It is also contrary to a recent report by the National 
Academies of Science that said spent fuel could be shipped 
safely under "strict adherence to existing regulations." 

"We urge you not to enact any legislation that diminishes 
states' role in ensuring safe transportation of these materials 
at the very time that the amount of shipments would dramatically 
increase," Napolitano wrote. 

gehrke@sltrib.com 

Transportation provisions of the Bush administration's Yucca 
Mountain bill: 

States, local governments and Indian tribes could not 
reroute shipments of radioactive waste away from high-risk 
areas, tunnels or population centers 

States, local governments and tribes could not inspect or 
regulate shipments 

Shipments of waste would be exempt from the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, which sets federal guidelines for 
managing hazardous and non-hazardous waste 

Governors say the exemptions may apply more broadly to 
affect other shipments in containers approved by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 72 Salt Lake Tribune: Mercury levels stir new outcry 

Article Last Updated: 04/15/2006 03:17:20 AM MDT 

By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 

Environmentalists point to the federal government's new tally 
of toxic pollution as proof regulators are too soft on mining, 
especially Nevada's gold companies. 

Elyssa Rosen, senior policy adviser at Great Basin Mine 
Watch, said the latest information ought to raise concern, 
particularly among Utah and Idaho residents whose lakes and 
streams are being contaminated with mercury drifting from Nevada 
gold mines. Her group, examining newly released data from the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory 
for 2004, noted that Nevada remains the nation's mercury hot 
spot, releasing more of the toxic metal into the air and water 
and onto the land than any other state. 

"We're feeling very concerned about populations downwind of 
Nevada," she said, noting that children are most vulnerable to 
the effects of toxic mercury. "We will be supporting efforts 
around the region to improve the situation." 

Nevada's mercury and mercury-compound releases accounted for 
3.9 million pounds of the 4.6 million pounds released nationwide 
in 2004, the latest year for which the tally is available. 

Meanwhile, Utah companies reported emitting 27,601 pounds of 
mercury into the air, land and water, says the report the EPA 
released on Wednesday. 

Last month, the Nevada Environmental Commission approved the 
first mercury controls for the gold industry, whose largest 
companies have operated under voluntary curbs for four years. 

Dante Pistone, spokesman for the Nevada Division of 
Environmental Protection, said the pending regulations will 
apply to all gold plants and require the best available 
controls. 

"The 2004 numbers are just a snapshot in time," he said, "and 
they don't reflect what's happening now or what will be 
happening in the future." 

He said Nevada's mercury numbers have declined by about 
one-third since then. "We understand the concern about mercury, 
but it is being addressed." 

Utah last year issued five mercury warnings concerning state 
wildlife. Health and environmental officials urged limited 
consumption of channel catfish from the Green River in 
Desolation Canyon; largemouth bass from Gunlock Reservoir in 
Washington County; and brown trout from Mill Creek in Grand 
County. They also said mercury was so high in two duck species - 
the northern shoveler and common goldeneye - that none should be 
eaten. 

Mercury becomes toxic when it biochemically transforms into 
methylmercury. When ingested, generally by eating contaminated 
fish, it builds up and can cause neurological problems. Pregnant 
and nursing women and young children are generally thought to be 
most vulnerable. 

Gold mines are highly suspected as a major source of mercury 
in the Great Salt Lake, where methylmercury has been detected in 
some of the highest levels ever measured. 

Tim Wagner of the Utah chapter of the Sierra Club said the 
2004 inventory indicates the problem is as worrisome as some 
suspected. 

"This new data reflects a pretty serious problem and that the 
state of Nevada should strengthen their [mercury reduction] 
rules to include mandatory reductions of mercury emissions." 

fahys@sltrib.com 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 73 Ely Times: Ely still designated route for nuclear waste

elynews.com

Published on Friday, April 14, 2006                      

FOWLER

Ely Times Reporter Mike Baughman of the Intertech Services 
Corporation updated White Pine County at Wednesday's county 
commission meeting on Yucca Mountain issues.

For the county, the main issue is transportation of spent nuclear 
fuel. 

For the county, the main issue is transportation of spent
nuclear fuel.

The waste will be traveling through Ely if the project continues
according to plan. Originally, the Department of Energy selected
rail as the preferred method of transportation. About 25 percent
of the shipments would still be made by truck in this scenario,
Baughman said.

Nevada's governor and congressional delegation are strongly
opposed to shipments being transported through the Las Vegas
metropolitan area. They would have to travel through Las Vegas
if existing rail lines were used. The Nevada Department of
Transportation identified U.S. 93 from Wendover through Ely to
U.S. 6 to Tonopah and U.S. 95 from Tonopah as a preferred
alternate route.

White Pine County is generally downwind from Yucca Mountain.
There is about a one in 63 million chance per year of Yucca
Mountain erupting, Baughman said. It would obviously not be very
pleasant to have a volcanic eruption spewing nuclear waste, but
the chances of such an event are extremely low. The consequences
including human exposure and environmental damage would be
extremely high if it did happen. Baughman also mentioned
earthquakes affecting Yucca Mountain as a potential problem with
a low chance of actually occurring.

The design of the underground facilities is mostly complete, he
added. Redesign of surface facilities and waste handling
facilities is underway. The transportation cask has been
selected.

The Department of Energy still requires a license to construct
and operate Yucca Mountain from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The Department of Energy intends to submit a license
application in 2008, after which the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission will be required to make a decision within four
years. The Department of Energy, or DOE, recently announced that
Yucca Mountain will not be operational until 2020, but there has
been speculation about transporting casks of nuclear waste to
the site before it is complete -- 2010 at the earliest. White
Pine County is entitled to participate in the license
proceedings as an #8220interested governmental participant.

Baughman said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, has
never denied a license. Project proposals such as nuclear power
plants, shipping casks or nuclear fuel handling facilities have
either been licensed as submitted, changed by NRC conditions to
the license or withdrawn from consideration before a decision
was made.

George Bush's administration proposed the Nuclear Fuel
Management and Disposal Act on April 4 this year. It has not yet
been introduced. The bill would permanently withdraw the 147,000
acre Yucca Mountain site from public domain, and it would
#8220streamline NRC licensing requirements.

For the licensing proceedings, it would limit the need to
consider surface facilities which are currently the subject of
redesign. It would limit the scope of issues addressed by the
NRC to #8220those within the geologic repository operations
area. It would also expedite a one year licensing process by
the NRC for the DOE to #8220receive and possess nuclear
materials at Yucca Mountain.

The bill would expand the legal capacity of Yucca Mountain from
70,000 to 120,000 metric tons of nuclear waste, eliminating the
need for a second repository. It would authorize the DOE to
begin construction of a rail line to Yucca Mountain prior to NRC
licensing the facility. It would seek to #8220preempt any
requirement by a state, political subdivision of a state, or
Indian tribe regarding transportation of spent nuclear fuel by
the DOE. Last, the bill would #8220assert federal supremacy
regarding water rights required by the DOE for the Yucca
Mountain project.   

Copyright © 2006, The Ely Times
*****************************************************************
 74 Pahrump Valley Times: NUCLEAR WASTE REPROCESSING 

April 14, 2006

Scientist says it's unproven, development needs more time 

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's ambitious plans to
reprocess nuclear waste may be tied in part to dissatisfaction
over the lagging repository project at Yucca Mountain, a leading
scientist and former Energy Department executive said Wednesday.

 The administration is moving too fast to develop unproven
technology through its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or
GNEP, said Ernest J. Moniz, a physics professor at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 "Right or wrong, the program being discussed has created an
impression of being hell-bent to reprocess current spent fuel,
perhaps created by Yucca frustration," Moniz said in a
presentation to a National Academies of Science panel.

 Moniz, who was an energy undersecretary during the Clinton
administration, said DOE risks getting locked into a course and
GNEP could prove to be a wasteful "white elephant." 

"Let's take at least 10 years to develop a robust
laboratory-scale research program and in time we will decide
what makes sense," he said. "There is no guarantee that a cycle
of this kind will ever pass muster."

 In a rebuttal, Vic Reis, a senior adviser to Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman, dismissed the idea that Yucca Mountain was a
factor in propelling GNEP.

 "This isn't just about fixing Yucca Mountain," said Reis, who
also served in the Clinton administration. "We have to do that
anyway." The proposed used fuel repository is about eight years
behind schedule and faces possible legal and licensing obstacles
ahead.

 Rather, Reis said, the administration wants to seize an
opportunity to partner with other nations that have needs for
nuclear fuel and waste disposal and that share U.S. concerns
about the spread of nuclear material that could be used to make
bombs.

 "This is not going to be an easy task," Reis said. "If we are
just going to go after this in a business-as-usual,
let's-do-research-and-development sense, I don't think we will
get there."

 Moniz, Reis and DOE adviser Burt Richter, a Nobel Prize
laureate and physics professor at Stanford University, delivered
GNEP presentations to the academies' nuclear and radiation
studies board.

 Their interplay illustrated the debate raging this spring among
scientists, policy members, interest groups and members of
Congress over nuclear fuel reprocessing.

 The House and Senate are expected to vote later this year
whether to spend at least $250 million the Department of Energy
has requested as a down payment on the GNEP effort. 

The Department of Energy wants to have test fuel cycle
facilities and advanced nuclear reactor pilot plants online by
2017, at a cost of about $13 billion. Further development could
cost billions more.

 GNEP envisions developing fuel-recycling technology called
Urex-Plus in partnership with France, Japan, Russia, China and
the United Kingdom. 

As far as disposal, Bush officials have advertised that
reprocessing could shrink volumes of spent fuel and reduce its
radio-toxicity to where Yucca Mountain easily could accommodate
waste that would be generated by new nuclear plants that
industry hopes to build.

 Richter said the United States needs to revive its nuclear
waste reprocessing efforts and GNEP is a very good start.

 "One of the things it is very important for critics to
recognize is that the United States is no longer the big gorilla
that controls what happens in the nuclear energy business,"
Richter said.

 "I don't consider it to be an economic catastrophe for us to
spend a few billion dollars to rebuild a totally decayed nuclear
infrastructure in the United States," he said. 

Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 75 WATE: Cleanup of former uranium site months behind schedule

April 15, 2006 

OAK RIDGE (AP) -- Federal officials say a World War II-era
uranium enrichment plant is not expected to be cleaned up on
time and the government's contractor may lose millions of
dollars as a result.U.S. Department of Energy's environmental
manager Steve McCracken says a revised timeline calls for
closure of the K-25 plant site at Oak Ridge in the summer of
2009, nearly 10 months past the earlier forecast. 

The K-25 plant was built in the 1940s to enrich uranium for
atomic bombs and nuclear reactors, but it has been idle since
the early 1960s. 

Oak Ridge-based Bechtel Jacobs could be docked $12 million in
fees each month past September 30, 2008, the previous planned
completion date, until the K-25 project is completed. 

Officials say a number of factors have contributed to the delay,
including inadequate funds, increasing cost of materials and
complexity of some clean-up tasks. 

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
  
.gif">    All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and WATE.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 76 Sunday Business Post: Government to oppose any nuclear plants at Sellafield 

16 April 2006  By Niamh Connolly 

The government will use every avenue, from diplomacy to 
international legal action, to prevent another nuclear power 
plant being built at Sellafield, according to Dick Roche, 
Minister for the Environment.

The minister was responding to a report by Cumbria County Council 
which proposed the controversial Sellafield site as a possible 
location for a new nuclear power station.

Roche told The Sunday Business Post that he had expressed his 
views at a meeting with Alan Johnson, the British trade and 
industry secretary, last October.

The meeting took place amid signs that British prime minister 
Tony Blair was considering building a new generation of nuclear 
power plants to secure energy supplies.

‘‘It was a very preliminary discussion on the new-builds policy,
but [Johnson] was left in absolutely no doubt that we would be
fighting tooth and nail about it,” said Roche.

‘‘We would be very hostile to any attempt to impose yet another
facility on the site at Sellafield, which has been the subject
of so much mismanagement, so many incidents and the cause of so
much valid concern to the Irish people,” he said. ‘‘I detected
some sympathy with our view, but this was the very beginning of
the discussions on the new and old policy and it is still very
early days.”

He believed there was ‘‘a propensity within the nuclear industry
to write this off as some kind of Irish anti-British feeling’’,
but said that was not informed by pure logic. ‘‘All the argument
is against what they are proposing. It’s an industry that has so
little to recommend it. The reality is it is passing a huge
problem on to the next generation and the generation after that.

‘‘The costs of decommissioning, as we see from the British
problem, are vast, and I don’t believe that they can conceivably
justify a further contamination plant in Sellafield,” he said.  
	 

© The Sunday Business Post, 2006, Thomas Crosbie Media TCH 	   
*****************************************************************
 77 Pahrump Valley Times: 'The Machine' is highlight of Yucca Mountain tour 

April 14, 2006

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 

LAS VEGAS - In the classic children's book, "Mike Mulligan and
His Steam Shovel," Mike promises that his beloved but outdated
machine Mary Anne can still dig a cellar in a single day. 

And she proves it, carving out a perfect hole for the new
Popperville town hall - only to realize she dug herself in so
deep there was no escape. So Mary Anne stayed there and adapted
to a new role as the building's furnace, and as a kind of museum
piece. 

So it is with the machine that dug the five-mile exploratory
tunnel in Yucca Mountain, a gigantic $13 million drill bit that
sits at the site unused - and for sale with no takers - nine
years after its job was done. 

The Tunnel Boring Machine is becoming a monument to the project
itself. Historians may one day consider The Machine a testament
to our ability to dream and build big, or maybe an aging symbol
of a failed idea. 

In the mid-1990s, as The Machine rumbled, there was more
excitement about Yucca Mountain. The nuclear industry was flush
with optimism that it would soon have a place to bury the spent
radioactive fuel that comes out of reactors. 

Some public officials were confident they were pursuing the
best, most technologically advanced solution to the nation's
nuclear waste problem - burying 77,000 tons of it in tunnels
under the mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Energy Department officials spoke of Yucca as a project unlike
any the world has ever known. It was no less than a test of
man's ambition - and hubris, some said. 

But the desert ridge had yet to be excavated so scientists could
examine its innards. The Machine would give researchers entree
to the inside of the mountain to study the rock and test its
reactions to heat and moisture. 

So the government bought a massive piece of machinery befitting
the size of the $58 billion repository project - one of the
biggest drill bits in the world at 860 tons, 25 feet wide. 

The Machine arrived in pieces on 50 trucks from a plant in Kent,
Wash. It was reassembled at the foot of the mountain, and on a
September day in 1994 it began to gnaw. 

Powered by 12 motors and 3,800 horsepower spinning 48 separate
17-inch "cutter wheels," The Machine did its job well. 

For two and a half years it chewed at the rock, three shifts a
day, five days a week. On occasions it reached a top speed of 18
feet per hour. It consumed tons of rock and a $130 million
budget. 

In April 1997, the 1.7 million-pound gopher emerged victorious
from its five-mile, U-shaped hole. The moment was dubbed, "The
Daylighting." 

Then-project manager Wesley Barnes pumped his fist with pride.
Workers cheered. 

Not long after, the department treated The Machine to a bath of
fresh white paint. 

But the glory faded. And with its work complete, The Machine was
unceremoniously discarded not far from the tunnel's South
Portal. 

It sits there still. 

The Energy Department has tried to get rid of it. Most of its
attachments, which had included trailers and gantries that made
the entire apparatus longer than a football field, were sold as
scrap a few years ago. 

The Energy Department offered The Machine to other government
agencies. The feds tried to sell it commercially. But it wasn't
like unloading a 1994 Subaru. 

One potential buyer offered a few hundred thousand dollars, but
the department refused to be low-balled. "The scrap alone is
probably worth more than that," department spokesman Allen
Benson said. 

Today, The Machine is a highlight of the Yucca Mountain tour. 

Visitors are awed by its size. Some Energy Department employees
argue that it should be put on permanent display. 

		 		     
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 78 Deseret News: Utah leaders assess divisions in '06 session 

[deseretnews.com] 

Sunday, April 16, 2006 

Riley Roche Deseret Morning News 

A discussion by state leaders at the University of Utah on 
Wednesday about the separation of powers included some sharp 
reminders of how divided the executive and legislative branches 
were during the 2006 Legislature. 

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said the system of government works 
well despite "train wrecks in the making," no doubt a reference 
to the budget impasse last session that stalled action on his 
income tax reform plan. 

But House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, and Senate 
Majority Leader Pete Knudson, R-Brigham City, were more 
interested in talking about the governor's exercise of his power 
to veto legislation. 

The tone of the discussion at the U.'s Hinckley Institute 
of Politics, broadcast live on KUER's "RadioWest" program, 
remained civil. Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine 
Durham and U. political science professor Ron Huefner also 
participated. 

Curtis said there is "always healthy tension" between the 
branches of government. He described Huntsman as having "framed 
up in the media quite skillfully" one of the bills he vetoed "as 
a legislative power grab." 

The House speaker quickly added his comment was made 
"with respect to the governor." 

The bill, SB70, would have taken away the governor's 
power to unilaterally veto the expansion or establishment of 
hazardous or radioactive waste disposal sites in the state. The 
veto was the only one lawmakers attempted to override — but they 
didn't succeed. 

Knudson said the bill was not meant to "smash the 
governor in the nose" but to restore a right lawmakers had given 
away earlier by allowing the state's chief executive to have 
that authority. 

"I think we created the problem ourselves legislatively," 
the Senate leader said. He described the bill, which had 
widespread support, "as finally waking up and taking back the 
right we gave up." 

Huntsman said that unlike lawmakers, he represents all 
Utahns. Having the power of the veto, the governor said, is what 
makes the executive branch "a player" in the legislative process.

Durham reminded the audience of students and others that 
the relationship between the branches of government isn't always 
tense. 

E-mail: lisa@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 	 		 		 	 		 		 		 		 		 
*****************************************************************
 79 AU ABC: Aust 'can help curb' nuclear proliferation. 

16/04/2006. ABC News Online

Update: Sunday, April 16, 2006. 10:16am (AEST) 	 

Influence: Labor says Australia is in a position to help curb 
nuclear proliferation. 

[File photo]" 

The Federal Opposition's finance spokesman, Lindsay Tanner, says
Australia could use its position as a uranium exporter to try to
help minimise the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

 Australia has recently signed a nuclear safeguards agreement
that will clear the way for Australian uranium to be exported to
China.

 There is pressure from within Labor for the party to reconsider
its three mines policy.

 Mr Tanner has told Channel Ten that Australia could join other
uranium exporters to influence nuclear weapons proliferation.

 "We really don't do very much of that at the moment as a
nation," he said.

 "We don't seek to collectively use our influence along with the
influence of other countries like Canada, who are major uranium
exporters, to try and restrict the proliferation of nuclear
weapons.

 "So there's a number of things that we could be doing, that we
aren't doing yet." 

*****************************************************************
 80 KnoxNews: Oak Ridge engineer gets award for venture

By BOB FOWLER, fowlerb@knews.com 

April 15, 2006

OAK RIDGE - A dozen years ago, two engineers at the Y-12 nuclear 
weapons plant here accepted an early retirement buyout offer from 
the plant's contractor. 

But Harbans Singla of West Knoxville and John Jones of Oak Ridge 
weren't ready to call it quits, Jones recalled Friday. 

So they formed a high-tech engineering firm that they named MS 
Technology Inc. 

Today, the company, located on Union Valley Road in Oak Ridge and 
with an office in Carters Lake, Ga., has 55 employees, a 
multimillion-dollar business, and a cutting-edge venture into the 
use of microwaves to melt and cast metals. 

Singla was honored for his efforts by being named Tennessee's 
Small Business Person of the Year for 2006 on Thursday. 

President Bush spoke to the state award winners during the event 
held at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center 
in Washington, D.C. 

Singla, president of MS Technology, remained in Washington on 
Friday, said Jones, who is the company's vice president of 
engineering. 

U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., nominated Singla for the honor. 
"Harbans is a bright and talented man who brings so much to Oak 
Ridge,'' Wamp said. "I am grateful for his entrepreneurial spirit 
and innovative work.'' 

Singla was one of nine siblings who grew up in a small village in 
India. 

He immigrated to Canada in 1965, moved to Buffalo, N.Y., the next 
year, and obtained a degree in mechanical engineering from the 
University of Buffalo. 

After a 16-year stint at the Y-12 National Security Complex, 
Singla took the early-retirement package. 

But Jones said he and Singla saw the need for an engineering 
company "that would do what they said they were going to do, when 
they said they were going to do it.'' 

Since then, the company has provided engineering and 
technological support to firms throughout the Southeast, 
including Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, UT-Battelle LLC and 
BWXT Y-12 LLC. 

MS Technology's current focus on using microwave technology to 
melt and cast metals "has the potential to save the country 
billions of dollars in energy consumption,'' a company news 
release states. 

Bob Fowler, News Sentinel Anderson County editor, may be reached 
at 865-481-3625.

© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
 81 KnoxNews: Cleanup of former K-25 site behind schedule

Bechtel Jacobs could lose $12M each month project past deadline

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com 
                                
April 15, 2006

OAK RIDGE - The cleanup of the East Tennessee Technology Park - 
the former K-25 uranium-enrichment plant - continues to fall 
further behind, and the government's contractor stands to lose 
millions of dollars in performance fees. 

Steve McCracken, the U.S. Department of Energy's environmental 
manager, said this week that the project probably would not be 
completed on time. He said a revised baseline being reviewed in 
Washington, D.C., calls for closure of the site in the summer of 
2009 - about nine or 10 months later than the earlier forecast. 

The K-25 closure is one of three major milestones in the 
incentive-laden contract negotiated in 2003 by Bechtel Jacobs, a 
partnership of Bechtel National and Jacobs Engineering. 

According to terms of its Oak Ridge contract, Bechtel Jacobs 
could be docked $12 million in fees each month past Sept. 30, 
2008, until the K-25 project is completed. Based on current 
estimates, the loss could exceed $100 million. 

The federal contractor also could lose money if there are 
significant cost overruns on the cleanup work. 

Bechtel Jacobs is expected to contest the fee reductions, but 
McCracken said the existing terms of the contract would hold 
unless Bechtel Jacobs officials can prove that the problems were 
beyond their control. 

"Our intent is to be fair but tough," the DOE official said. "We
want to keep the incentives working." 

Bechtel Jacobs did not respond to requests for an interview on
cleanup delays and contractual issues. 

McCracken said the contract was set up with aggressive
timetables and cost restraints. "We all knew that when we
entered into it," he said. 

The Oak Ridge cleanup contract has three major projects:
disposal of a large legacy of radioactive and hazardous wastes
stored at DOE facilities; remediation of Melton Valley, an area
studded with old nuclear landfills; and closure of the East
Tennessee Technology Park. 

Bechtel Jacobs completed the first project in 2005 and,
according to DOE, the contractor probably will finish the Melton
Valley work by the end of September, as scheduled. 

The ETTP (K-25) closure, however, is the biggest project,
involving the dismantling and demolition of dozens of old,
contaminated buildings, and a large chunk of the contractor's
fee is tied to it. 

The target cost for all work under the contract was $1.6
billion, and Bechtel Jacobs was to receive a "target fee" of
$149.5 million if things went according to schedule. 

There were incentives for doing the work ahead of schedule and
below cost, with a maximum fee of $249 million. The contract
also established a minimum fee of $41.5 million for Bechtel
Jacobs, limiting the financial liabilities on the Oak Ridge
work. 

McCracken declined to discuss cost inflation on the total
contract, saying he didn't want to reveal those numbers until
DOE's Office of Engineering and Construction Management had
reviewed the revised baseline for cleanup activities. The cost
growth probably won't exceed 15 percent, which is reasonable
considering the complexity of the work, he said. 

He said it is important that Oak Ridge submit the revised plans
to make sure that federal funding is available to do the work if
projects go into fiscal 2009. 

"Even though we would very much like to believe that Bechtel
will still be able to bring the project in (during) '08, the
probability is low, and we should not be predicting that,"
McCracken said. 

The problems at K-25 have been blamed on a number of factors:
inadequate funds for early work; increasing cost of materials;
the complexity of some nuclear tasks; and a number of surprises,
including hundreds of gas cylinders found in a radioactive scrap
yard. 

Another factor was a serious accident earlier this year, in
which a worker fell through a floor at the original K-25
uranium-enrichment building - a World War II-era structure that
is badly deteriorated. That forced DOE and Bechtel Jacobs to
revise the strategy for dismantling and demolishing the
facilities. 

Some of those changes - doing work remotely with heavy equipment
and installing protective features for workers - may ultimately
make the project proceed more efficiently. But McCracken said
the main thrust is safety. 

"We really don't know how it's going to impact the work
(schedule)," he said. 

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

2006, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************